was Nichols murdered where found?

[lynn cates]

the terrible double entendre

Hello Phil.

"were not the stays removed without authority? How closely were things examined?"

Umm?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

What is the purpose of re-opening this discussion?
An attempt to dismiss all the nonsense and discover the real circumstances behind the murder of Polly Nichols.

But the nonsense may well be in the reporting of events in 1888!!

We know that things did not go as planned at the mortuary - were not the stays removed without authority? How closely were things examined?

But all this was known and gone over years ago - I ask again, what is the point of resurrecting all this again now? Are you presenting new evidence, or just wanting to question old assumptions? If so - on what basis?

Phil H

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

A human body contains between eight to ten pints of blood.

According to legend, in Bucks Row Polly Nichols had just had her throat cut, and according to Dr. Llewellyn "the large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed", yet there was not more blood found at the scene than would fill "two wine glasses, or half a pint at the outside."

Please explain.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon.

Not just legend, it was Llewellyn's own observation that there was about a half pint, but who suggests there should have been a lot more?

"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."

We already read that her coat and the back of her dress had soaked up blood, so there is no real mystery here.
Llewellyn did say "think at the time", which means at the time he first saw the body. However, he was satisfied that she was not killed elsewhere, therefore, Llewellyn is not suggesting there was insufficient blood. He explains that initially he jumped to a wrong conclusion.

Everything is fine, is it not?

Regards, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil H,

Echo, 3rd September 1888—

"For some reason the police have abandoned the theory that the deceased was murdered in a house and carried to the spot. They now believe she was killed at the place where she was discovered by the constable. The blood from the wounds was, it is thought, absorbed by the woman’s ulster and long dress, and would thus account for such a small quantity being noticed underneath the body."

The significant absence of blood in Bucks Row had been explained. If true, Polly’s ulster and dress would have been saturated with blood and, as such, difficult not to notice.

Daily Telegraph, 4th September—

"On seeing the body at the mortuary, Inspector Helson "noticed blood on the hair, and on the collars of the dress and ulster, but not on the back of the skirts."

And Inspector Spratling saw "blood on the upper part of the dress body, and also on the ulster, but he only saw a little on the under-linen."

What is the purpose of re-opening this discussion?

An attempt to dismiss all the nonsense and discover the real circumstances behind the murder of Polly Nichols.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil H]

The concensus at the time seems (to me clearly) to have been that the blood was soaked up by the woman's clothing.

We know that the medical testimony/practice on several of the murders was sometimes lacking and that doctors disagreed about such things as time of death.

The finding of polly's body was not - as I see it, taken very seriously by Llewelyn. he did not, initially for instance, discover the abdominal injuries. So his examination appears to have been cursorary.

On the other hand, the location, by a set of doors with "give", in a reasonable discreet street, in relative darkness was exactly whet Polly would have looked for - and is consistent with the backyard at 29 Hanbury St; Mitre Square, even Dutfield's Yard.

The idea of moving a body suggests accomplices, additional effort (why?); that a carriage or wagon was required. If the body was dragged or carried, where was the woman first rendered unconscious, if not killed?

In my view, mature perceptions (by which I mean a discussion involving many authorities over thirty or so years) had firmly discounted the possiblility of Polly having been killed elsewhere. After all this is not a new issue - Knight relied on the murder being perpetrated NOT on the site. So I ask again what the purpose is of re-opening this discussion?

I have a feeling that we will discover that a theory depends on it (though in this case not that of Fisherman and Lechmere it would seem)!

Phil H

[Mr Lucky]

Gas supply disruption caused by construction of nearby railway -

‘GAS IGNITION IN WHITECHAPEL.
At a few minutes to twelve o’clock last night an explosion of gas took place opposite the house, 13, High-street, Whitechapel, occupied by Mr Sulan, pork butcher, and occasioned by the breaking of the main of a street lamp. The Metropolitan Railway have the road at present up, owing to the construction of the Inner Circle completion, and, by some means or other, the lamp standard broke, falling a distance of three feet. The gas caught fire and scene of consternation ensued. Singularly enough, the Fire Brigade were just returning from a fire in the neighbourhood, and, with some 30 labourers and with six load of earth, they succeeded in stifling the flame before further damage ensued.’ - Portsmouth Evening News 10 October 1883

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

A human body contains between eight to ten pints of blood.

According to legend, in Bucks Row Polly Nichols had just had her throat cut, and according to Dr. Llewellyn "the large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed", yet there was not more blood found at the scene than would fill "two wine glasses, or half a pint at the outside."

Please explain.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hello All –

Perhaps the relative lack of blood at the murder site was due to the fact that the victim was dead when the butchery commenced.

If you don't mind me asking, what is this source that suggests there should have been much more blood around?

Thanks, Jon S.

[curious]

It was Jane Bea(r)dmore I think - the killer was caught though. William Waddell? Something like that.

I remember reading about that. Wasn't he her beau? or at least, was known in his community so there was really no possibility he was JtR.

However, interesting that folks in London could relax believing the killer had left the area.

[curious]

Gateshead is in the North East of England, near Newcastle, where there was a murder of which the locals thought was committed by Jack.

I believe there's a report in one of the US papers (Boston Herald?) About it.

Monty

enlightening, Monty, thank you.

[Sally]

It was Jane Bea(r)dmore I think - the killer was caught though. William Waddell? Something like that.

[Monty]

Can't help wondering where Gateshead was?

Thanks,

curious

Gateshead is in the North East of England, near Newcastle, where there was a murder of which the locals thought was committed by Jack.

I believe there's a report in one of the US papers (Boston Herald?) About it.

Monty

[curious]

People, most of 'em, think he's gone to Gateshead," was the reply. ' Daily News 27th Sept. 1888.


Best Wishes

Can't help wondering where Gateshead was?

Thanks,

curious

[Monty]

Sooner be a lunatic who is aware than the sane who seems to know little.

Anyways...

This is my interpretation (in brackets)...

A follow on from Johns interpretation, and to confirm his suspicision

Echo
London, U.K.
12 September 1888

An East-ender" objected yesterday to the wax-works in the Whitechapel-road, on the ground that they are fostering a morbid love of the ghastly and horrible by giving pictorial representations of the recent murders, and in calling them "sinks of iniquity," applied a much harder term to them than they deserve. It is not long since "A Saturday Night" in both these exhibitions was described in these columns. Course, crude, and vulgarly realistic they may be, and the educated mind and eye may have its own idea as to the truth of the likenesses, but there is no more "iniquity" attaching to them than there is to the Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussaud's.

Monty

[John Bennett]

This is my interpretation (in brackets)...

'Out again into the great thoroughfare [WHITECHAPEL ROAD], back a little way past the roaring salesmen and the hideous waxwork, and round the corner [BRADY STREET]. This opening here, where the public-house, the bar of which looks to be full of mothers with children in their arms, blazes at the corner [THE ROEBUCK], leads down to Buck's-row. Nobody about here seems at all conscious of the recent tragedy, the only suggestion of which is a bill in the public-house window, offering, on behalf of an enterprising newspaper, a reward of a hundred pounds for the conviction of the criminal. A little way down out of the public-house glare, and Buck's-row looks to be a singularly desolate out-of-the region.