Mary Ann Nichols

[paul emmett]

As for PC:s Neil and Thain and the hullabaloo that followed the murder, what makes you think that it went unnnoticed by Harriet Lilley? Fisherman

Hello, Fisherman, Frank, all.

Earlier in this thread, when I wanted to show that Purkis and Green were neither the best witnesses nor the lightest sleepers because the hullabaloo didn't wake them, I did wonder about Lilley too. In her statement, she said, "When I heard about the murder, . . . ." She didn't say, "when I heard all the hullabaloo" or "when I realized there had been a murder." And I felt that her phrasing seemed to imply word of mouth AFTER the fact.

I also think that if you feel that JTR was interrupted, and I do, it's not unreasonable to feel that he had cut in order to collect.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Again - why is anyone actually taking Mrs Lilley seriously?
It's a newspaper story - unverified - and a statement made after the actual event.
Each murder case is littered with people, alleged to have 'heard moans' etc. For heavens sake...

All the best

[Fisherman]

Hi Paul!

"When I heard about the murder..."

Yes, it can be interpreted as Lilley hearing about it by word of mouth, long after the hullabaloo.

And it can be interpreted as something she heard about in connection with the hullabaloo.

And it can be interpreted as something she heard of somewhere inbetween these "extremes".

Wonīt take us anywhere, evidencewise, I think.

There is of course the possibility that the fifteen or so minutes offered after the whispering sequence was enough to allow for Lilley to go back to sleep, and if the investigation on the other side of the street was not all that loud, then maybe she did not hear about the murder until she woke up, went out and spoke to the neighbours. Whenever that may have been.

Do we know? Is there a recording of Lilleys doings after she heard the whispers? Anybody out there?

Not Glenn, though, he shall have to close his ears for the moment; sorry, Glenn! Itīs just that I find Lilleyīs testimony interesting, and the part with the train passing by, making her miss a bit of the proceedings, lends an air of credibility to her words, the way I see it.

The best, all!
Fisherman

[paul emmett]

Hello, Fisherman.

To my knowledge, all we have on Lilley, besides the census reports, is from the article in ECHO reprinted in LLOYDS. There it says that after she heard the whispers, she woke her husband and told him that she could not sleep that night. Then she goes to "When I heard about the murder, . . .."

Are there other sources? Lilley has always seemed credible to me, too--espescially if you take "heard about the murder" as you do.

Sorry, Glenn.

[Jon Guy]

Not Glenn, though, he shall have to close his ears for the moment; sorry, Glenn! Itīs just that I find Lilleyīs testimony interesting, and the part with the train passing by, making her miss a bit of the proceedings, lends an air of credibility to her words, the way I see it.

Spot on, Fisherman !! It is interesting. Possibly not as interesting as one of the many "Would Mary Kelly have looked good in a mini skirt" threads. But, some welcome flavour to the scant Nichols case.

Harriet Lilley doesn`t offer us anything new, she didn`t hear the wheels of the carriage , or whispering in Yiddish.

She was missed by the police, who were chastised by the coroner at the inquest. Luckily, a pressman sensed that this was a "second murder" of enough importance to make the effort. Her story been reprinted the day after the Chapman murder.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello all,

I agree with Paul that Mrs. Lilley seems credible. She claimed to have heard a woman murdered followed by whispering, both of which we know to have taken place. Does her evidence shed any new light? No, because we already knew when and where Nichols was killed and that she was immediately discovered by Cross and Paul who hung around and talked to each other before departing.

I don't think it should be assumed that Mrs. Lilley was 'missed by the police'. They would have knocked on her door. Not everyone is called to the inquest.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jon Guy]

Hi Tom

Lilley was missed by the police. A few posts back I listed who was questioned that morning, as given by Spratling at the inquest. ( The Times. Sourcebook)

[nicole]

Hi Tom,

Just a quick point on your comments about the credibility of Harriet Lilley. You say:

I agree with Paul that Mrs. Lilley seems credible. She claimed to have heard a woman murdered followed by whispering, both of which we know to have taken place.

The only account we have of the 'whispering incident' is from Mrs. Lilley herself.

We know that Cross and Paul conversed but there is no record of them saying that they 'whispered', as such.

For the record, I too think that Lilley is credible.

sincerely
Nicky

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:
"She claimed to have heard a woman murdered followed by whispering"

Is that not jumping the gun a bit, Tom? Lilley spoke of a painful moan and some ghasps, followed by whispering, AT THE TIME THE 3.30-TRAIN PASSED BY. But she did not say that she overheard a murder, did she?
There seems to be very little time elapsing between moan, ghasps and whispering, rendering it improbable that she heard Jack and Cross/Paul. There must have elapsed a minute or two between the cut and Crossīarrival, but the sounds Lilley heard seemed to hang together in time.
Also, if it all happened at 3.30, and if, like you yourself seem to believe, the Ripper was spooked by Cross, there is a ten minute gap here, that ought not be there.
Add to this that what Lilley heard, seemed to have taken place below her window.
My suggestion, as you may have read, is that Lilley heard a couple having sex, some minutes before Nichols and Jack made their appearance.

The best,
Fisherman

[paul emmett]

But she did not say that she overheard a murder, did she?

Also, if it all happened at 3.30, and if, like you yourself seem to believe, the Ripper was spooked by Cross, there is a ten minute gap here, that ought not be there.

My suggestion, as you may have read, is that Lilley heard a couple having sex, some minutes before Nichols and Jack made their appearance.

Hello, Fisherman, all.
Here is what she said.

"Lilley added that as soon as she heard of the murder she came to the conclusion that the voices she heard were in some way connected with it. The cries were very different from those of an ordinary street brawl."

And while I agree with you, Fisherman, that the time gap, among other things, makes it unlikely she heard Cross and Paul whispering. The word "cries" here and the context for it, don't make it sound like sex.

On the other hand, if one believes Lilley, we seem to be left with a choice from: Cross&Paul, MurdererS, or something like your scenario.

[Fisherman]

Here, again, is the wording as reported in the Echo:
"Well, I heard something I mentioned to my husband in the morning. It was a painful moan - two or three faint gasps - and then it passed away. It was quite dark at the time, but a luggage went by as I heard the sounds. There was, too, a sound as of whispers underneath the window. I distincly heard voices, but cannot say what was said - it was too faint."

That is her own wording: Painful moan, some gasps and then whispering. And actually, Paul, if what she heard HAD belonged to a street brawl - namely that when Nichols lost her life - then it would have been much more logical if it sounded like street brawl sounds too, would it not? If, however, the sounds differed from such sounds, then it stands to reason that they came from something else, and NOT a brawl or fight. That, to my mind, tallies well with sounds of sex. Moans and gasps are not all that uncommon it that business, provided you get it right...

The best, Paul!
Fisherman

[paul emmett]

Here, again, is the wording as reported in the Echo:
"Well, I heard something I mentioned to my husband in the morning. It was a painful moan - two or three faint gasps - and then it passed away. It was quite dark at the time, but a luggage went by as I heard the sounds. There was, too, a sound as of whispers underneath the window. I distincly heard voices, but cannot say what was said - it was too faint."

This might be much ado over little, but I want to be sure we are, literrally, on the same page. My quote above in #85was also right from the ECHO. Indeed, it followed yours directly, and I gave it because you had asked what happened AFTER she heard whispers. AND these are Lilleys words too.

So we have painful moan, gasps, and cries. Ant the cries are not those of a brawl. You say they should be of a brawl if they come from the killing, but I don't think JTR ever let it sound like a street brawl. That's why we're here talking about him.

Also I know that moans and gasps come from the "little death", and I know that getting it right is a subjective thing. But I'm still going for both painful moan and cries that Lilley would even think to put in the same sentence as brawl as more associated with the BIG death.

So you don't like PULP FICTION either?

[Fisherman]

Paul!

I know that your quote comes from the Echo too. But my passage quotes Lilley, and your quotes the reporter that spoke to her. When he - not Lilley -speaks about cries, he hints to Lilleys experience. My feeling here is that he just tries to vary the language, and comes up with "cries".

Pulp fiction? Not really, no. Quentin Tarantino is THE most overrated director of the day, if you ask me. And you did, didnīt you?

The best, Paul!
Fisherman

[paul emmett]

Hello, Fisherman.

Yes, there is a distancing in my quote as opposed to yours.

Yes, I did ask you.

No, overrated? Before KILL BILL? NO

My fiance' just came home with mega-expensive sake. I'm off to try it as long as she's buyin'.

Have a good evening.

[Dokk]

I have to disagree. A "quick slash" across the throat would create a bit of blood spray wouldn't you think? There was no sign of this in the area. There was bruising evidence on her chin consistent with someone either holding her jaw firmly while cutting or perhaps from choking her. I'm fairly comfortable with the idea that she was prone and likely dead already from strangulation when the throat cut was made.

In addition, why would you say she met "Jack" on the 30th? She was seen quite alive already in the wee hours of the 31st and not in the company of anyone. The time of encounter with her killer would seem to be placed somewhere between 3:15 and 3:45 on the 31st.

I would like to hear (see?) more thoughts on this line. I'm kinda new here but I've been studying up on this rather intently for about the past week. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the pool of blood under Mary Ann Nichols was something along the line of a foot in diameter. There are statements that her clothing was not overly bloody and there is no mention of blood spray on the gate, wall, pavement or anywhere else for that matter. This indicates that she was quite dead when the perpetrator started cutting, slashing, stabbing or whatever. Maybe she was dead even before she hit the ground. Evidence shows round bruises on the neck area so I think she was probably choked by hand. Now, this brings up another point, if she was choked to death by hand, how strong was the perpetrator? It seems to me that she would loose conciousness before death and the murderer might mistake this for death in which case, blood would still be under pressure and blood spatter would occur with a slashing or cutting wound.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?