Brady St bloodstains Aug 31st

[Chris]

Where does the reporter say that a woman was "admitted" to the London Hospital that morning? For all we know she went to A&E, or whatever they called it then, was patched up and sent home. My own experience of hospital records (from Barts) is that such incidents would not be in the surviving records. But just to repeat from my earlier post, I don't care!!!

No doubt you know best.

[David Orsam]

It seems the press reports are all hearsay.

I forgot to respond to this sentence. Can I ask why you say this? What I see are some unusually detailed press reports. Not only that but two different reports in different newspapers (i.e. first in the Daily Chronicle/Evening Standard on the Saturday and then more detailed reporting of the stains in the Sunday morning papers: LWN/Weekly Dispatch). I would have thought it certain that reporters would have been crawling all over Buck's Row and Brady Street on the Friday/Saturday and I have always assumed that this is how they discovered Robert Paul (but let's not argue about that). For this reason, it is surely at least possible that the reporters saw the stains with their own eyes. But if not, we are not in a court of law and what you refer to as "hearsay" would simply be them reporting something they had been told.

[David Orsam]

But what about the policeman who passed down Bucks Row every half hour ?

I know you go on to state that the killer learned from Bucks Row and killed Chapman on private property to achieve the desired effect, but I don`t think the killer carried the body to Bucks Row from Brady Street so it would be discovered in daylight. The police beats would ensure the body was found within half an hour. The same with Mitre Square.

I already made this exact same point against myself in #20. I quote:

"My own objection to it would be: could the killer have had any reasonable expectation that the bodies would not be found until daylight?"

Or to reverse it, can we be certain that Neil would have seen the body? Did he walk around with his lamp on? I note that Watkins had a lamp fixed in his belt but don't know if it was standard practice to patrol with it on. Monty's book which I am currently reading might answer this for me. But just in case it is not clear Jon, I fully agree with you that that the point you make is a potential weakness in my theory (and I was indeed the first person to identify it!).

[David Orsam]

That's my point. I find it odd that you're not the least bit interested in strange blood stains in Buck's Row. Why aren't you? As for the reporter's explanation for that, I believe the identical explanation was was offered for the Brady Street blood stains, but you don't accept that explanation for those stains. Why not?

It's not odd at all. It is really very simple. As soon as I read the explanation in the LWN I lost any interest - because those stains appear to have been explained. Now, following the discussion in this thread, I don't know if that explanation is correct or not - there may or may not be anything in the London Hospital records (I have never looked, I don't want to look, I don't care). Why don't I care now? Well, because you have yourself, earlier in this thread, offered an elegant and simple explanation that the bloodstains, which were apparently on the route from the murder site to the mortuary, had simply dripped from the ambulance. Do you now want to tell me this was nonsense? If not, then we have an explanation and there is no need to hunt around for another. I'm only interested in the Brady Street stains. I am not aware that an identical explanation was offered for the Brady Street stains. If it was, where do I find that explanation?

[Tom_Wescott]

I am not suggesting anything about the Buck's Row bloodstains! It was the reporter for the Lloyd's Weekly News and Weekly Dispatch who was suggesting that the blood was from another woman. I'm just saying I don't have any reason to doubt it. But I've also agreed with your suggestion that it might have been Nichols' blood dripping from the ambulance. Frankly, I don't care! I'm only interested in the Brady Street bloodstains.

That's my point. I find it odd that you're not the least bit interested in strange blood stains in Buck's Row. Why aren't you? As for the reporter's explanation for that, I believe the identical explanation was was offered for the Brady Street blood stains, but you don't accept that explanation for those stains. Why not?

And yes, if a woman were attacked and bleeding in Buck's Row, she'd be taken to London Hospital, and there would and will still be a record of it. Same with Brady Street.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

We're certainly in a position to check whether he is correct in saying that a woman from the neighbourhood with a cut throat was admitted to the London Hospital that morning. I think that would be wiser than accepting the report without corroboration.

Where does the reporter say that a woman was "admitted" to the London Hospital that morning? For all we know she went to A&E, or whatever they called it then, was patched up and sent home. My own experience of hospital records (from Barts) is that such incidents would not be in the surviving records. But just to repeat from my earlier post, I don't care!!!

[David Orsam]

why wasn't PC Neil aware?

I have no idea what PC Neil was aware of about that night other than in respect of the murder. Do you?

[David Orsam]

You don't have trouble suggesting that blood stains only a few yards from her body were from another woman but blood in another street was from Nichols? If the reporters were an aware of an assault earlier that night on Buck's Row, why wasn't PC Neil aware?

I am not suggesting anything about the Buck's Row bloodstains! It was the reporter for the Lloyd's Weekly News and Weekly Dispatch who was suggesting that the blood was from another woman. I'm just saying I don't have any reason to doubt it. But I've also agreed with your suggestion that it might have been Nichols' blood dripping from the ambulance. Frankly, I don't care! I'm only interested in the Brady Street bloodstains.

[David Orsam]

I'm going to look at this closer, but I'm not sure any of these blood stains exist, save for a dark spot on Brady Street that might have been blood. I'm going to check and see if there are any first hand accounts. It seems the press reports are all hearsay. I would think huge streaks of blood at Honey's Mews would have been mentioned at the inquest or in reports?

I have provided in post #5 my ideas as to why the bloodstains were not mentioned in the inquest. I have also suggested in that post the reason why we have no evidence as to the existence of the bloodstains.

[David Orsam]

Hi David

Thanks for reviving this very old thread on an interesting subject.

Hi Jon, it's a good thread. Thanks for starting it.

Why would it be any "better" if PC Thain had washed away the blood?

I didn't say it would have been better if a police officer washed away the blood! My amusement was simply that the evidence (of the blood) was just washed away by a member of the public while PC Thain watched. Any arterial staining on the ground gone!

It would have been light at 5 or 6am on Aug 31st ?
A week later John Richardson would be able to see about his yard before 5am.

Well hold on. John Richardson's actual words were: "It was not light". He did, however, say that "it was getting so, and was sufficient for him to see all over the place". I'm not convinced that this would have included easily seeing bloodstains on the ground.

Which of the injuries that Nichols sustained caused the blood stains in Brady Street?

All of them.

It wasn`t the gash in the throat, that was done where she was found in Bucks Row.

Where is your evidence for this?

If she had only been strangled and carried to Bucks Row, why were there blood stains - where from, and which woman was knocking on the shutters of Colville house ?

I am not saying she had only been strangled in Brady Street (and you will have to tell me which woman was knocking on the shutters of Colville house).

I don`t think the murderer needed much light to see what he was doing, but Cross and Paul would have required more light to see the damage inflicted.

Surely the killer needed some light? Cross said it was "very dark". Paul said it was "very dark". But look, you may be right. I can't say it was impossible for the killer to have seen what he was doing. My point is subtly different. I am simply saying that in the context of the reported bloodstains in Brady Street, we have a possible explanation as to how the killer was able to see what he was doing in such a dark spot, namely that Nichols was killed and mutilated elsewhere.

We can tell from the throat cut and the pool of blood under neck, and that there no blood on the front of the neck ie she was lying down when it was cut.

To the extent that you are suggesting that "the pool of blood" under her neck proves that she was lying down in Buck's Row when she was murdered, this cannot be right. Consider what Dr Llewellyn said in his published statement on the day of the murder (taken from the Daily News of 1 Sept 1888):

"There was a very small pool of blood in the pathway which had trickled from the wound in the throat, not more than would fill two wine glasses, or half a pint at the outside. This fact, and the way which the deceased was lying, made me think at the time that it was probable that the murder was committed elsewhere, and the body conveyed to Buck's row."

He could not possibly have had that thought if anything about the throat wound proved that the body was killed where it was found.

Again, which of her injuries killed her in Brady Street and left the blood trail ?

Again, I am saying all of them. And if you think I am suggesting that the screams heard in Brady Street were anything to do with the murder, I'm sorry to disappoint you, I am not.

[Chris]

... I can't help feeling that a reporter in 1888 was in a better position to know about an earlier assault in Buck's Row than any of us in 2014 ...

We're certainly in a position to check whether he is correct in saying that a woman from the neighbourhood with a cut throat was admitted to the London Hospital that morning. I think that would be wiser than accepting the report without corroboration.

[Tom_Wescott]

You don't have trouble suggesting that blood stains only a few yards from her body were from another woman but blood in another street was from Nichols? If the reporters were an aware of an assault earlier that night on Buck's Row, why wasn't PC Neil aware?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Hi David, I've just read your post from last night. I see you're suggesting the Brady Street blood stains and the Buck's Row blood stains all came from Nichols.

No, I'm not! There may be some confusion here because, of course, some of the blood in Buck's Row obviously came from Nichols but in respect of the blood said to have been further up the street (towards Baker's Row) I am not interested in that at all. As far as I am concerned, the LWN has explained it - and I can't help feeling that a reporter in 1888 was in a better position to know about an earlier assault in Buck's Row than any of us in 2014 - but if that explanation is wrong then, as you have said, it could have dripped from the ambulance. I'm only interested in the blood in Brady Street which I am suggesting, on the basis of the known evidence, might have come from Nichols.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm going to look at this closer, but I'm not sure any of these blood stains exist, save for a dark spot on Brady Street that might have been blood. I'm going to check and see if there are any first hand accounts. It seems the press reports are all hearsay. I would think huge streaks of blood at Honey's Mews would have been mentioned at the inquest or in reports?

I know this has been discussed on other threads, but where exactly was Honey's Mews?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi Jon, David, Tom.

I'm a bit late to this as I've been away for a couple of weeks.

Following the tradition on this forum of laying supposition upon supposition to try and weave a semi-credible argument, here's a thought or two of mine.

Given that we have reports of a disturbance on a neighbouring street ( although at a time that doesn't quite correspond to the presumed time of death ) and we have reports of blood being discovered afterwards on that street and seemingly leading to Bucks row, isn't it at least something to be considered that Nichols was attacked somewhere in that area?

Supposing her assailant initially came upon her somewhere between Whitechapel and Bucks row. Obviously they met somewhere.
Supposing he is JTR and this is his first killing, then a chance meeting with a drunken woman who is specifically seeking a short term and financially beneficial rendezvous is to his advantage.

He would direct her away from the main thoroughfare and towards a less well used and darker location.

Once he is certain of no interruption from others he can strike.
However, although he is certain of what he wishes to accomplish, this being his initial run at it he may lack the confidence and experience to get things right first time off.
He has planned this out in his mind but wasn't expecting the opportunity on this particular morning.
Mentally he is unprepared.
But here he is and here she is, in this dark, unlit corner, away from the rest of the world.
At this moment he can sell his fantasies short and do what she came here to do and then just give her the 4d.
But he must be stronger than that. He must do what he came here for. After all, she came to him. Providence brought her to him this day.
So they stand close to each other in the darkness of this pitiful corner of the world and he offers to pay her before they begin and to give her something else as a gift also. She takes the money and lifts her skirts, awaiting the completion of the transaction.
From his pocket he removes an object wrapped in a large handkerchief. In the darkness she cannot make out what it is, even as he removes it from its covering. She is smiling up at him, grateful that she can soon be in bed thanks to this encounter and pleased at the offer of an extra gift.
And he strikes at her, feeling her warmth, and intending to push the blade up into her heart from below the ribcage but he somehow fumbles it and Nichols is able to remove herself from him.
Having now seen that the gift is in fact a knife and realising the immediate danger she is in, she kicks him in that one place where all men are vulnerable.

Terrified and trying to scream, she runs towards the closest light, leaving her attacker creased up and nursing his groin. She still runs but cannot find a lit window and finds she is unable to catch her breath. For a moment she stops and begins to understand that perhaps she didn't escape quickly enough and the knife may have done some damage. She looks behind her and sees no-one. But he may come after her and so she must find refuge and help.
Further back along the street, the man who may be JTR is bringing himself upright after the shock of unpredicted and painful retaliation. He is surprised, as he had always imagined that the deed would proceed with with no difficulties. He picks up his knife from the ground and notices it has blood upon the blade. He hadn't felt it make contact with the woman but she had kicked out so fast that he must not have noticed the knife go in.

He now feels a rage growing in him that he was denied his desire and this directs him to find her. He cannot let her escape now as she can offer a good description of him. And his knife has tasted her.
Find her, find her.
This job must now be finished.

Nichols feels a sticky warmth about her abdomen and is now aware of a pain from her left side. Her heart is pumping fast and she feels lightheaded. She knows now she has been cut.
She wants to shout out as loud as she can but is afraid that, at this time of the day, the only person who may hear her is her potential killer. She left him 2 streets away but making a disturbance may only serve to direct him to her.

He imagines that she most likely will be trying to return to Whitechapel St. where she met him. And from there to the hospital as by now she must know she is injured.
But which route?
She either went down Bucks or Winthrop. And Winthrop is closer to Whitechapel St.
He must be quick. She has a head start of almost a minute.
He hides the knife in his pocket and runs across Brady St and enters Winthrop.

She is losing strength now, maybe from the wound or perhaps the intense burst of energy she used earlier has exhausted her.
It is dark on this street and the darkness offers some protection.
She curses herself for having had the foolishness to spend her lodge money on drink and coming out at this time of day to find more.
The more she thinks on this matter, the more she forgets the last 4 minutes. Oh, my side, it hurts so much. I cannot run or walk. I shall rest a moment against this gate. Perhaps a watchman shall come to me. Oh my side.

The bitch isn't down here or on the corner. Either she has run down Court St. towards the hospital or she is on Bucks row instead.
I must be quick now or she shall get away and I shall be discovered. I cannot believe she made it to Court St. so I shall glance down Bucks first.
If I find her I shall make sure of it this time. Forget the heart, I shall take her head off. She can't run then. Or scream.
He stands in the centre of the road looking down along Bucks. On his right he sees something human, partly shrouded in the shadows.
There she is. Sitting on the ground by the gate. Perhaps she's dead already.
He moves cautiously up to where she is .

Oh, here is a watchman. Or a killer. I cannot tell. I cannot focus. It hurts so much, so intense, I cannot move.
I don't know if I care about this anymore.
Why am I here?
He decides to take no chances this time and uses his knife to silence her forever, in a swift double cut accross her throat.
Bitch. You hurt me. You made me run to get what I need.
He lifts her skirts and takes out his anger on her belly, hoping in the darkness to do to her heart what he missed before
He smiles. On resurrection day, she will be dismayed at what was done to her. .

Yours, Caligo.