Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[lynn cates]

walk this way

Hello Phil. Funny you should mention "Leather Apron." Do you recall the press report that noted his most identifiable feature? It was his peculiar walk. IF there were really a Leather Apron, perhaps it would do to compare the various suspects and their walks. Perhaps there is something in that?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Sally

So then what you have is their acceptance of both Hutchinson and Cross's accounts? How do we know then, to what extent they checked out these witnesses - or even if they did?

If we think that they did, do we then have to place Cross and Hutchinson on an even footing? Do we say that because they were checked out by the police we can assume that they were both innocent? Do we say (alternatively) that perhaps neither of them was innocent?

I'm no expert on Hutchinson and have never got my head around the "Topping" question, plus I get bored rigid by the unending duel between Fisherman and Ben... so I am not going to comment on him. However...

...some observations on Cross/Lechmere:

I don't think that on 31 August the police knew what they were looking for, and I suspect that Cross/Lechmere was taken at face value. They may even have been looking for a "gang" after Smith and Tabram... If Lechmere/Cross gave an alibi for one of both of the previous cases, he might have been dismissed as a potential suspect in the Nichol's killing.

Three police constables were involved soon after the discovery of the body, only one of them met Cross/Lechmere and Paul and he did not insist they went back with him to the scene - I am sure that he did not search or question them very deeply if at all.

By the time of Chapman's death the "Leather Apron" scare was underway, was it not - they were looking for a foreign man who dressed in a particular way. Would it have "crossed" (!) anyone's mind that the man who appeared at the Nichols' inquest probably walked past 29 Hanbury St every day on his way to work?

By the time of MJK's death, the police were looking for a man who could have killed at least FIVE victims. But let's for a moment consider a scenario in which Cross/Lechmere killed only Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes (I'm not asking you to agree with me, just to follow the reasoning) he would surely have been ruled out as a suspect if he could have shown he could not have killed Stride and MJK - even if anyone had thought about "that bloke" found standing over or close to the corpse of Nichols!

I do not, seriously believe in Lechmere/Cross as a suspect or propose him as such, but he intrigues me and I am having some fun mentally playing with the idea.

But - and this is the point that strikes me as so ironic what if "Jack" - the killer we have never been able to identify - had always been known to us, and was the man found so close to the first canonical victim, who's name (s) have long been known!!!

Talk about a solution always in plain sight - it would be so classically simple. What fools we would have been.

Phil

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

The gist of your argument still seems to be that the more “odd or strange” Hutchinson’s story appears to be, the less suspicious he becomes. I think the reverse is far nearer the mark; that a less suspicious account is indicative of a less suspicious individual. We have no conclusive evidence that the more unusual elements of Hutchinson’s account “attracted the police's attention at the time”. They may well have played a role in his discrediting, but there’s no reason to think that it led to suspicion that he might have been the murderer. But even if such suspicions did arise, there is even less reason to conclude that the police were able to make any progress with those suspicions.

You seem to be of the mindset that IF the killer pretended to be a witness and supplied false information to the police, he would have done it better than Hutchinson. Again I disagree, because there’s no reason to think so. The simpler explanation to me is that more evidence of bogus information = greater reason to consider its author suspicious.

I most assuredly regard the identification of Hutchinson as the man seen by Lewis as “irrefutable” because the alternative necessitates the acceptance of a truly remarkable “coincidence.

But I thought the plan was to avoid turning this into a “Hutchinson-Cross bidding war”?

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

But Lechmere..

(Not having a bidding war, absolutely not)

And I really do mean that.

But, your argument appears to be based on the fact that you think Hutchinson's account was more unlikely than that of Lechmere (not you - Cross, then); and that therefore the police would have made sure they checked him (Hutchinson) out.

Yet, the police didn't consider Hutchinson's tale to be unlikely, did they? At first, anyway - at least, we have no evidence for that. It appears that they initially accepted it.

So then what you have is their acceptance of both Hutchinson and Cross's accounts? How do we know then, to what extent they checked out these witnesses - or even if they did?

If we think that they did, do we then have to place Cross and Hutchinson on an even footing? Do we say that because they were checked out by the police we can assume that they were both innocent? Do we say (alternatively) that perhaps neither of them was innocent?

There seems to me to be little to decide between them on the checking out score.

[Lechmere]

I made the point that the odd or strange details relating to Hutchinson, which are the things that attract modern attention, are the very things which I submit would have also attracted the police's attention at the time. This would have led in my estimation (although not in yours) to the police 'checking him out' reasonably thoroughly or as thoroughy as they would have been able to at the time. This this in turn makes it less likely, in my opinion, that he would have been the culprit.

By comparison Cross's story is simple and unremarkable and so it didn't and doesn't attract attention. A cool calculating serial killer would have been like that I suspect, rather than someone who came out with the somewhat haphazard tales of Hutchinson, which as I have said before, probably were lies in good measure.
However although Cross's story was simple, it doesn't add up either. But as it is simple and unremarkable, the fact that it doesn't add up is less obvious, then and evidently now. That is the interesting thing about it.

As I said, I also tend towards the view that Hutchinson lied, but I am not at all sure (as you know) about his coming forward due to him being supposedly identified. This identification was not noted by anyone at the time and so can hardly be deemed 'irrefutable'.

Cross's involvement with the police in the case - early in the sequence- wasn't of his own making. He didn't 'make himself known', he had no choice and even then he gave at best an 'alternative name' rather than 'make himself known'.

[Ben]

“However as I said, turning this thread into a Hutchinson-Cross bidding war won’t be very profitable.”

I agree, Lechmere, so I’ll just briefly address your points, and then we’ll call it quits on this particular bidding war.

I cannot understand the argument that Hutchinson’s more “elaborate story” decreases the likelihood of him having been responsible for the crimes. The story only increases the likelihood that he was lying, and when added to the independent corroboration of his presence at the crime scene, irrefutably provided by Sarah Lewis, a far more suspicious picture is painted than Cross’ legitimate reason for being on the streets on the small hours and straightforward account of his movements.

There are compelling indications that Hutchinson lied about his reasons for standing outside a crime scene on the night in question, and that he only came forward with an “elaborate story” once he realised he’d been spotted.

This is all absent in Cross’ case.

It's also unusual for serial killers to make themselves known to the police (in whatever guise) so early in the series.

But meanwhile, back on topic…!

[Fleetwood Mac]

Phil, Stephen,

Her name was Mrs. Lilley and the Echo of 6 September carried the following article:
"An important statement, throwing considerable light on a point hitherto surrounded with some uncertainty - the time the crime was committed in Buck's-row, or the body deposited there - was made this afternoon by Mrs. Harriet Lilley, who lives two doors from the spot where the deceased was discovered. Mrs. Lilley said: - I slept in front of the house, and could hear everything that occured in the street. On that Thursday night I was somehow very restless. 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. I then woke my husband, and said to him, "I don't know what possesses me, but I cannot sleep to-night." Mrs. 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.

It has been ascertained that on the morning of the date of the murder a goods train passed on the East London Railway at about half-past three - the 3.7 out from New-cross - which was probably the time when Mary Ann Nicholls was either killed or placed in Buck's-row."

Like Phil I think she may have heard the whispered voices of Cross/Lechmere and Paul.

All the best,
Frank

I feel this is one of the more believable witness statements. She could have fabricated what was said between the whisperers to garner a spot of immediate fame, but didn't. No description given etc. Seems she had nothig to gain from this; she simply heard a few noises.

"The voices she heard were in some way connected with it". This suggests that the voices and moans happened within seconds - in order to make that connection.

If so, and you believe the voices were that of Cross and Paul, then that makes Cross a good suspect.

On the other hand, however, why would Paul and Cross whisper? A client/prostitute are more likely to whisper. So, I'll go with the voices being Jack and Polly, and, Cross, on turning into Buck's Row at 3.36, disturbed Jack.

[Lechmere]

Cross was definitely found at the crime scene – Hutchinson placed himself near a crime scene several days later.
That is a big difference.

Cross’s statement stands up better than Hutchinson’s – however I do not agree that it is a ‘non-starter’ to say that this makes Hutchinson less suspicious and Cross more suspicious (for reasons I have already given). To the contrary I think that Hutchinson’s over elaborate story is an argument that mitigates against him being a likely suspect.

Cross did have somewhere to go and was late for work, but didn’t go straight to work, he went on a detour with Robert Paul.

Cross by his own account (depending on which version we take) had between 3 and 18 minutes unaccounted for between leaving home and finding Polly.

However as I said, turning this thread into a Hutchinson-Cross bidding war won’t be very profitable.

[Sally]

Fishy, and with a very thin base.

Yummy

[Lechmere]

Yes - if he had a good relationship with his first step father.

[sleekviper]

If his stepfather had treated him as his own son, and introduced him to others in law enforcement as his son, it may have been the natural choice to use that name in direct contact with the police.

[Ben]

Whoops, you're quite right, Sally. I had it backwards.

"I consider Topping to be something which goes on a pizza."

Fishy, and with a very thin base.

[Sally]

Au Contraire...

Hi Lynn,

Lechmere was an alias of Cross. "Topping" wasn't an alias - just the middle name of someone called George Hutchinson who almost certainly had nothing to do with the Whitechapel murder investigation, in my view.

All the best,
Ben

I believe that Cross was in fact an alias of Lechmere.

I consider Topping to be something which goes on a pizza.

[Ben]

Hi Lynn,

Lechmere was an alias of Cross. "Topping" wasn't an alias - just the middle name of someone called George Hutchinson who almost certainly had nothing to do with the Whitechapel murder investigation, in my view.

All the best,
Ben

[lynn cates]

paralells

Hello Ben.

"His ultimate conclusion that “Everything about Cross as a suspect applies at least equally, and usually more so, to Hutchinson” is one I very much share and endorse."

Makes sense to me. After all, Lechmere/Cross; Topping/Hutchinson. I tend to agree with you both.

Cheers.
LC