Brady St bloodstains Aug 31st

[Chris]

I think the Hummerston(e) story is a red herring. It reportedly happened on the following Sunday morning, in Key Street:

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/eastern_argus/ea880908.html

According to online sources, Key Street is now called Key Close, and is in Bethnal Green.

[Chris]

The direction of the ambulance was indeed in the opposite direction, as the body was taken to the Whitechapel Mortuary in or off Old Montague Street which was up the other end of Bucks Row to Brady Street.

If Tom was asking about the bloodstains in Buck's Row, then I read that Lloyd's article as implying they were west of where the body was found, and therefore on the route the ambulance would have taken.

[David Orsam]

If Tom was asking about the bloodstains in Buck's Row, then I read that Lloyd's article as implying they were west of where the body was found, and therefore on the route the ambulance would have taken.

On the basis that the bloodstains in Bucks Row were explained in the LWN article, I took him to be asking about the bloodstains in Brady Street, in the opposite direction.

[Tom_Wescott]

The Brady Street blood is, in my opinion, irrelevant. I was asking about the Buck's Row bloodstains. What's the situation with that?

Yours truly,

Tom Wesott

[David Orsam]

So what are you suggesting this blood was from?

Well, one possible conclusion is that the blood (in Brady St) was the blood of Polly Nichols and that she was killed in Brady Street but her body was then moved (carried) by her killer to where it was found in Bucks Row.

But why, I hear you ask, would her killer have carried her dead body down Brady Street into Bucks Row? Good question.

Not something I would have thought likely were it not for the extreme darkness of the area where the body was found. Cross and Paul could barely see what was in front of their faces where a dead woman with her throat cut was lying. So how did the killer see what he was doing????? And note this question and answer of Dr Llewllyn:

"Should you think the murder was committed by anyone who understood anatomy? - I should think by someone who knew something of it; for whoever did it has attacked all the vital parts."

It's not the knowledge of anatomy I'm interested in here but simply the ability of the killer to see the vital parts and indeed just to see what he was doing in order to inflict the wounds he did. So for that reason I'm prepared to listen to theories which would explain the carrying of the body. Here's three I have come up with:

1.The killer was placing the body in certain geometric locations (to create a pentagon, or some such nonsense). I don't think so but if I was advocating a loony theory along these lines I would certainly want to rely on the Brady Street blood in support of it (apologies if anyone on here is advocating such a theory).

2. Perhaps there was some reason why the killer wanted Nichols placed outside that particular yard in Bucks Row. Can't think of a reason, so doubt it.

3. A much better theory in my opinion is this: The killer's aim was for the bodies of the women he murdered to be found by members of the public in daylight. He took great pleasure in imagining the absolute shock of the discovery of his "handiwork" in the street to the extent that it was possibly what drove him to kill. Certainly the bodies seem to me to have been posed. The killer cannot have been unaware of how they would have looked to whoever saw them in daylight. So he killed and mutilated Nichols much closer to a light source, presumably in Brady Street, where he could see what he was doing, and carried her dead body to the darkest nearby spot he could find, which was in Bucks Row. Carrying the body (unsteadily) left a trail of zig zagging bloodstains down Brady Street towards the so-called "murder site". The reason was to try and hide the body so that it would only be seen by someone walking down the street as the sun came up. Unfortunately for the killer, the body was seen by Cross, who did not ignore it thinking it was a tarpaulin, and then PC Neil came with his lamp and saw it. So it was taken away in an ambulance before the public even saw it.

Foiled in his attempt, next time he made sure he killed Annie Chapman out of the way of any meddling constable, in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street. He posed the body with her "legs drawn up" and "knees turned outwards". But it was found a little too early in the morning and only the police/doctor really saw it properly. Next time - with Eddowes - he went back to Plan A and ensured that her body, with the most extreme mutilations so far, was placed in "the darkest portion" of Mitre Square, hoping that it would not be found until people started walking around in the morning. Again, it didn't work. PC Watkins found it with his lamp. So, with Mary Kelly, he'd had enough and killed her in a room so that a member of the public would definitely be greeted by the awful sight that he ensured he or she would see. He must have loved reading the reports of how McCarthy and Bowyer discovered the body.

Well that's the theory. I'm quite pleased with it although I have no doubt that it could be taken apart by the posters on this forum to the point where I begin to doubt my own sanity. My own objection to it would be: could the killer have had any reasonable expectation that the bodies would not be found until daylight?

[David Orsam]

The Brady Street blood is, in my opinion, irrelevant. I was asking about the Buck's Row bloodstains. What's the situation with that?

The Buck's Row bloodstains are explained in the Lloyd's Weekly News article (cited). This is a thread about the Brady St bloodstains.

[Chris]

The Brady Street blood is, in my opinion, irrelevant. I was asking about the Buck's Row bloodstains. What's the situation with that?

My only thought is that if a woman had her throat cut that morning so close to the site of Nichols's murder, it's odd that it isn't better known, so maybe the newspaper explanation should be taken with a grain of salt.

It shouldn't be hard to tell from the London Hospital records whether a woman from the neighbourhood with a cut throat was admitted that day. Maybe someone has already checked?

[Tom_Wescott]

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. Is there a second source regarding the Buck's Row bloodstains? There's numerous that mention the Brady Street stains.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I think the Hummerston(e) story is a red herring. It reportedly happened on the following Sunday morning, in Key Street:

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/eastern_argus/ea880908.html

According to online sources, Key Street is now called Key Close, and is in Bethnal Green.

Thanks for reminding me. You're correct. Hummerston could not have been responsible for any of these blood stains. However, there is that strange story in the Illinois Daily Register from Aug. 31st to consider. It's strange consider it's date of publication and the details it presents. It doesn't immediately appear to relate to the Nichols murder. Article courtesy of the late great Chris Scott.

[Jon Guy]

Hi David

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

Firstly, I should point out that the last paragraph of the OP's evidential summary is misleading because it makes it appear as if the bloodstains must have been the result of the man's "murderous assault on his wife". But the full version of the LWN article makes clear that this was the explanation for two blobs of blood that had been found further up Buck's Row (presumably in the direction towards Baker's Row), not the Brady Street blood.".

You are correct, but there was no murderous assault by a man on his wife at the Bakers Row end, the representative was obviously mis-informed as to where the "other" incident took place. So, I connected this with the woman calling for help in Brady Street, that the Coville family heard.

The explanation for the Brady Street blood is, apparently, given in the Daily Chronicle of Monday 3 September 1888 which does not feature in the OP's post (nor I think in the press reports on this site):

As the OP states, all reports were taken from Casebook press reports

Let us just recap over the evidence about the blood in Buck's Row because it is rather amusing.
The earliest account is to be found in the Weekly Dispatch/LWN from Mrs Green who lived Buck's Row:

Her timing must be a little out because it was about 4:30am when the body was removed but one cannot tire of reading how the evidence of the blood was simply washed away by a member of the public before it was even light! That this was done was confirmed during the inquest although the point was made that PC Thain was in attendance while the washing was done as if this made it any better. When Inspector Spratling appeared on the site as the blood was being washed away, all he was able to see were "some stains in between the stones".):

Why would it be any "better" if PC Thain had washed away the blood?
Emma Green`s lad, who also worked at the stables, had the bucket to hand and they had to start work soon and presumably open their gates..

So what happened next? Well, according to the evidence at the inquest, at about 5am or 6am, PC Thain was tasked to look for bloodstains in Buck's Row, not Brady Street, but it would still have been dark so he couldn't have seen much.".):

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.

So could Nichols have been murdered in Brady Street and carried to Buck's Row? .".):

No.
Which of the injuries that Nichols sustained caused the blood stains in Brady Street?
It wasn`t the gash in the throat, that was done where she was found in Bucks Row.
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 don't know but it might explain how the murderer had sufficient light to see what he was doing when Paul and Cross could barely see what was right in front of them at the spot where the body was found in Buck's Row.".

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.

And what was the evidence about the Nichols being murdered where the body was found? Not terribly convincing is the answer. Dr Llewellyn said that there was no marks of any struggle or blood "as though the body had been dragged" (but he said nothing about whether it could have been carried).

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.

And that - the clothes being little arranged - seems to be the only reason offered as to why Nichols was murdered in Buck's Row. Could she have been murdered in Brady Street and carried to Buck's Row? It seems at least possible.

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

[Jon Guy]

Hi David

. A much better theory in my opinion is this: The killer's aim was for the bodies of the women he murdered to be found by members of the public in daylight.

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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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