Brady St bloodstains Aug 31st

[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.

[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 ?

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Tom_Wescott]

So what are you suggesting this blood was from?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Hi David, thanks for that. You don't think this is blood dripped from the ambulance as they carried Nichols away? I suppose we could rule that out if the direction they would have gone in was opposite to this. I can't imagine the killer would have gotten himself bloody, let alone stopped 25 feet away to ring a shillings worth of blood from his clothes, then stop 10 feet later to do the same.

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.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi David, thanks for that. You don't think this is blood dripped from the ambulance as they carried Nichols away? I suppose we could rule that out if the direction they would have gone in was opposite to this. I can't imagine the killer would have gotten himself bloody, let alone stopped 25 feet away to ring a shillings worth of blood from his clothes, then stop 10 feet later to do the same.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Hi David, could you please copy and paste and source the specific mention of blood stains in Buck's Row that were not related to the Nichols crime scene?

Tom, full context below - my bold highlighting:

LLOYD'S WEEKLY NEWSPAPER
LONDON: SUNDAY, SEPT. 2, 1888.

"Shortly after noon on Friday some men while searching the pavement in Buck's-row, above the gateway, in a different direction to that from which the woman came, or was brought, found two large spots of blood, and each about the size of a shilling. The first was about 25 feet from the gateway and the second 10 feet beyond. Both were a few inches from the kerb in the roadway and clearly defined. It was at once agreed they came either from the hands or the clothing of the murderer as he went away, and that they resulted from the squeezing out some blood-soaked clothing. Our representative discovered, however, on making inquiries the same night, that at a house near where the blood spots were a man, early on the morning of the tragedy, had made a murderous assault on his wife and cut her throat. She was carried to the London hospital, and it is very probable some blood dripped from her."