Mary Ann Nichols

[paul emmett]

If Walter Purkiss and Emma Green heard nothing, what was the point in calling them to the inquest?

Hi Simon, all.
They weren't such valuable witnesses. At the inquest Green, the light sleeper, said she didn't remember waking up until she heard a knock on her door at 4:00. Purkis,"knocked up" right before Green, responded by sticking his head out of the upper window. So it would seem that both these star witnesses slept through whatever noises were made at the discovery of the body--which one would think would have to be louder than the noises of the killing.

The time thing as Fisherman has shown does not seem right for Lilley to have heard the killing. But, for the record, where was 7 Buck"s Row? Two houses away? Other side of street???

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

There was a lot going on in and around Bucks Row on the morning of August 31st.

A domestic knife incident, bloodstains along Brady Street, cries of 'Police! Murder!', someone bumping against Mrs. Colville's shutters, moaning and whispering from beneath Mrs. Lilley's window which was just two houses down from where Nichols was found.

As neither Mrs Colville nor Mrs. Lilley were called to the inquest, the police must have quickly decided that none of it had any bearing on the murder of Nichols. The only local residents subpoenaed to give evidence were those who heard nothing.

Why? If Walter Purkiss and Emma Green heard nothing, what was the point in calling them to the inquest?

Regards,

Simon

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Fisherman,

I know Lilley didn't live extactly by the murder site - I am well aware of it. I only mentioned people like Green and Purkiss, because they lived pretty much spot on as close to the murder site as anyone could. Purkiss lived across the road, but Green most certainly didn't - her bedroom was situated right above where Polly was killed! And no one heard or noticed a bloody thing.
My point is that even if Lilley heard something there is no reason whatsoever to even assume that it was something of relevance fr the murder. If whispers or moans did occur, why should we assume it was connected with Polly? Why would Polly serve the killer sexually on a location close to where Lilley lived and then suddenly end up dead in Buck's Row - and without chatting or whsipering to each other? It doesn't make sense.
We don't even know where Polly were the minutes before the murder or how she accessed Buck's Row.Heck we don't even have any indication of that the Ripepr actually engaged in any sexual activity with his victims before he killed them.
In those days the streets close to Buck's Row were quite busy at night or early in the morning (compared to today) and any moans or whispers could originate from numerous possible sources.

There is not the slightest indication of what Mrs Lilley heard had any connection to the murder victim at all - it is pure speculation without any basis in fact.
And once again - regardless of where Lilley was located, no one else claimed to have heard anything similar to what she experienced. It's just one more newspaper story - period. Such 'claims' from so called witnesses are so common in connection with murder cases that they go by the dozens. They are in fact largely typical for those unverified nonsense statements delivered by 'ordinary' citizens who gets carried away by the news and wants to 'contribute'. I have seen it millions of times, and until someone finds statements or evidence that corroborates her fairytales I refuse to give any credence to it.

All the best

[Chava]

Fisherman you make a convincing argument! I hold no brief for Mrs Lilley, so I think it's entirely likely she heard something else.

I'd love to know what Nicholls was doing between the last time she was seen and the time she was killed. Because she went off to get her doss house money quite a bit earlier, and I guess she didn't have any luck so what the hell was she doing in that time? Just walking the streets I suppose. The same kind of time-lag exists in the Chapman murder. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting some kind of 'they were grabbed and carried off in a coach to Windsor Castle' theory or anything like that. It's just coincidence. However I do wonder if the Ripper picked them up on his radar a while before he picked them up for real. Watched them wander around hopelessly soliciting. Saw how desperate and vulnerable they were. And then made his move.

[Fisherman]

Whoa, Glenn!!

Let me just walk you through my view on it, especially where I think you may need to cut poor old Harriet some slack!

1."again, she didn't only hear 'whispers' but also moans"
Yep, Glenn - and if the sounds came from a copulating pair, having sex underneath Lillies window, then moans and gasps could well be expected.

2. "Problem is, no one else in the area heard anything of the sort". No problem at all, Glenn, long as we accept that not all occurances are necessarily overheard by everybody in the vicinity - and if Lilleys version (with the sounds coming from underneath her window, mind you, and NOT from the other side of the road, numerous yards away) holds any water, then she will have been the one absolutely closest to a whispering conversation, kept so low that no words were discernible. No need to crave other earwitnesses, I think.

At 3.30, what Lilley heard, if indeed she DID hear something, would NOT have been sounds from the murder site. At 3.30, I believe that Nichols what not in place outside the stable yard. Somewhere close to 3.40 is where we need to set the time for the kill, in order to tally with P C Neils observation of the blood still oozing from Nichols neck at about 3.45. It could not possibly have been flowing for a full quarter of an hour, especially not given the extent of damage done to her neck. Emptying the vessels of her blood would have been a matter of a few minutes, most likely.
And if she was indeed cut at close to 3.40, then it ties in VERY nicely with the sound of Cross´approaching footsteps sending the Ripper on his way.

So no matter what and no matter how - Lilley did not hear the Ripper strike, taking into account the circumstancial evidence. She may well, though, have heard another prostitute having sex with a customer - an affair that was quite common in the vicinity, and that was normally taken care of in just a few minutes.

The best, Glenn!
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hello there, Fisherman.

Well, again, she didn't only hear 'whispers' but also moans.

But I agree, that if she in fact heard something it didn't necessarily have to connected to polly and her Kelly. Problem is, no one else in the area heard anything of the sort - she was the only one who claimed she did and her claims are unverified by others.
Mrs Green - who according to herself was a very light sleeper - probably lived closest to the murder site of all the witnesses (when she was alerted by the police she could see the body beneath her when she popped her head out the window).
And of course, Lilley's statement can't be found in any police files or inquest transcripts.

I don't rule out the possibility that Mrs Lilley was a liar, simply because murder cases are full of them - ordinary people who likes a bit of attention and produces rubbish to the papers (preferably with some dramatic ingredients). If her statement had been given to the police directly or she had given the same evidence at the inquest, I would have been less inclined to brush her off. But her statement is what it is - a newspaper account and is unverified by other sources or witnesses. It is worthless and most likely a piece of garbage from beginning to end.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Hi Glenn!

As you would have noticed, I agree with you that the chance is there that Lilley made it all up. What I am trying to establish here is the fact that IF she heard what she said she heard, then it would not have been Jack and Polly anyway. The timing is too much off for that to have been the case.

I would hesitate, though, to be too adamant on Lilley being a liar; if the event she speaks of really took place, it would seem that it took place right below her window. That may have meant that she was the only one that could hear it readily, and even so, the conversation was in so low whispered voices as to make it impossible for Lilley to make out any words. May well explain why Green and Purkiss heard nothing.

The best, Glenn!
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Personally, I don't have the faintest clue why people put any credence at all in Mrs Lilley's story.
Again, it was a newspaper account without any support in the police files, and as we know, murder cases are littered with bogus 'testimonies' from people who've said they've 'heard' or 'seen' anything - often for the pure motive of personal attention. This is an endless problem in any murder case.

None of the other residents in Buck's Row heard or noticed anything. Emma Green - who lived in the New Cottage house closest to the gates diagonally over the murder site and considered herself to be a very light sleeper - heard or saw nothing.
Walter Purkiss - the resident in Essex Wharf and who had been awake on several occasions during the night - had heard or noticed nothing. Nor did anyone else in the area. And they were all interwieved by the police - Lilley wasn't.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the testimony of Mrs Lilley was bogus and a piece of nonsense. Her whole evidence is afterconstruction and not evidence taken from when the police actually interwived people - between the time of her account to the newspaper and when the murder occurred she could easily have gained knowledge of the timing of the murder from other people in the area. Most likely, the word got around quickly.
It's all nonsense. If I had £10 for every time I've come across silly single, unverified accounts of people having heard 'moans' and 'screams' in a murder case I would have enough money to become economically independent for life.

I agree, however, with the notion that the killer was likely alarmed by the approaching of Cross. Cross heard the steps of Robert Paul and so could the killer have done when Cross came along.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Chava!

Much as I recognize that your theory of the "whispers" has a measure of ingenuity to it, I can not agree with it.

There is of course a good chance that mrs Lilley was making up a story of her own, but I don´t think so. It rings true to me.
One of the problems of the matter, though, is that it seems pretty certain that she is correct in her assessment of the time - it is corroborated by the passing of the train.
That means that if the sounds from underneath her window came from Nichols being killed, then 3.30 IS the time of the murder. Therefore, we have to accept that the Ripper settled for just ripping her up, without taking any organs and without disembowelling her - although the time was clearly there to do so.
I think that makes poor sense, although it of course looks like a possibility.

But there is another pointer involved that speaks loud and clear for Nichols being killed significantly later than 3.30:
P C Neil came upon the body of Nichols at about 3.45. If she had been killed at 3.30, that means that a full quarter of an hour had passed. She had been cut in the neck twice, and her head had almost been detached from her body by the fierce attack. The major arteries in the neck had all been opened up.
Now, if we compare this to Stride, we had a killing in Dutfields yard that may have taken place at about 0.50-0.55. She was found at about 01.00, and Johnston arrived in the yard somewhere at around perhaps ten to twenty minutes after she had been cut. That is kind of similar to the period of time elapsed between the cutting of Nichols and P C Neils finding her, is it not?
Yet, as Johnston found Stride, her blood had stopped flowing, and run away into the gutter. It was clotting by the time Johnston examined her. And she had only had one of the arteries cut open, remember, ensuring a markedly slower bleeding than what Nichols would have displayed. Yet, as Neil took a look at Polly, he noticed that blood was still oozing from her wound!
Nichols was not cut at 3.30, if I am right. She would have been cut a lot closer to 3.40, in fact quite close to the time that Cross arrived. And thus, mrs Lilley did never hear the Ripper killing Nichols. My guess remains that she heard another deal between prostitute and customer being taken care of.

The best, Chava!
Fisherman

[Chava]

Thanks, Fisherman! Sorry about that. But I'm still inclined to think it was ripping cloth.. She is reported as saying she heard voices but couldn't hear what they said, but it's likely that the conversation actually went along the lines of 'so you heard something. Could it have been voices?' 'Yes it could have been, but I couldn't hear what they said'. Which turns into 'I heard voices but couldn't hear...'

We'll never know since she wasn't called to the inquest.

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.