Disregarded evidence

[Mr Lucky]

What seems to us as "disregarding" often proves to be cases of "investigated, but found untrue." For example, the blood stain theory was later discredited.

Hi Lynn

Not sure how this "investigated, but found untrue" can be applied to Mrs Lilley and the 3.7 from Newcross

An interesting example may be this. There was an initial report that Polly's clothes were ripped and torn. This was corrected at inquest. Why the discrepancy? Well, one of the lads (Mann's assistant?) admits to having torn her clothes. Likely, then, that the reporter saw the condition of the clothes and assumed it was her killer.

Mann and Hatfield didn't give testimony until the 17th. The assumption that the cuts and tears in the clothes were due to the attack were corrected far quicker than that, under the heading 'a later account' or 'later telegram' in the same issue of some of the newspapers that made the claim, in some cases this was before the inquest had even started.

Best wishes

[Lechmere]

Ah - ha Jon guy is a spoil sport - yes there are doubtlessly good reasons why some of this was disregarded!
Yet is still presented to bolster theories.
I am very sceptical of all newspaper presented evidence that aimed to solve the case (other newspaper based information is a different matter) and am very sceptical of virtually every witness statement in this case.

[lynn cates]

investigating

Hello Edward, Neil. What seems to us as "disregarding" often proves to be cases of "investigated, but found untrue." For example, the blood stain theory was later discredited.

An interesting example may be this. There was an initial report that Polly's clothes were ripped and torn. This was corrected at inquest. Why the discrepancy? Well, one of the lads (Mann's assistant?) admits to having torn her clothes. Likely, then, that the reporter saw the condition of the clothes and assumed it was her killer.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lechmere

Didn`t Morgan attend the mortuary about midday on Friday to confirm that the body was not the woman he saw at his stall ? He went in to Eagle Place with a James Scorer, who confirmed the body was not his wife.

Also, isn`t it in the police reports that it is confirmed that there was no blood in Bucks Row, other than in very close proximity of the body?

Wasn`t the Sarah Colville incident in Brady Street confirmed as happening around midnight, and that it turned out a woman was carried up Brady St to the London Hospital.

[Monty]

Hi Edward,

Im not getting jumpy, I just dont see who it can be said that the Police 'disregarded' these stories.

However, I agree, I think these stories are well worth looking into and debating.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Monty
What we have there is an unsupported claim about the use of news stories to give impetus to another theory.
I think you are getting jumpy. Calm down. All roads don’t necessarily lead to that theory and suggesting these newspaper stories were disregarded isn’t necessarily a slight on the reputation of Her Majesties Constabulary.
However I think we can say that the police did disregard all of these newspaper stories and I think that is something that is interesting to explore.

[Monty]

Sherlock,

We don't know these events were either disregarded or simply unable to be proven.

What we have here is a list of unsupported news stories listed to support the idea the Police did not commit themselves to this case. This to add impotus to another theory.

The idea they were disregarded is an assumption Sherlock, not an ascertained fact.

Bloodstains in Brady Street and Browns Yard. In an area surrounded by slaughter houses. Also, look at the timing of this arguement.

To state this evidence was 'disregarded' isn't entirely true.

Monty
:j)

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why was evidence disregarded? Did the Yard not want to catch this guy? What would Polly have to do with Mary's lover?

were they seeing each other on the side?

thoughts on questions most welcome
Mr Holmes

[Barnaby]

Any reason why Cutbush would use the alias "Jim?" If it was Nichols at the coffee stall, the description of the man better fits James Kelly. There is also James Maybrick, but the description doesn't fit as well.

[Lechmere]

The police investigation into the Polly Nichols murder ignored several revelations, accounts and claims which could be evaluated separately or could all be linked together.

These are:

• The arguing couple seen at the coffee shop on the corner of Cambridge Heath Road and Whitechapel Road.
• The cries of murder heard on Brady Street.
• The blood stains that were reported to be found on Brady Street.
• The blood stains that were reported to be found on Bucks Row some short distance away from Brown’s Stable Yard in the direction of Brady Street.
• The moans and whispers heard on Bucks Row around the time a goods train passed by.

David Bullock, the author of the new book on Thomas Cutbush “The Man Who Would Be Jack: The Hunt For Jack The Ripper”, believes that Thomas Cutbush was the man at the coffee stall as he used the name Jim and apparently the woman (who he believes was Nichols) called her male escort ‘Jim’. He reasoned that Cutbush aimed to take her to the old Jewish cemetery on Brady Street, as apparently Cutbush had a predeliction for such places. While on their way there, Nichols became uneasy, was attacked but broke away and was pursued and caught at Brown’s Stable Yard.

Of course it is not necessary to believe that Cutbush was the Ripper to give credence to all or some of the links in the chain between the coffee stall and the railway moans. Here are the original reports.

The Echo on 1st September reported:

There is another point of some importance upon which the police rely. It is the statement of John Morgan, a coffee-stall keeper, who says that a woman, whose description answers to that given to him of the victim, called at his stall-three minutes' walk from Buck's-row-early yesterday morning. She was accompanied by a man whom she addressed as Jim. They appeared as if they had had a quarrel. The woman did all she could to pacify him. This morning our reporter had an interview with Mr. John Morgan, at the house where he lodges, 62, Oxford-street, near Bethnal-green-road. He said: It was half-past three or a quarter to four o'clock yesterday morning, when a woman, whom I knew was an immoral character, came to my stall and a man was with her. I am to-day to go to the mortuary before the inquest and see if I can identify her as the one who came there. Well, she was with a man, like a labourer, between 5ft. 4in. and 5ft. 6in. in height, with dark hair and short beard. He and the woman had words. Having had a cup of tea the woman said, "Come on, Jim, let's get home." Then they went away, and I did not think anything more of the occurrence until I heard of this dreadful affair at Buck's-row, near where it was. My stall is at the corner of Cambridge Heath-road. I have seen the woman several times, and could therefore identify her if she is the one I fancy it is. I did not hear any screams-at least, nothing to speak of.

It evidently did not take The Echo long to track down and interview Mr Morgan as this was the day after the murder. The same issue also contained the following:

A very general opinion is now entertained that the spot where the body was found was not the scene of the murder. Buck's-row runs through from Thomas-street to Brady-street, and in the latter street what appeared to be bloodstains were found at irregular distances on the footpaths on either side of the way. Occasionally a larger splash was visible, and from the manner in which the marks were scattered it seems as though the person carrying the mutilated body had hesitated where to deposit his ghastly burden, and had gone from one side of the road to the other until the obscurity of Buck's-row afforded the shelter the shelter sought for. The street had been crossed twice within the space of about 120 yards. The point at which the stains were first visible is in front of the gateway to Honey's-mews, in Brady-street, about 150 yards from the point where Buck's-row commences. Some of the police investigating the case declare that very few bloodstains were seen when they first visited the spot.

and

It is not unlikely that the deceased met her death in a house in or near Brady-street, for some persons state that early in the morning they heard screams, but this is a by no means uncommon incident in the neighbourhood, and, with one exception, nobody seems to have paid any particular attention to what was probably the death struggle of the unfortunate woman. The exception referred to was Mrs. Celville, who lives only a short distance from the foot of Buck's-row. According to her statement she was awakened by her children, who said someone was trying to get into the house. She listened, and heard a woman screaming "Murder, Police!" five or six times. The voice faded away as though the woman was going in the direction of Buck's-row, and all became quiet.

Mrs Celville was actually Sarah Colwell.
The Star on 5th September reported:

There is one point in connection with the murder which has not yet been brought out. This is the certainty that the abdominal mutilation was done not only after death, but after the woman was laid down at the gateway in Buck's-row. She was so horribly cut that anybody who viewed the body will admit that she could not have stood erect with her clothes on, and remained as she was when found. Furthermore, the two large drops of blood, clear and undeniable, which were visible on the Buck's-row pavement, 25 and 35 feet above the place where the body lay, were made by fresh thick blood, and were probably caused by something in the hands of the murderer as he walked away. Added to this is the slight abdominal hemorrhage, such as would be the case if the cutting were done after death.

On 6th September The Echo reported:

An important statement, throwing considerable light on a point hitherto surrounded with some uncertainty - the time the crime was committed in Buck's-row, or the body deposited there - was made this afternoon by Mrs. Harriet Lilley, who lives two doors from the spot where the deceased was discovered. Mrs. Lilley said: - I slept in front of the house, and could hear everything that occured in the street. On that Thursday night I was somehow very restless. Well, I heard something I mentioned to my husband in the morning. It was a painful moan - two or three faint gasps - and then it passed away. It was quite dark at the time, but a luggage went by as I heard the sounds. There was, too, a sound as of whispers underneath the window. I distinctly heard voices, but cannot say what was said - it was too faint. I then woke my husband, and said to him, "I don't know what possesses me, but I cannot sleep to-night." Mrs. Lilley added that as soon as she heard of the murder she came to the conclusion that the voices she heard were in some way connected with it. The cries were very different from those of an ordinary street brawl.
It has been ascertained that on the morning of the date of the murder a goods train passed on the East London Railway at about half-past three - the 3.7 out from New-cross - which was probably the time when Mary Ann Nicholls was either killed or placed in Buck's-row.