was Nichols murdered where found?

[Jon Guy]

Yes, I suppose there must have been an element of good fortune involved, but rather than planning and researching (other than possibly looking in books at diagrams of uteri and kidneys) I get the impression he was just a local man who was comfortable in his surroundings.

[miakaal4]

What a lucky boy then.

The one thing that would be difficult to argue about JtR is that he was a very lucky bloke. It seems that when he killed, he always managed to find just the right spot at just the right time. The injuries were suffered in the gloom and it seems any noise was kept to an absolute minimum. If all this was just luck, then the killer could have been a complete uncaring madman, who struck where and when he wanted to. This would make the Nichols crime scene, as it's known, as very likely. But for me that is too much luck. I for one, believe that JtR was a planner and researcher. I think he cased the area and the likely victims. Watched the way the streets and allys were trafficked and possibly checked out escape routes. If he did kill Nichols where she was found, it was because he knew there was a good chance he would not be disturbed. (Possibly. )

[Monty]

Hi Monty,

How is the discrepancy between Cross and Mizen clearly explained?

Regards,

Simon

Quite simply Simon,

Its as simple as explaining how Thains cape ended up at the Slaughterers.

Monty

[Lechmere]

There was clearly embarrassment over Thane retreiving his cape and over Mann's actions in the mortuary.

I don't as I recall think it was clear who put thane's cape in the slaughterhouse - I think it was off his beat so maybe that explain's the Neil excuse for dropping it off?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

How is the discrepancy between Cross and Mizen clearly explained?

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Thane leaving his cape with butchers = skiving.

AlLowing the body to remain unattended so the workhouse mortuary attendants stripped and washed body and cut off clothes - a blunder
Failing to interview the bulk of the inhabitants of bucks row - a blunder.
Failing to check out Charles lechmere properly - a blunder.
Failing to follow up tge discrepancy between Charles lechmere and miZens accounts - a blunder.

Thain leaving his cape at the Slaughterers was a common occurance and not one which is an indication of skiving. Merely dropping ones cape off is not a dereliction of duty and would only take moments.

I said nothing of blunders however as you've mentioned them.

Stripping and washing the body was common with the majority of bodies entering the mortuary. Nothing more than miscommunication as opposed to a gross error. Infact Baxter had no objection in the body being stripped and he was an experienced Coroner, indicating the matter was not deemed that grave an error.

The discrepency between Cross and Mizen is clearly explained and only becomes sinister to serve an agenda.

Monty

[Scott Nelson]

Was Thain admonished for any of these "blunders"?

Apart from leaving the body with the mortuary attendants (but it may not have been his responsibility to stay), you can't say with certainty that these other circumstances were neglict of duty.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Edward,

I think you'll find it was "brother constable" PC Neil who took PC Thain's cape to the Winthrop Street slaughterhouse.

But no matter. At 3.45 am neither PC was where they should have been.

Enter PC Mizen, whose testimony placed PC Neil exactly where he should have been.

Regards,

Simon

[Lechmere]

Thane leaving his cape with butchers = skiving.

AlLowing the body to remain unattended so the workhouse mortuary attendants stripped and washed body and cut off clothes - a blunder
Failing to interview the bulk of the inhabitants of bucks row - a blunder.
Failing to check out Charles lechmere properly - a blunder.
Failing to follow up tge discrepancy between Charles lechmere and miZens accounts - a blunder.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Dr Llewellyn explained in a press statement why he did not discover Nichols' abdominal injuries in Buck's Row.

Daily News, 1st September 1888—

"A crowd was now gathering, and as it was undesirable to make a further examination in the street, I ordered the removal of the body to the mortuary, telling the police to send for me again if anything of importance transpired. 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. At the time I had no idea of the fearful abdominal wounds which had been inflicted upon the body. At half past five I was summoned to the mortuary by the police, and was astonished at finding the other wounds.”

Regards,

Simon

[Phil H]

The key words are surely - within a few days. NOT within a few minutes of the discovery of the body.

Phil H

[John Bennett]

As I see it, this murder was seen as "just another" minor affair until after Annie Chpaman's death. things were skimped. Or do you think I am misinterpreting the evidence?

Phil H

I've always had it that this murder was the one that encouraged a real sense of urgency in the case. It was after this that Abberline was reintroduced to his old stamping ground and within a few days, papers were talking of 'Leather Apron'. General press coverage was noticably more prevalent too.

They were already talking of three unsolved murders at this point, so hardly a minor affair.

[Monty]

Phil,

As Cris explains, the reason why LLewellyn was called is to establish with certainty if the victim required any further assistance or to pronounce life exstinct. A cursory examination it taken place to see if cause of death can be established. This is protocol.

As the throat cut was examined, and reason for cause of death, Llewellyn had no further reason to conduct a full autopsy at the scene. It was only due to the undressing of Nichols that the abdominal injuries were noted and the Doctor recalled.

As stated by Jon, to label this as an error is to misunderstand what was requred at the scene.

As for Edwards accusation of skiving, I'd like him (or any other) to explain why this is the case.

Monty

[Hunter]

Procedure was for the first constable on the scene to stay with the victim and send someone - either another constable or a civilian - to fetch the nearest doctor as most victims were alive and may require immediate assistance. Alive or dead, the victim was removed as soon as the doctor made a precursory assessment. Crime scene forensics with the body at the scene was not considered a priority because the assailant was usually detected and apprehended by other methods. After the Nichols murder and the realization that different circumstances may exist, some adjustments were made; even more after the Chapman murder. They simply had no precedent before these murders.

[Phil H]

I can only go by what I have read of those who DO understand such things.

The "autopsy" for instance was, as I understand it, mishandled. Llewellyn did not discover the abdominal injuries until, later - at the "morgue". Am I wrong in that perception, Monty?

As I see it, this murder was seen as "just another" minor affair until after Annie Chpaman's death. things were skimped. Or do you think I am misinterpreting the evidence?

I am genuinely always ready to learn.

Phil H