Brady St bloodstains Aug 31st

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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!!!

[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]

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?

[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]

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.

[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]

No doubt you know best.

Well Tom tells me that such records do survive - although god only knows whether anyone has looked at them with this in mind - but here's the thing, I don't care!

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

I mentioned I'd have to look at it closer, but my initial impression was they were reporting what they'd been told. For instance, when a reporter gained access to the mortuary and described what he himself saw, I would lend that account more weight than when a paper was reporting something without mentioning the source, particularly when there's inquest testimony from a cop saying he's only aware of a single stain in Brady Street that may not have been blood.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Well Tom tells me that such records do survive - although god only knows whether anyone has looked at them with this in mind - but here's the thing, I don't care!

It's not all about you, David. Some of us do want to know the truth. The press can say a woman was attacked, but that doesn't make it true. They may have been referring to the Colwell episode in which it's only assumed a woman was being attacked.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

It's not all about you, David.

I know that, but Chris's post, to which I was responding, which said "No doubt you know best" was about me!