Brady St bloodstains Aug 31st

[David Orsam]

A few more thoughts about the police evidence:

In my opinion, it would simply not have been possible for the police to have effectively searched for small drops of blood on the street during hours of darkness or near darkness. Any supposed searches carried out before 6am with or without a lantern would have been futile. The only searches that we could even begin to safely rely on are those carried out in daylight. And in that respect I want to emphasise that the only daylight search, according to the police, was carried out by Inspector Spratling.

We know this because while PC Neil was giving evidence at the inquest (in response to a question from the coroner) that he examined the ground at about 4am, Inspector Spratling leapt up and interrupted the evidence to say that he examined the ground in daylight. Note that he did not say "I examined the ground as did Inspector Helson and others", just that he, Spratling, examined the ground. He later said that this was between 11 and 12.

Yet, we know from his report of 31 Aug, and from his answer to the coroner during his evidence on the Monday, that Spratling was involved in the search for the murder weapon, examining the nearby railway embankments and lines as well as the Great Eastern Railway yard. Did he really have sufficient time to carry out a careful search not only of Buck's Row but also the surrounding streets? For it would be very strange if Spratling only searched Buck's Row and Brady Street. What about Thomas Street and Baker's Row? If he thought Brady Street worth searching then why not these streets too? Surely such a search would have needed to have been carried out by a team of officers, not just Spratling on his own or with Sergeant Godley (who was also have said to have assisted in the search for the weapon).

Now what about Helson? How did he come to see something that looked like blood in Brady Street? Firstly, we need to emphasise that Spratling claimed not to have seen any blood in Brady Street which is inconsistent with his colleague's account.

Let me quote now from the Daily News of 1 September 1888:

"The matter is being investigated by Detective Inspector Abberline, of Scotland yard, and Inspector Helson, J Division. The latter states that he walked carefully over the ground soon after 8 o'clock in the morning, and beyond the discolourations ordinarily found on pavements, there was no sign of stains."

On the face of it, this would appear to support the notion that Helson did carry out a search for bloodstains during the hour between 8am and 9am when he said he was in Buck's Row. However, the Daily News report continues:

"Viewing the spot where the body was found, however, it seems difficult to believe that the woman received her death wounds there".

On my reading of this, it rather seems that walk that Helson did "carefully over the ground" was basically to look for the blood that he assumed must have flowed from the body of Nichols where it was found in Buck's Row. And, of course, he found none. From the ignorance of the reporter, it is clear that he had no idea that the blood had been washed away by James Green and, controversially, I would like to offer the suggestion that Inspector Helson did not know either! While I imagine many posters on this board will disagree with me, the circumstances that morning would have been very confusing and, just knowing how large organisations work, I can easily imagine that the embarrassing news that a member of the public had simply come out and washed away the blood had not been communicated to everyone in the force by 9am that morning. Thain knew and Spratling knew but did they really want the rest of the world to know? It is not clear that Spratling and Helson had even spoken by 9am.

The news of the washing away of the blood certainly did not emerge during Neil's testimony, even though he was asked about his examination of the ground (at which point Spratling, as mentioned, intervened but said nothing about the washing) and it was only after it was reported in the Sunday papers that Green's actions were revealed to the coroner.

My own tentative theory is that, after the story about the Brady Street bloodstains broke in the newspapers, Inspector Helson went back to Brady Street (probably on the Sunday because he was at the inquest on Saturday) and it was then that he noticed something looking like blood in the street. But by that time all the other stains had faded.

Anyway, whether this is right or not, the short point is that by Spratling's own account to the coroner, he was the only person to search the ground for blood during daylight.

[David Orsam]

Hi Jon,

I can`t tell you which woman it was but it wasn`t Polly Nichols as she was either drinking in the pub on Brick Lane or at the lodging house at that time.

Out of interest, bearing in mind that in the newspaper reports neither Mrs Colville nor her daughter state a time that they heard a woman knocking on their shutters, how are you possibly able to say this with any confidence?

Llewellyn himself admits "made me think at the time` .Did he know about the mutilations at that point, or the heavily blood soaked coat ?

Don't forget that you seemed to be suggesting that we could tell that the body was killed where it was found "from the throat cut and the pool of blood under neck, and that there no blood on the front of the neck". Now that I have demonstrated this to be wrong you seem to be suggesting that Dr Llewellyn could have drawn some conclusions about where Nichols was killed from the mutilations and/or the heavily blood soaked coat. Perhaps you could tell us how knowledge of the mutilations and the heavily blood soaked coat assisted Dr Llewellyn in establishing the precise location where Nichols was killed.

[Jon Guy]

Hi David

!
(and you will have to tell me which woman was knocking on the shutters of Colville house). .

I can`t tell you which woman it was but it wasn`t Polly Nichols as she was either drinking in the pub on Brick Lane or at the lodging house at that time.

"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..

Llewellyn himself admits "made me think at the time` .
Did he know about the mutilations at that point, or the heavily blood soaked coat ?

[David Orsam]

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

I think one answer to this is that the killer was not entirely rational - killing and cutting up woman does rather demonstrate that his brain did not work properly after all - and was so fixated over the fantasy idea of members of the public seeing the dead bodies which he had displayed that he didn't think his plan through properly.

Having said that, while reading Monty's book, I was reminded of the report prepared by Dr Bond in November 1888 at the request of the Commissioner, having been provided with all the medical and inquest information about the victims, in which he said:

"...of Berner Street, the discovery appears to have been made immediately after the deed - In Bucks Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed."

Now, if Dr Bond, who I imagine was an intelligent and rational man, believed that the dead bodies of Nichols and Eddowes could have lain in the streets undiscovered by any passing constable for "three or four hours" then surely a rather deranged madman, such as the killer must have been, could have thought so too.

In which case, he tried Plan A, realised it didn't work, moved to Plan B, that didn't work either, went back to Plan A then finally realised it was never going to happen and selected a new Plan C whereby he was absolutely determined to ensure that his "handiwork" would be viewed in daylight. As to that, it occurs to me that it would perfectly explain the locked door at Miller's Court. He locked it so that there would be a long delay before the body could be accessed and moved. Meanwhile it could be viewed through the broken window.

The killer would have taken great pleasure in that his fantasy had finally come to reality. Or did he? Perhaps he realised that it wasn't as enjoyable as he had expected from his fantasies and stopped! Just a theory.

[David Orsam]

Cross and Paul had just entered Buck's Row from better-lighted streets, and their vision hadn't had time to adjust. Could the Ripper have laid in wait for a victim to pass by, getting used to the dark, and thereby gaining that much more of an advantage over her? I doubt that he really needed to see that well to perform the mutilations, but I'm certain that he wanted to see just as much as possible.

Hi Ginger - I'm not saying that's impossible by any means. Rather, I am trying to explain the apparent trail of bloodstains leading from Brady Street to Buck's Row - and, in that context, the idea that the killer wanted to hide the body seems to me to be one solution as to why he would have carried it into a dark spot in Buck's Row.

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

Can we just pause a little here? Thank you :-)

I think Tom and Chris will agree with me here when I say that very very rarely on here does a thread remain on the one specific subject. Naturally, as in this case, it diversifies over time, whilst the original points lose focus more due to there being only a limited amount of known fact about it, and it extends on into speculation. Which is fine! But things pop up during a thread that CAN sometimes actually be of a greater help for the whole scenario to be understood more "clearly". Tom has focused on something with a potential importance...the possible source of any eventual attack registered on the same night as the Bucks Row murder...The records at the London Hospital- which- as far as I know- have not been searched relating to this "other" event.

Therefore in order to possibly answer any question re the Brady St "happening" or nay- or any other attack in Bucks Row- searching these records may be a Godsend- in many ways!

Mentioning it and asking about it does not detract from the thread- it is very much connected to it- because it may rule in or rule out the goings on in that limited area that night that might or might not have a bearing on ALL unknown answers surrounding the murder of Polly Nichols.

Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones. :-)

Hi Phil - I'd would have preferred not to respond to this, thereby disrupting the thread further, but you have addressed the post to me so I guess I should.

Here's the background to my post #48:

I have repeatedly been saying in this thread that I don't care about the Buck's Row bloodstains, which I think I am entitled to do (because I don't). In post #44, however, Tom implied that, in saying so, it demonstrated that I thought the thread was "all about" me. Then in post #47 he quoted and responded to my post #46 (which was about the Brady Street bloodstains) with a post about the Buck's Row bloodstains.

Now, I am not the moderator of this board and, as far as I am concerned, people can post whatever they like, on or off topic, but in the context of this thread in which the OP has already caused some confusion by including an explanation of the Buck's Row bloodstains as if they were the Brady Street bloodstains and in which I have personally been confused by posts about which bloodstains are being discussed (see posts #13, #14, #15, #17, #18, #19 where the discussion proceeded on a false basis). Indeed, you might even note that Tom said categorically in post #19: "The Brady Street blood is, in my opinion, irrelevant" which in a thread entitled "Brady St bloodstains Aug 31st" even you must admit is a little bit surprising.

So I thought it would be more helpful to the proper flow of the debate if Tom started a new thread on the Buck's Row bloodstains, which he is obviously interested in - so the London Hospital records etc. can be dealt with over there - and the rest of us who are interested in the Brady Street bloodstains could simply discuss those. I wasn't attacking Tom or even criticising him. I just thought it would be more helpful for everyone to proceed that way.

I hope that explains everything for you. I believe I have already wished you a merry Christmas in another thread but I do so again!

[Phil Carter]

Hello David,

Can we just pause a little here? Thank you :-)

I think Tom and Chris will agree with me here when I say that very very rarely on here does a thread remain on the one specific subject. Naturally, as in this case, it diversifies over time, whilst the original points lose focus more due to there being only a limited amount of known fact about it, and it extends on into speculation. Which is fine! But things pop up during a thread that CAN sometimes actually be of a greater help for the whole scenario to be understood more "clearly". Tom has focused on something with a potential importance...the possible source of any eventual attack registered on the same night as the Bucks Row murder...The records at the London Hospital- which- as far as I know- have not been searched relating to this "other" event.

Therefore in order to possibly answer any question re the Brady St "happening" or nay- or any other attack in Bucks Row- searching these records may be a Godsend- in many ways!

Mentioning it and asking about it does not detract from the thread- it is very much connected to it- because it may rule in or rule out the goings on in that limited area that night that might or might not have a bearing on ALL unknown answers surrounding the murder of Polly Nichols.

Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones. :-)


Phil

[Ginger]

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?????

Cross and Paul had just entered Buck's Row from better-lighted streets, and their vision hadn't had time to adjust. Could the Ripper have laid in wait for a victim to pass by, getting used to the dark, and thereby gaining that much more of an advantage over her? I doubt that he really needed to see that well to perform the mutilations, but I'm certain that he wanted to see just as much as possible.

[Rosella]

Surely it would have been easy for a strong, fit and determined young man (about 30ish) to have caught up with a wounded middleaged woman after the initial attack? He would have finished her off long before she reached Bucks Row.

[David Orsam]

Regardless of whether you're right.

I don't think that is a fair comment.

[Chris]

Because I'm right?

Regardless of whether you're right.

[David Orsam]

I think you'll find it's pointless to argue, Tom.

Because I'm right?

[Chris]

I think you'll find it's pointless to argue, Tom.

[David Orsam]

My point is that if we have two contradictory sources, it's good to look for a third source that might bolster one side or the other. In this case it might be the London Hospital records that would tell us of any knife attacks in the area.

Regarding the Buck's Row bloodstains, the article tells us only that the blood spots move in the direction that Polly Nichols would have taken on her way to the spot. It doesn't state how they know what direction that would be. Were they assuming this was Colwell's woman and thus coming from one direction, or were they assuming Polly got there via Whitechapel Road?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom, you keep constantly coming back to the Buck's Row bloodstains. My post #5 was not about the Buck's Row bloodstains (it only mentioned them because the OP contained a confusing quote which suggested that the Brady Street bloodstains had been explained, when this was actually in respect of the Buck's Row stains). When I say "I don't care" about the Buck's Row bloodstains it's not because I think that this thread all about me, it's because I think that this thread is, or should be, all about the Brady Street bloodstains. The clue is in the thread title. So your post is, with all due respect, off topic. If you are so interested in the Buck's Row bloodstains why not start a thread about them?

[Tom_Wescott]

That's essentially what my post #5 in this thread was all about.

My point is that if we have two contradictory sources, it's good to look for a third source that might bolster one side or the other. In this case it might be the London Hospital records that would tell us of any knife attacks in the area.

Regarding the Buck's Row bloodstains, the article tells us only that the blood spots move in the direction that Polly Nichols would have taken on her way to the spot. It doesn't state how they know what direction that would be. Were they assuming this was Colwell's woman and thus coming from one direction, or were they assuming Polly got there via Whitechapel Road?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott