Mary Ann Nichols

[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

[Monty]

Paul,

Im referring to the SOC, sorry, wasnt clear.

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]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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)

[Tom_Wescott]

Dan Norder has spoken.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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]

Perhaps I'm partly guilty for this, but we should be careful about painting Llewellyn as a complete moron. A horrible profiler, yes, but he was a man of much medical experience. He gave an initial opinion about the knife used (shorter) and later, following more thorough examinations of the wounds, he decided it was a long blade. This final conclusion is the one we should accept as best representing his professional opinion and shouldn't jump to the conclusion that he was "confused". His differing comments certainly do not suggest that more than one weapon was used.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[paul emmett]

What suggestion of two weapons in the Nichols case? And with whom did Llewellyn disagree?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Originally Posted by paul emmett
SO when I see the suggestions of two weapons that I discussed earlier, I'm not just gonna roll over cause Llewellyn disagrees.




Hi, Tom. This happens a lot with us, so I guess I just need to be more precise. The top here is your last post, which, in turn, quoted my comments which follow, starting with "SO when. . .. " And I thought this sentence, the very sentence of mine you quoted, answers both the questions you asked. Namely: "What suggestion of two weapons in the Nichols case?"--- "The suggestions of two weapons that I discussed earlier." "With whom did Llewellyn disagree?"---Me.

The suggestions of two weapons that I had mentioned were the two different types of wounds, and Llewellyn's own confusion over long or short. Now I'd like to add Phillip's dismissal of a cobbler's knife in the Chapman case--where at least the neck wounds are similar to Nichols's.

Paul

[Tom_Wescott]

SO when I see the suggestions of two weapons that I discussed earlier, I'm not just gonna roll over cause Llewellyn disagrees.

What suggestion of two weapons in the Nichols case? And with whom did Llewellyn disagree?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[paul emmett]

Paul,

You're working backwards, my friend. It doesn't work to say 'Llewellyn said there was only one weapon used, but he was incompetent, so there must have been more than one weapon used.' There's nothing in the documentation to suggest two weapons were used on Nichols.

Hi, Tom.

I'm not saying, "he was incompetent, SO there must have been two weapons"; I'm saying he was incompitent, so I mistrust what he says. And to add to our earlier list, I mistrust him when he says, killer grabbed her chin with his right hand and slit her throat with his left. I mistrust him when he says Polly was killed somewhere else and dumped at Buck's Row. I still mistrust him when he says, "no injuries about the body until just about the lower part of the abdomen." To say nothing of his neck wounds done LAST faux pas. I, in short, mistrust him! SO when I see the suggestions of two weapons that I discussed earlier, I'm not just gonna roll over cause Llewellyn disagrees. And it was Llewellyn's call, right? Just like it was only Killeen who said there were two weapons used on Tabram.


That said, I have a question about the knife. In his short knife mode, Llewellyn says it could have been a shoemaker's knife. When it came to Chapman, Phillips said directly that here, a cobbler's knife would be too short. What are the differences in the wounds that could elicit such divergent assertions? I just don't know.

Have a good day.

[Tom_Wescott]

Paul,

You're working backwards, my friend. It doesn't work to say 'Llewellyn said there was only one weapon used, but he was incompetent, so there must have been more than one weapon used.' There's nothing in the documentation to suggest two weapons were used on Nichols.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott