Mary Ann Nichols

[Dan Norder]

In a 9/1 TIMES article Llewellyn says, "it was not an espescially long-bladed weapon." In his inquest deposition, he says, on two occassions, "long-bladed knife, modreately sharp."

I'm not seeing much of a contradiction here. A knife can be "long-bladed" without being "especially long bladed" -- and when the difference is long for a knife versus not particularly long for a bladed weapon in general you get into comparisons of knives versus weapons that are typically bigger than knives. Certainly without more solid information this isn't something worth basing a theory on.

[Tom_Wescott]

Dan Norder has spoken.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[nicole]

Hi all,

Just a quick point on the whispering that Mrs. Lilley heard.

I know that in her statement Lilley says that she heard whispering 'voices' suggesting plural. Isn't it quite possible that she heard just one whispering voice that being the voice of the killer. Picture 'Jack' gloating to the dead woman over what he had just done and what he was about to do.

This would fit the single-killer theory and explain the Cross/Paul time-line.

Nicky.

PS. Did Mrs. Lilley mention if the perpetrator of the whispers showed any signs of echolalia?? (joke)

[paul emmett]

I'm not seeing much of a contradiction here. A knife can be "long-bladed" without being "especially long bladed" -- and when the difference is long for a knife versus not particularly long for a bladed weapon in general you get into comparisons of knives versus weapons that are typically bigger than knives. Certainly without more solid information this isn't something worth basing a theory on.

Hello, Dan

I think there is a contradiction here. Sugden thinks it so intenesely that he calls THE TIMES' qoute of Llewellyn a mistake when they say "long bladed." Clearly it wan't a mistake.

I think the contradiction is seen most in Llewellyn's statement that downplays length by pointing to a "cork-cutter's or shoemaker's knife." And this assertion is, in turn, relevant to Phillips saying later that a cobbler's knife was too short for the knife used on Chapman. How different are the neck wounds of Nichols and Chapman?

I don't know if it's worth a whole theory, and I do know that it has something to do with Tom's point of Ll just changing his mind--AGAIN. But I still feel that something seems amiss.

[paul emmett]

Hi all,

Just a quick point on the whispering that Mrs. Lilley heard.

I know that in her statement Lilley says that she heard whispering 'voices' suggesting plural. Isn't it quite possible that she heard just one whispering voice that being the voice of the killer. Picture 'Jack' gloating to the dead woman over what he had just done and what he was about to do.

This would fit the single-killer theory and explain the Cross/Paul time-line.

Nicky.

PS. Did Mrs. Lilley mention if the perpetrator of the whispers showed any signs of echolalia?? (joke)

Hi, Nicky. Since I tend to see Jack as performative, what you say seems feasible to me. And I do think the time-line needs to be explained.
AND, I love it---Barnett whispering to himself!

Tom, I had one other thought. You see Llewellyn in a much better light than I do. Good, so much the better for my point. If Llewellyn isn't a blathering idiot, there have to be reasons for the things he says. So, for example, when he says Nichols wasn't killed where she was found, there ARE reasons for saying that--not much blood, no sounds, whatever. Reasons that we feel are outweighed by other reasons, but still reasons!

So, when he thought for a while that it was a smaller bladed knife, there MUST have been reasons for him to think so. And that is all I'm saying. There are reasons for saying "long-bladed" AND there are reasons for saying "not long-bladed." He was, as it were, torn.

[Tom_Wescott]

Paul,

You have to look at the big picture. Llewellyn was lazy and Nichols was just another dead whore. That's where virtually all of his blunders occured - BEFORE Chapman was murdered and the series became a sensation. He and Phillips were also censured at this point from talking too openly about their findings and Llewellyn was sent back and back again to make certain of his findings. Nobody saw any evidence of two different weapons at work, although they had far less to work from than, say, Chapman. Just some abdominal wounds, many superficial, and the single cut to the throat. Had the Ripper been able to complete his work we'd likely know much more.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Tom,

I wouldnt say Llewellyn was lazy per se, just that he wasnt expecting the mutilations, of which Nichols was the first.

Cross and Paul failed to note the mutilation, even replacing the clothes, as well as the throat cut.

Im not defending the Good Doctor, he should have known better but I can kinda understand how the wound was missed.

Monty

[paul emmett]

I wouldnt say Llewellyn was lazy per se, just that he wasnt expecting the mutilations, of which Nichols was the first.

Cross and Paul failed to note the mutilation, even replacing the clothes, as well as the throat cut.

Im not defending the Good Doctor, he should have known better but I can kinda understand how the wound was missed.

I don't know, Monty. Tom says lazy and/or bad profiler; I say those are generous reads. Look at ALL his mistakes besides missing the wounds: left handed, killed somewhere else, neck wounds done last, no wounds below lower abdomen, shoemaker's knife, grabbed her by chin with right slit her throat with left.

Generous, indeed.

[Monty]

Paul,

Im referring to the SOC, sorry, wasnt clear.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Hi all!

On the issue of mrs Lilley, I think that we may be missing another interpretation of her testimony and the timeline that we can approximate for the murder. In order to show what I mean, I will quote a few snippets from the thread:

1. Jon Guy: “Mrs Harriet Lilley of Bucks Row had a restless night`s sleep and reported hearing at around 03.30 am ( she fixed the time by a luggage train that passed her house ) the sounds of a moan and gasps, followed by whispers.”

2. Jon Guy: “judging by PC Neals beat, the murder took place around 03.30 am”

3. Johnny Erwin: “it does seem weird that people who were closer to the body didn't hear anything.”

4. Paul Emmett: “Mrs. Lilley was close--they said both two doors away and a few yards”

5. Mrs Lilley herself, as quoted by the press: “It was a painful moan - two or three faint gasps - and then it passed away. It was dark, but a luggage train went by as I heard the sounds. There was, too, a sound as of whispers underneath the window. I distinctly heard voices, but cannot say what was said - it was too faint.”

6. Tom Wescott: “The whispers followed the gasping or moaning, and Cross and Paul were likely on the scene immediately following the murder (I'm of the opinion Cross unknowingly chased the Ripper away).”

Right! Now, how can we fit all of this together? Jon points out that 3.30 would be a logical time to fix Nichols´ death at, given that Neil passed through Buck´s Row at 3.15 and 3.45. At the latter opportunity, he came upon the body of Polly. So placing the strike as inbetween as possible of course makes good sense. But we should not forget that the stretch inbetween Neils appearances in Buck´s Row is a full half hour – a lot can take place in that time, and most posters would agree that the mutilations inflicted on Polly would not have craved many a minute. So 3.30 is a guess, leaving ample space in any direction, clockwise.

Tom wants a scenario where the Ripper is frightened away by Cross and Paul. But it seem that they found the body at about 3.40. If she was killed 3.30, then that leaves us with a Ripper who cannot find the time to make more out of his kill than a cut throat and the cutting to the abdomen, something that could have been accomplished in a very short time. And in fact, the ten minutes left for him to perform, makes the Nichols slaying very much comparable to Mitre Square, timewise – and look what he accomplished there!

I find it hard to believe in this scenario. If we opt for Cross as having scared the Ripper away, I suggest we put the time of death a lot closer 3.40. If we stay with the 3.30 option, I think the Ripper was long gone before Cross entered the scene. Moreover, the conversation between Cross and Paul was initiated by Cross calling Paul over to him - that would not have been done by a whisper, but in a fairly loud voice.

Moving on, mrs Lilley heard something that purportedly took place a number of yards – or a couple of doors – away, whereas those living closer heard nothing. But is this true? In the Echo interview she states firmly that the whispers she heard came from “underneath the window”.
Underneath the window – that is NOT two doors or a few yards away, is it?

And how many persons did mrs Lilley hear? Well, not just the one; she says that there were voices, meaning at least two. And in which order did the sounds occur? A moan, two or three faint gasps, and then came the whispering voices.

If we ascribe the moaning and gasping to the event when Nichols had her throat cut, then it stands to reason that she did not participate in the whispering; being dead and having had your windpipe severed is as good a guarantee as we are ever going to find for that.

Now, does this leave us with two opportunities? Namely either Cross and Paul, or the Ripper being a combo of persons?

I think not.

Here´s another timeline than the more official one, and with a few people more on stage than originally anticipated:

3.15: P C Neil patrols Bucks Row.

Shortly after 3.20-3.25: A prostitute and a punter – NOT Polly and Jack – have entered Buck´s Row (lying in the middle of a district frequented by prostitutes and their customers). At 3.30, they enjoy a knee-trembler together, right underneath the window of number seven, Buck´s Row. That is what causes the moaning and gasping. Afterwards they share a few whispered words, mrs Lilley being an earwitness to it, before leaving the scene.

Shortly after 3.30-3.35, a drunken Polly Nichols enters Buck´s Row, in the company of a customer she has just stumbled upon; Jack. Outside the gates of the stable yard Jack subdues her, forces her to the ground, cuts her throat, and opens up her abdomen with his knife. The time is now approaching 3.40, and there is a sudden sound of steps approaching; Charles Cross. The Ripper has to cancel his plans of further disembowelling, and leaves the stage.

3.40-3.42 Cross comes upon the body, approaches Paul, and they go off in search of a policeman.

3.45 P C Neil finds Nichols.

Thoughts, anybody?
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hello Fisherman

I would have to disagree with your point regarding Cross and Paul conversing on their initial encounter :

As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway

This shows that the intial conversation took place on the opposite side of the road to Harriet Lilley`s house, and the men were at arms length before conversation began.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

Here's a few thoughts.

PC Neil's sworn inquest testimony tells us that part of his beat took in Whitechapel Road and Bakers Row—"The farthest I had been that night was just through the Whitechapel-road and up Baker's-row."

From the corner of Bakers Row and Whitechapel Road to the spot where Polly Nichols' body was found is approximately 300 yards. At a regulation plod it would have taken PC Neil 4 minutes to cover the distance.

Bucks Row is approximately 75 yards from the corner of Bakers Row and Whitechapel Road. At a regulation plod it would have taken PC Neil 1 minute to cover the distance.

So working backwards from 3.45 am (the time at which PC Thain was alerted by PC Neil to Polly's body) puts PC Neil at the corner of Bakers Row and Bucks Row at 3.42 am. He then turns EAST down Bucks Row towards the Board School.

Charles Cross discovered the body at 3.40 am. Robert Paul joined him a minute or so later (3.41 am). They view the body, look for signs of life and then start walking WEST along Bucks Row towards Bakers Row (a distance of approximately 225 yards) in search of a policeman (3.42 am). Three minutes later (3.45 am according to sworn inquest testimony) they encounter PC Mizen at the corner of Hanbury Street and Bakers Row.

Why didn't they bump into PC Neil on the way?

Regards,

Simon

[Chava]

I think it's highly likely that the 'whispers' Mrs Cross heard were in fact the sound of a knife tearing through cloth. It would make a similar sound, and the noise of cutting through a think material like wool would be different from the sibilant sound of a knife ripping through thin material like cotton. I've written about the '2 murderers' theory elsewhere but with your indulgence I'll repeat myself: there is not enough room in the back of 29 Hanbury St nor in 13 Millers Court to allow for two murderes plus the victim.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy writes:
"As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Paul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway"
This shows that the intial conversation took place on the opposite side of the road to Harriet Lilley`s house, and the men were at arms length before conversation began."

You´re right, Jon. I only remembered that Cross alerted Paul to the situation, and so I supposed that they were some distance apart. They were not, as you show.
Sugden does not describe the initial conversation as taking place at the pavement opposite Lilley´shouse, though; he writes that Cross approched Paul in the middle of the street, urging him to join Cross on his way to the southern pavement.
Anyhow, I do not think that Cross would have whispered to Paul, trying to alert him as he was. He probably spoke in an ordinary voice.
At the outset of their conversation they would have been in the middle of the street, but then they would have moved to the pavement where Nichols was lying, opposed to where Lilley lived, and some distance away – they were not, that is, having their conversation underneath her window. Plus they were having it about ten minutes after the conversation Lilley overheard!

Chava writes:
"I think it's highly likely that the 'whispers' Mrs Cross heard were in fact the sound of a knife tearing through cloth. It would make a similar sound"

Mrs Lilley, Chava; not mrs Cross! Anyways, she stated that she clearly made out voices, but she was not able to say what they spoke about. Plus she said the voices came from underneath her window. So either Polly and Jack made a first stop there, let out a moan and a couple of gasps, and then moved on to the area outside the stableyard - or she heard something that did not emanate from the couple in question.
If you are right, then we are left with the question of why the Ripper settled for just the cut to the abdomen and the sliced throat - for it would seem he had plenty of time on his hands to go further than that. Unless, of course, something else spooked him and made him leave.

Simon!
I think the one thing that we must accept is that Cross and Paul did not miraculously pass Neil with the three not noticing each other on their respective ways east- and westwards along Buck´s Row. If they had encountered Neil, they would of course have left the matter with him.
We can not be certain that Cross found Nichols exactly at 3.40, just as we are not sure of the exact time that Neil turned into Bucks Row or at what exact minute he came upon Nichols. The only thing we can learn from the testimony given by Cross and Neil, is that somebody – or both of them - is a minute or two off the mark. That is all it takes, is it not? Obviously the two carmen reached Bakers Row before Neil turned into it from the south. They may well have been walking northwards through the gloom of the night, approaching Old Montague Street, Hanbury Street and Mizen, with their backs turned on Neil, for all we know.

In short, I think that the only indicator that lies in what seems to be a riddle, is the ever occurring truth of very few people back in them days having their time spot on.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

I whole-heartedly accept your point about the circumstances surrounding the discovery of Polly Nichols' body. I was merely following the logic of the sworn inquest testimony and Abberline's 19th September report—all of which is shaky to say the least.

Extending the hand of charity by excusing the inexactitudes of the dramatis personae is all well and good, but this is a murder investigation we are dealing with. The inquest evidence in the Nichols murder was sloppy, vague and contradictory. Compare and contrast the testimonies of PC Thain and Henry Tompkins if you need an example of complete and utter gibberish. The slaughtermen saw Nichols’ body before the doctor arrived, and the doctor arrived before the slaughtermen got there. People's movements on the morning of August 31st read like a French farce, yet not one person in authority picked up on the many discrepancies. Or really seemed to care.

We'll never get to the bottom of this on what passes for available evidence, so I'm off to water my newly-planted bougainvillea.

Regards,

Simon