Sunderland Daily Echo of Saturday, September 1, 1888

[JeffHamm]

The conclusion that Polly was killed at the place where she was found is based on the lack of a blood trail that would indicate that she had been carried from somewhere else. However, said blood trail would have emanated from the throat cut, and the coroner said at one of the later inquests that the medical opinion was that Polly's throat was cut AFTER the mutilations. Were Polly strangled and the mutilations performed, would not her dress prevent a blood trail if she were carried to the site were she was found and her throat cut there?

Cheers, George

Hi George,

It's also based upon the lack of any evidence of a cart/wagon/carriage having been in the area (no wheel marks noted; no reports of hearing one in the vicinity at the time, etc), only leaving her being carried there manually. And if she was carried there manually I don't think her clothes would prevent a blood trail, even if her throat was cut in Buck's Row. So while one could argue that transport was simply not heard (the murder wasn't heard after all), it starts to sound more like arguing for something despite there being none of the expected evidence for it even though there is a very simple explanation for that lack of evidence; she was killed where she was found. And the notion that she was killed elsewhere and then carried through the streets would be entirely at odds with the later crimes, like Chapman and Kelly, (both of whom were clearly killed where found), and Eddowes (again, the nature of her wounds make any manual transporting without leaving a blood trail implausible, and again no carriage was heard - Morris would have noted it, for example).

The only way I can think it would be possible for her to be killed elsewhere and then moved without leaving a trail of blood is if she was strangled elsewhere and the mutilations and throat cutting were done where she was found. Given the risk of carrying a body around (since no carriage/wagon, etc was heard, and so there's no evidence for one), that would only make sense if the killer lived in Buck's Row.

What surprises me a bit is that there is no evidence of blood being left by the killer upon leaving the scene. I'm surprised there aren't, for example, signs of blood on the back door at Hanbury Street, or on Kelly's door, or any signs of blood dripping from his hands as he leaves any of the crime scenes. Knife crimes are very bloody affairs, and it is surprising that there aren't at least some drops heading away from the locations. I suppose if he was careful to put his hands in his pockets as he left, that might do it, but I don't know how he avoided getting some blood on the doors (Chapman and Kelly) unless he was somehow able to clean his hands at the scene and/or put on gloves afterwards maybe?. He would have the time after Kelly's murder as he's indoors, but he doesn't have that luxury at Hanbury Street.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

It's also based upon the lack of any evidence of a cart/wagon/carriage having been in the area (no wheel marks noted; no reports of hearing one in the vicinity at the time, etc), only leaving her being carried there manually. And if she was carried there manually I don't think her clothes would prevent a blood trail, even if her throat was cut in Buck's Row. So while one could argue that transport was simply not heard (the murder wasn't heard after all), it starts to sound more like arguing for something despite there being none of the expected evidence for it even though there is a very simple explanation for that lack of evidence; she was killed where she was found. And the notion that she was killed elsewhere and then carried through the streets would be entirely at odds with the later crimes, like Chapman and Kelly, (both of whom were clearly killed where found), and Eddowes (again, the nature of her wounds make any manual transporting without leaving a blood trail implausible, and again no carriage was heard - Morris would have noted it, for example).

The only way I can think it would be possible for her to be killed elsewhere and then moved without leaving a trail of blood is if she was strangled elsewhere and the mutilations and throat cutting were done where she was found. Given the risk of carrying a body around (since no carriage/wagon, etc was heard, and so there's no evidence for one), that would only make sense if the killer lived in Buck's Row.

What surprises me a bit is that there is no evidence of blood being left by the killer upon leaving the scene. I'm surprised there aren't, for example, signs of blood on the back door at Hanbury Street, or on Kelly's door, or any signs of blood dripping from his hands as he leaves any of the crime scenes. Knife crimes are very bloody affairs, and it is surprising that there aren't at least some drops heading away from the locations. I suppose if he was careful to put his hands in his pockets as he left, that might do it, but I don't know how he avoided getting some blood on the doors (Chapman and Kelly) unless he was somehow able to clean his hands at the scene and/or put on gloves afterwards maybe?. He would have the time after Kelly's murder as he's indoors, but he doesn't have that luxury at Hanbury Street.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Your quite right about the lack of evidence of course, but in Polly's case there was a great deal of opinion that the murder was done elsewhere - what has been discussed in this thread, David Orsam's thread and the article in the Evening News of 7 Sept where they went as far as stating that the murder took place in Winthrop St. This was also the opinion of the locals who actually painted that accusation on the Slaughter Yard gates. A cart would have been noticed but footsteps would not as it was a thoroughfare for men walking to work. Just kicking around some possibilities. I have to admit that I have long harboured suspicions about Tomkins and associates.

Best regards, George

[FrankO]

...
There's quite a few statements, some of which appear to be responses to questions from the jury, but others may have been more spontaneous, basically saying they looked for and did not find any blood suggesting she had been killed elsewhere. It appears they were responding to those early press stories that imply she was killed and either walked (rather improbable) or was carried to Buck's Row. It seems a fair bit of time was spent on something they didn't believe happened, which only really makes sense in the context of the suggestion to the contrary.

Great post, Jeff - thanks!

[FrankO]

It's also based upon the lack of any evidence of a cart/wagon/carriage having been in the area (no wheel marks noted; no reports of hearing one in the vicinity at the time, etc), only leaving her being carried there manually.

Hi Jeff,

A lack of evidence that was also furnished by the Sunderland Daily Echo reporting that the watchman of the woolhouse factory had spoken to two men just outside the gate to the wool warehouse at three o'clock, that he'd heard no noise from that time forth and that he was wide awake all the time until the police in the street attracted his attention.

What surprises me a bit is that there is no evidence of blood being left by the killer upon leaving the scene. I'm surprised there aren't, for example, signs of blood on the back door at Hanbury Street, or on Kelly's door, or any signs of blood dripping from his hands as he leaves any of the crime scenes. Knife crimes are very bloody affairs, and it is surprising that there aren't at least some drops heading away from the locations.

That surprises me a bit, too. But it doesn't have to be a mystery (not that I think you suggested it, mind you). He could simply have carried a piece of cloth on him to wipe his hands and knife on or he may have wiped them on his dark clothes. There was certainly no immediate need for him to clean his hands on the crime scene (as it wouldn't have given the police much, if anything, to go on), so I suppose the reason for there not being any blood being left by him leaving the scene was that it came sort of naturally to him to clean his hands (meaning: not something he had to think about doing).

All the best,
Frank

[rjpalmer]

I recall that some years ago I did some research on Mrs Colville's report of the woman hammering at her door, but found the incident took place some three hours before Polly's body was found and well before she was last seen alive.

Hi George. This statement jumped out at me. Do you recall a contemporary source for the ruckus having occurred before 2 a.m.?

The only references I've ever seen to Mrs. Coville/Coldwell's children refer to 'early morning, before it was light," which strikes me as very vague and uncertain. Or have you found something more specific?

Thanks.

[GBinOz]

Hi George. This statement jumped out at me. Do you recall a contemporary source for the ruckus having occurred before 2 a.m.?

The only references I've ever seen to Mrs. Coville/Coldwell's children refer to 'early morning, before it was light," which strikes me as very vague and uncertain. Or have you found something more specific?

Thanks.

Hi RP,

To be honest my memory is not good enough to recall the reference from so many years ago but it may have been:

https://wiki.casebook.org/sarah_colwell.html

or
https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...ystery?t=10592 Post #3

Sorry That I can't be of more assistance.

Cheers, George

[rjpalmer]

Hi RP,

To be honest my memory is not good enough to recall the reference from so many years ago but it may have been:

https://wiki.casebook.org/sarah_colwell.html

or
https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...ystery?t=10592 Post #3

Sorry That I can't be of more assistance.

Cheers, George

Many Thanks, George. No--your comment was very helpful.

The reference to Paul Begg's book (from the wikipedia article) made me realize what was being referred to. It was reported that 'some disturbance' had been heard in the neighborhood 'shortly after midnight,' and Begg concludes that this is what the Colville/Coldwell children must have heard, writing "the more widely reported time of midnight makes it unlikely the woman was Nichols.." (p 46). So no, I don't think your memory has failed you.

It's a reasonable conclusion, but there is a slight caveat. Here is what was widely reported:



The only resistance I might give is that the children did report hearing screams, so there is some minor doubt as to whether this was the same incident, though I certainly admit that your conclusion is an entirely reasonable one. I suppose screams and a 'disturbance' must be pretty much the same thing, but I wonder if a woman screaming murder and rattling doorknobs would be considered an 'ordinary brawl'?

It's interesting.

Cheers.