Sunderland Daily Echo of Saturday, September 1, 1888

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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!

[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

[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]

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

[JeffHamm]

While it appears these reports were investigated and found to be erroneous, it does start to make sense of the inquest statements concerning the possibility of her being murdered elsewhere, such as this exchange with PC Neil (the "witness") found in the Daily Telegraph of Sept 1, 1888:

...
The Coroner: Some one searched the ground, I believe?
Witness: Yes; I examined it while the doctor was being sent for. Inspector Spratley: I examined the road, sir, in daylight.
A Juryman (to witness): Did you see a trap in the road at all?
Witness: No.
A Juryman: Knowing that the body was warm, did it not strike you that it might just have been laid there, and that the woman was killed elsewhere?
Witness: I examined the road, but did not see the mark of wheels. ...
...

And also Dr. Llewellyn's statement in his testimony where he says "...There were no marks of any struggle or of blood, as if the body had been dragged..." indicating the body was not dragged (I'm pretty sure the comma is a mistake as it's inclusion actually changes the meaning to the opposite but if the body had been dragged there would be a clear blood trail, which in turn would have been mentioned in the positive by PC Neil as he examined the road).

And on Day 2 (Sept 3rd) we have Inspector Spratling saying "...About six o'clock that day he made an examination at Buck's- row and Brady-street, which ran across Baker's-row, but he failed to trace any marks of blood. He subsequently examined, in company with Sergeant Godley, the East London and District Railway lines and embankment, and also the Great Eastern Railway yard, without, however, finding any traces....", ...

And also Inspector Helston "...The only suspicious mark discovered in the neighbourhood of Buck's-row was in Broad-street, where there was a stain which might have been blood.
Witness was of opinion that the body had not been carried to Buck's-row, but that the murder was committed on the spot. ..." (where he does indicate there might have been some blood in Broad-Street - I've not been able to locate Broad Street, does anyone know where it is, I'm sure I'm just not seeing it).

And on Day 3 (Sept 17th), PC Thain also mentions that he "... searched Essex Wharf, the Great Eastern Railway arches, the East London Railway line, and the District Railway as far as Thames-street, and detected no marks of blood or anything of a suspicious character. ..."

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. Of course, one would still expect some testimony to presented that establishes that the body dump site (where she was found) and the primary crime scene (where she was murdered) were one in the same - but it seems this point is being made a bit more often than it might have been otherwise.

- Jeff

[FrankO]

Thank you for your reference. I expressed my self very badly. What I meant to say was that I hadn't found any police reference confirming the blood trail. The reference you provide shows that the police gave no credence to the reports.

In addition to what Kattrup posted about the Pall Mall Gazette, I found this in the Morning Advertiser of 1 September, George:

"So far the police have satisfied themselves, but as to getting a clue to her murderer they express little hope. Much that is erroneous and merely wild imagination has already appeared about the discovery. It has been stated that blood could be traced in thick spots and small pools from the spot where the body was found far down Buck's row to a lateral thoroughfare called Brady street. The police deny that statement. The matter is being investigated by Detective Inspector Abberline, of Scotland yard, and Inspector Helson, J Division. The latter states that he walked carefully over the ground soon after eight o'clock in the morning, and beyond the discolorations ordinarily found on pavements there was no stain."

Based on this, it seems that the police did take the reports seriousely, but, carefully walking over the ground, only found ordinary discolorations on the pavement, apparently not being blood.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

You are probably aware of this post by David Orsam addressing Mrs Colville:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/8948-the-curious-case-of-mrs-colville

Interesting twist with her maiden name being Cross, daughter of Charles Cross, no relation to CAL.

Hi George,

I wasn't aware of that thread yet, but it's very interesting, so thanks for pointing me to it!

Cheers,
Frank

[GBinOz]

Hi George

It's mentioned in a few papers on Sept. 3, e.g. Pall Mall Gazette, Daily News:

Hi Kattrup,

Thank you for your reference. I expressed my self very badly. What I meant to say was that I hadn't found any police reference confirming the blood trail. The reference you provide shows that the police gave no credence to the reports.

Cheer, George

[Kattrup]

One would hope that the police would have thoroughly investigated a blood trail such as is described, but I haven't found any reference to it.

Hi George

It's mentioned in a few papers on Sept. 3, e.g. Pall Mall Gazette, Daily News:

Inspector Helson, at an interview yesterday evening, said that the report that blood stains were found leading from Brady street to Buck's row was not true. The place was examined by Sergeant Enright and himself on Friday morning, and neither bloodstains nor wheel marks were found to indicate that the body had been deposited where found, the murder being committed elsewhere. Both himself and Inspector Abberline, indeed, had come to the conclusion that it was committed on the spot.

[GBinOz]

I have no idea, Fishy, but seeing that the trail was, apparently, so clear, the police must have concluded that it wasn't blood but something else.

Hi Frank,

You are probably aware of this post by David Orsam addressing Mrs Colville:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/8948-the-curious-case-of-mrs-colville

Interesting twist with her maiden name being Cross, daughter of Charles Cross, no relation to CAL.

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.

One would hope that the police would have thoroughly investigated a blood trail such as is described, but I haven't found any reference to it.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Thanks for that , what i saw was the inquest on nichols here on casebook . in ref to mrs green.