Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sunderland Daily Echo of Saturday, September 1, 1888

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sunderland Daily Echo of Saturday, September 1, 1888

    Courtesey of Dusty Miller (drstrange169), I've transcribed the Sunderland Daily Echo of the day following the murder of Mary Ann Nichols:

    Sunderland Daily Echo, Saturday, September 1, 1888
    THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER
    THE BODY IDENTIFIED.
    CIRCUMSTANTIAL ACCOUNT.
    The Star reporter says: - The horrible brutality of the murder increases as the circumstances which attended it are developed. Everything indicates that it is the work of a fiend who was in murderous frenzy. The murdered woman and the murderer were evidently chance acquaintances, as she had every appearance of a street wanderer, and neither by her looks nor her circumstances seems likely to have inspired a premeditated crime. No one is missing in the neighbourhood so far as discovered, and the general supposition is that wandering the streets at three o’clock yesterday morning she met in Brady Street
    THE GHOUL THAT CUT HER TO PIECES.
    It was evident yesterday morning that the murder was committed some distance from the place where the body was found. This was in Buck’s-row, about midway down its length. Buck’s-row is a short street, occupied half by factories and half by dwellings. Half-way down the street is the house or Mrs Green. Next to it is a large stable yard, whose wide closed gateway is next to the house. In front of this gateway the woman was found by two men, who at first supposed her to be drunk, but closer inspection showed first a pool of blood in the gutter just before her, and then the deathly whiteness of the woman’s face stained with blood. One of them remained by her, while the other found Constable Neil. Constable Neil immediately woke the Green family, and asked them if they had heard any unusual noise. Neither Mrs Green, her son, nor her daughter, all of whom were sleeping within a few feet of where the body lay, had heard any outcry. All agreed that
    THE NIGHT WAS UNUSUALLY QUIET.
    “I should have heard it had there been any, I think,” said Mrs Green, “for I have trouble with my heart and am a very light sleeper. My son went down as soon as the body was taken away, and washed away the blood stains on the pavement. There was quite a little pool, though I understand most of it soaked into the woman’s dress. I looked out and saw the body as it lay there. It was lying straight across the gateway, its head towards me. It was not lying in a heap as if it had fallen, but on its back, and straight,
    AS IF IT HAD BEEN LAID THERE.
    I could not tell at first whether it was a man or a woman, but James, my son, who went down stairs, returned and told me it was a woman. This was four o’clock in the morning.”
    Across the street lives a Mr Perkins, whose wife is not very well. They sleep in the front room, and either Mr Perkins or his wife was awake at short intervals up to four o’clock yesterday morning. Neither heard the slightest sound in the street, and both agreed that it was an unusually quiet night, and there are sometimes brawls and fights or drunken men passing the house which disturb their sleep. They were sure that there was no outcry loud enough to be heard a few feet away.
    THE WATCHMAN IN SCHNEIDER’S FACTORY,
    just above the Perkin’s, heard nothing. The watchman in the wool depot just below made the same statement, and it may be accepted as certain that the poor murdered and mangled victim was taken to the place where she was found after life was extinct.
    The detectives yesterday morning searched the stable yard, and every vacant space in the vicinity, in the hope of discovering some clue. None appeared, however. They kept a sharp look out for the knife with which the deed was done, but found no trace of it. Everything seemed to indicate that the scene of the murder was some distance away. Meanwhile, the people in Brady-street were in a high state of excitement. Brady-street is a long thoroughfare that runs to the left from the bottom of Buck’s-row. Early yesterday morning
    FRESH BLOOD STAINS
    were observed for quite a distance along the side walks. There would be drop after drop two or three feet and sometimes six feet apart for a distance, and then a large pool or splash. As soon as the murder became known a lively interest was taken in these blood stains, and they began to be traced. They were soon found to be on both sides of the street, and it was some time before it was seen that the bleeding person had travelled or been carried in a zigzag line.
    THE TRAIL WAS EASILY FOLLOWED
    down Brady-street for 150 yards to Honey’s Mews. In front of this gateway there was a large stain, looking as if the bleeding person had fallen against the wall and lain there. From here to the foot of Buck’s-row, in which the body was found, the trail of blood is clearly marked. It was wet yesterday morning, and at noon, although the sun had dried it, it was still plainly discernible. The zig-zag direction it took, crossing and recrossing the street, was, and is, a matter of mystery. In the space of a hundred yards the woman crossed the street twice, and, whenever she crossed, a larger stain of blood, in place of the line of drops, indicated that she had stopped.
    There is a number of people who early yesterday morning heard the screams of the victim. None of them paid any particular attention to them, however, except Mrs Colwell, who lives midway between Buck’s-row and the next turning. She said, “I was awakened early by my children, who said someone was trying to get into the house. I listened, and heard screams. They were in a woman’s voice, and though frightened, were faint-like, as would be natural if she was running. She was screaming, ‘Murder, police ! murder, police ! murder, police !’ She screamed this five or six times, and seemed to be getting further and further away (toward the bottom of Buck’s-row) all the time.
    I HEARD NO OTHER VOICE
    and no other steps. She seemed to be all alone. I think I would have heard the steps if anybody had been running after her, unless they were running on tiptoe.”
    This is the clearest account of the outcry furnished in Brady-street. It seems to make it evident that the murder was committed there. How any person gashed as the deceased had been could have run or walked any distance at all, much less a hundred yards, is a mystery, as the loss of blood must have been immediate and exhausting. That the murderer had only partially completed his work and followed her up to finish it is a possibility. One fact is certain, however, that the woman could not have reached the gateway in Buck’s-row herself, and must have been
    CARRIED OR DRAGGED THERE.
    That she was carried is more likely, as dragging her would have left more stains than appear on the Buck’s-row pavement.
    All day long the streets which were the scene of the murder have been crowded. The horrible atrocity of the deed following so quickly upon the equally horrible tragedy of a few weeks ago has alarmed all the women in the neighbourhood. The excitement was great, and the more the crowds of women looked at the bloodstains the more excited they became. There was yesterday a general cry for better police protection, and the statement was everywhere made that a policeman is as rare as a wild duck in that district, and somehow is never at hand when anything happens.
    THE ONLY CLUE
    to the direction taken by the murderer was discovered shortly after noon. While there are plenty of bloodstains in the direction from which the woman was brought, none were found elsewhere. At one o’clock, however, some men searching the pavement at Buck’s-row, above the gateway, found two large spot of blood, and each about the size of a shilling. The first was about 25 feet from the gateway, and the second 10 feet beyond. Both were a few inches from the kerb in the roadway, and clearly defined. It is believed that they came either from the hands or
    THE CLOTHING OF THE MURDERER
    as he went away, and the drops are so large without any others near them that they seemed to have resulted from the squeezing-out of some blood-soaked clothing.
    The watchman at the wool factory, whose doorway is a few feet below the gateway where the woman was found, and on the other side of the street, says that at exactly three o’clock he spoke to two men who stopped just outside his gate, and they moved on without any trouble. He says that there was no body lying in the stable gateway at the time, and no one in the street. Moreover, he heard no noise from time forth, and he was wide awake all the time until the police in the street attracted his attention. His statement only emphasises
    THE EXTREME STEALTH AND CARE,
    with which the murderer must have acted.
    A photograph of the woman was taken. A large bruise was noticed under the left cheek, and a slight blackness under the left eye. These seem to indicate the she was first struck a heavy blow and knocked down before the knife was used.
    THE CLOTHING SHE WORE
    came from a workhouse, but may have been given out any time in the last three or four years, and may have been given to some other person before she obtained it. Inspector Nelson has the case in charge.
    Several persons have called at the mortuary to identify the body. Some women in the neighbourhood knew her as a person called “Polly,” who lived at a single women’s lodging-house for the past five or six weeks.
    Last night she engaged a bed at this house at a late hour, but, of course, never returned. She was seen by a woman called “German Moggy” at about half-past two this morning, and was speaking to her. The deceased had no money for a lodging, and “German Moggy” had no money either, so the unfortunate woman had to patrol the streets till she met her sad end.
    The woman in a position similar to that of the deceased allege that there is
    A MAN KNOWN AS “LEATHER APRON,”
    who has more than once attacked unfortunate and defenceless women. His dodge is, it is asserted, to get them into some house on the pretence of offering them money. He then takes whatever little they have and “half kills” them in addition. The woman told her companions that she had been married, but her husband had left her some time ago. She is described as having been quiet for the life she followed.
    A later account says: - The body of the deceased has been identified as that of a married woman named Mary Ann Nichols, who has been living apart from her husband for some years. She has been an inmate of Lambeth Workhouse on and off for seven years. She was discharged from the workhouse a few months ago, and went into domestic service at Wandsworth, suddenly leaving her situation under suspicious circumstances seven weeks ago. Since that time she had frequented the locality of Whitechapel, and was seen in the Whitechapel road on the morning of the murder at half-past two, under the influence of drink.
    "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
    Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

  • #2
    Originally posted by FrankO View Post
    Courtesey of Dusty Miller (drstrange169), I've transcribed the Sunderland Daily Echo of the day following the murder of Mary Ann Nichols:

    Sunderland Daily Echo, Saturday, September 1, 1888
    THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER
    THE BODY IDENTIFIED.
    CIRCUMSTANTIAL ACCOUNT.
    The Star reporter says: - The horrible brutality of the murder increases as the circumstances which attended it are developed. Everything indicates that it is the work of a fiend who was in murderous frenzy. The murdered woman and the murderer were evidently chance acquaintances, as she had every appearance of a street wanderer, and neither by her looks nor her circumstances seems likely to have inspired a premeditated crime. No one is missing in the neighbourhood so far as discovered, and the general supposition is that wandering the streets at three o’clock yesterday morning she met in Brady Street
    THE GHOUL THAT CUT HER TO PIECES.
    It was evident yesterday morning that the murder was committed some distance from the place where the body was found. This was in Buck’s-row, about midway down its length. Buck’s-row is a short street, occupied half by factories and half by dwellings. Half-way down the street is the house or Mrs Green. Next to it is a large stable yard, whose wide closed gateway is next to the house. In front of this gateway the woman was found by two men, who at first supposed her to be drunk, but closer inspection showed first a pool of blood in the gutter just before her, and then the deathly whiteness of the woman’s face stained with blood. One of them remained by her, while the other found Constable Neil. Constable Neil immediately woke the Green family, and asked them if they had heard any unusual noise. Neither Mrs Green, her son, nor her daughter, all of whom were sleeping within a few feet of where the body lay, had heard any outcry. All agreed that
    THE NIGHT WAS UNUSUALLY QUIET.
    “I should have heard it had there been any, I think,” said Mrs Green, “for I have trouble with my heart and am a very light sleeper. My son went down as soon as the body was taken away, and washed away the blood stains on the pavement. There was quite a little pool, though I understand most of it soaked into the woman’s dress. I looked out and saw the body as it lay there. It was lying straight across the gateway, its head towards me. It was not lying in a heap as if it had fallen, but on its back, and straight,
    AS IF IT HAD BEEN LAID THERE.
    I could not tell at first whether it was a man or a woman, but James, my son, who went down stairs, returned and told me it was a woman. This was four o’clock in the morning.”
    Across the street lives a Mr Perkins, whose wife is not very well. They sleep in the front room, and either Mr Perkins or his wife was awake at short intervals up to four o’clock yesterday morning. Neither heard the slightest sound in the street, and both agreed that it was an unusually quiet night, and there are sometimes brawls and fights or drunken men passing the house which disturb their sleep. They were sure that there was no outcry loud enough to be heard a few feet away.
    THE WATCHMAN IN SCHNEIDER’S FACTORY,
    just above the Perkin’s, heard nothing. The watchman in the wool depot just below made the same statement, and it may be accepted as certain that the poor murdered and mangled victim was taken to the place where she was found after life was extinct.
    The detectives yesterday morning searched the stable yard, and every vacant space in the vicinity, in the hope of discovering some clue. None appeared, however. They kept a sharp look out for the knife with which the deed was done, but found no trace of it. Everything seemed to indicate that the scene of the murder was some distance away. Meanwhile, the people in Brady-street were in a high state of excitement. Brady-street is a long thoroughfare that runs to the left from the bottom of Buck’s-row. Early yesterday morning
    FRESH BLOOD STAINS
    were observed for quite a distance along the side walks. There would be drop after drop two or three feet and sometimes six feet apart for a distance, and then a large pool or splash. As soon as the murder became known a lively interest was taken in these blood stains, and they began to be traced. They were soon found to be on both sides of the street, and it was some time before it was seen that the bleeding person had travelled or been carried in a zigzag line.
    THE TRAIL WAS EASILY FOLLOWED
    down Brady-street for 150 yards to Honey’s Mews. In front of this gateway there was a large stain, looking as if the bleeding person had fallen against the wall and lain there. From here to the foot of Buck’s-row, in which the body was found, the trail of blood is clearly marked. It was wet yesterday morning, and at noon, although the sun had dried it, it was still plainly discernible. The zig-zag direction it took, crossing and recrossing the street, was, and is, a matter of mystery. In the space of a hundred yards the woman crossed the street twice, and, whenever she crossed, a larger stain of blood, in place of the line of drops, indicated that she had stopped.
    There is a number of people who early yesterday morning heard the screams of the victim. None of them paid any particular attention to them, however, except Mrs Colwell, who lives midway between Buck’s-row and the next turning. She said, “I was awakened early by my children, who said someone was trying to get into the house. I listened, and heard screams. They were in a woman’s voice, and though frightened, were faint-like, as would be natural if she was running. She was screaming, ‘Murder, police ! murder, police ! murder, police !’ She screamed this five or six times, and seemed to be getting further and further away (toward the bottom of Buck’s-row) all the time.
    I HEARD NO OTHER VOICE
    and no other steps. She seemed to be all alone. I think I would have heard the steps if anybody had been running after her, unless they were running on tiptoe.”
    This is the clearest account of the outcry furnished in Brady-street. It seems to make it evident that the murder was committed there. How any person gashed as the deceased had been could have run or walked any distance at all, much less a hundred yards, is a mystery, as the loss of blood must have been immediate and exhausting. That the murderer had only partially completed his work and followed her up to finish it is a possibility. One fact is certain, however, that the woman could not have reached the gateway in Buck’s-row herself, and must have been
    CARRIED OR DRAGGED THERE.
    That she was carried is more likely, as dragging her would have left more stains than appear on the Buck’s-row pavement.
    All day long the streets which were the scene of the murder have been crowded. The horrible atrocity of the deed following so quickly upon the equally horrible tragedy of a few weeks ago has alarmed all the women in the neighbourhood. The excitement was great, and the more the crowds of women looked at the bloodstains the more excited they became. There was yesterday a general cry for better police protection, and the statement was everywhere made that a policeman is as rare as a wild duck in that district, and somehow is never at hand when anything happens.
    THE ONLY CLUE
    to the direction taken by the murderer was discovered shortly after noon. While there are plenty of bloodstains in the direction from which the woman was brought, none were found elsewhere. At one o’clock, however, some men searching the pavement at Buck’s-row, above the gateway, found two large spot of blood, and each about the size of a shilling. The first was about 25 feet from the gateway, and the second 10 feet beyond. Both were a few inches from the kerb in the roadway, and clearly defined. It is believed that they came either from the hands or
    THE CLOTHING OF THE MURDERER
    as he went away, and the drops are so large without any others near them that they seemed to have resulted from the squeezing-out of some blood-soaked clothing.
    The watchman at the wool factory, whose doorway is a few feet below the gateway where the woman was found, and on the other side of the street, says that at exactly three o’clock he spoke to two men who stopped just outside his gate, and they moved on without any trouble. He says that there was no body lying in the stable gateway at the time, and no one in the street. Moreover, he heard no noise from time forth, and he was wide awake all the time until the police in the street attracted his attention. His statement only emphasises
    THE EXTREME STEALTH AND CARE,
    with which the murderer must have acted.
    A photograph of the woman was taken. A large bruise was noticed under the left cheek, and a slight blackness under the left eye. These seem to indicate the she was first struck a heavy blow and knocked down before the knife was used.
    THE CLOTHING SHE WORE
    came from a workhouse, but may have been given out any time in the last three or four years, and may have been given to some other person before she obtained it. Inspector Nelson has the case in charge.
    Several persons have called at the mortuary to identify the body. Some women in the neighbourhood knew her as a person called “Polly,” who lived at a single women’s lodging-house for the past five or six weeks.
    Last night she engaged a bed at this house at a late hour, but, of course, never returned. She was seen by a woman called “German Moggy” at about half-past two this morning, and was speaking to her. The deceased had no money for a lodging, and “German Moggy” had no money either, so the unfortunate woman had to patrol the streets till she met her sad end.
    The woman in a position similar to that of the deceased allege that there is
    A MAN KNOWN AS “LEATHER APRON,”
    who has more than once attacked unfortunate and defenceless women. His dodge is, it is asserted, to get them into some house on the pretence of offering them money. He then takes whatever little they have and “half kills” them in addition. The woman told her companions that she had been married, but her husband had left her some time ago. She is described as having been quiet for the life she followed.
    A later account says: - The body of the deceased has been identified as that of a married woman named Mary Ann Nichols, who has been living apart from her husband for some years. She has been an inmate of Lambeth Workhouse on and off for seven years. She was discharged from the workhouse a few months ago, and went into domestic service at Wandsworth, suddenly leaving her situation under suspicious circumstances seven weeks ago. Since that time she had frequented the locality of Whitechapel, and was seen in the Whitechapel road on the morning of the murder at half-past two, under the influence of drink.




    Great find . So based on this article, just one day after the murder of Polly Nichols . Is it any wonder or perhaps not so strange that one theory suggest she was killed elsewhere and not on the spot she was discovered .

    'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

    Comment


    • #3
      Day 3, Monday, September 17, 1888
      (The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, September 18, 1888, Page 2)

      Yesterday [17 Sep], at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel-road, Mr. Wynne Baxter, coroner for the North-Eastern District of Middlesex, resumed his inquiry relative to the death of Mary Ann Nicholls, the victim of the Buck's-row tragedy, on Friday morning, Aug. 31.

      Dr. Llewellyn, recalled, said he had re-examined the body and there was no part of the viscera missing.

      Emma Green, who lives in the cottage next to the scene of the murder in Buck's- row, stated that she had heard no unusual sound during the night.
      By the Jury: Rough people often passed through the street, but she knew of no disorderly house in Buck's-row, all the houses being occupied by hardworking folk.




      16 days later ,this is all there is of Emma Greens thoughts on the murder,.
      'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
        Great find .
        Thanks, Fishy! The find was Dusty's; I just transcribed it.

        So based on this article, just one day after the murder of Polly Nichols . Is it any wonder or perhaps not so strange that one theory suggest she was killed elsewhere and not on the spot she was discovered .
        What strikes me is that the police never mentioned the alleged 'blood trail' when it's supposed to have been so clear.

        What I find interesting is that the watchman of the Messrs. Brown & Eagle's wool warehouse, whose gateway was less than 20 yards from where Nichols lay, said that there was no body lying there at three o'clock, which means that he could see enough of the crime spot from where he was - apparently, inside the gate of the warehouse - to say what he said. Also, the murder must really have been as silent as a grave for him not to have heard a thing from so close by.



        "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
        Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by FrankO View Post
          Thanks, Fishy! The find was Dusty's; I just transcribed it.

          What strikes me is that the police never mentioned the alleged 'blood trail' when it's supposed to have been so clear.

          What I find interesting is that the watchman of the Messrs. Brown & Eagle's wool warehouse, whose gateway was less than 20 yards from where Nichols lay, said that there was no body lying there at three o'clock, which means that he could see enough of the crime spot from where he was - apparently, inside the gate of the warehouse - to say what he said. Also, the murder must really have been as silent as a grave for him not to have heard a thing from so close by.


          Thanks then dusty. yes well it certainly raises some interesting questions doesnt it ? indeed why was all that information not mentioned ? .


          Also just on a another note on what dr lewellyn said about no part of ''the viscera being missing'' ,so organ harvesting only began 1 week after this murder? . Probably the worse single theory about the jtr murders ever . What nonsense.
          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
            Day 3, Monday, September 17, 1888
            (The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, September 18, 1888, Page 2)

            Yesterday [17 Sep], at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel-road, Mr. Wynne Baxter, coroner for the North-Eastern District of Middlesex, resumed his inquiry relative to the death of Mary Ann Nicholls, the victim of the Buck's-row tragedy, on Friday morning, Aug. 31.

            Dr. Llewellyn, recalled, said he had re-examined the body and there was no part of the viscera missing.

            Emma Green, who lives in the cottage next to the scene of the murder in Buck's- row, stated that she had heard no unusual sound during the night.
            By the Jury: Rough people often passed through the street, but she knew of no disorderly house in Buck's-row, all the houses being occupied by hardworking folk.




            16 days later ,this is all there is of Emma Greens thoughts on the murder,.
            You'd better take a look at the Echo of 17 September and the Evening Standard, Morning Advertiser and Times of the 18th, then, Fishy. They are a little more elaborate.

            For instance, the Evening Standard reads:
            "Emma Green, of New Cottage, Buck's row, said - I am a widow and occupy the cottage next to where the deceased was found. I have a daughter and two sons living with me. On the night before the murder I went to bed about eleven o'clock, my children going about an hour earlier. My bedroom is on the first floor, and I do not remember waking till I heard a knock at the street door.
            The Coroner: What time was that?
            Witness: I should think about four o'clock. I opened the window and looked out. There were several constables near my door.
            Coroner: Did you see any body on the ground?
            Witness: I saw something like a body but it was very dark at the time, and I could hardly distinguish it.
            Coroner: I may take it that you heard no noise during the night?
            Witness: None of us heard any.
            Coroner: Are you a heavy sleeper?
            Witness: A very light sleeper.
            I suppose there are bad women in the neighbourhood?
            Witness: Often women come by, but I don't believe there is a disorderly house in Buck's row.
            A Juror: There are some in Thomas street, are there not?
            Witness: I don't know of any. I seldom go out after dark.
            The Coroner: Do you know that your son went out to wash the blood away?

            Witness: Yes. I thought it had better be done directly the body was moved. A constable went into the yard with my son, and they returned with a broom, and washed the stains away."
            "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
            Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

              Thanks then dusty. yes well it certainly raises some interesting questions doesnt it ? indeed why was all that information not mentioned ? .
              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.


              Also just on a another note on what dr lewellyn said about no part of ''the viscera being missing'' ,so organ harvesting only began 1 week after this murder? . Probably the worse single theory about the jtr murders ever . What nonsense.
              If you're talking about the coroner's suggestion that there was a market for organs 'harvested' as happened in Chapman's case, then I agree that it's nonsense. But what did/could they know back then? They only tried to make sense of it.

              As to why Llewellyn was re-called on the 17th, I find it only logical. Nichols was killed on the 31st of August, Chapman on the 8th of September and, as a result of the two murders being so similar, Llewellyn was re-called on the 17th to ask if any organs were missing from the body of Nichols, too.
              "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
              Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

              Comment


              • #8
                Thanks for that , what i saw was the inquest on nichols here on casebook . in ref to mrs green.
                'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                  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:
                  Discussion of the numerous "witnesses" who gave their testimony either to the press or the police during the murder spree.

                  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
                  Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.​ - LOTR

                  All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                  ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                      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
                      Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.​ - LOTR

                      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                      ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                        You are probably aware of this post by David Orsam addressing Mrs Colville:
                        Discussion of the numerous "witnesses" who gave their testimony either to the press or the police during the murder spree.

                        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

                        "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                        Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                          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

                          "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                          Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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
                              Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.​ - LOTR

                              All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                              ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X