Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[Lechmere]

That reasoning goes for whoever was the Ripper.
However I think he looked for victims on certain nights (when he was in the mood) and in certain areas and went with them wherever they took him.
I don't think it's likely he said:
" 'Ere I know a nice back yard we can use".
My guess is that if he felt unsafe in doing it in any location he would have made his excuses and left.

[Abby Normal]

Using his other name for fear of retaliation by the killer(s) is a reasonable explanation IMHO

[Lechmere]

Ok – let’s work through that one.
You are a member of the High Rip gang and want to find a witness to a punishment beating of a prostitute and lean on him.
The witness provides appears at the inquest under a false name but gives his real address and workplace.

The question is, how difficult will it be for you to find him to put the frighteners on?
Not very – don’t you think?
In fact his name alone wouldn’t really have been of much help at all to those High Rip merchants would it? What they’d need is his address, or failing that his workplace.
(In the place of the High Rip gang you can substitute Leather Apron of you wish).

[Observer]

Finally how likely is it that he would have killed gain so soon after?
I think we can find plenty of examples of serial killers behaving in a similar manner.

Hi Lechmere

I think you miss my point. How many serial killers have been called to give evidence at the inquest of one of their victims, give that evidence showing no outward signs of stress, and then six days later murder another victim within spitting distance of the previous murder? I think we'll have to agree to differ on the subject of Charles Lechmere/Cross as JTR.

Observer

[Lechmere]

Hi Observer
You can pretty much find all sorts of different behaviours in serial killers to make a case for anything, so it isn’t I think very productive to enter a bidding war quoting various precedents, none of which could be exact matches. For example plenty of serial killers and murderers are involved in the police investigation in some way. The problem normal people have in fathoming what a serial killer would or wouldn’t do or risk, is that a normal person isn’t a homicidal psychopath and as such it is virtually impossible to see into their mind.
Accordingly I don’t think it is realistic to strike out a potential culprit on the basis that a normal person wouldn’t risk killing again so soon after being a witness at an inquest.

Could the Ripper have killed on his way to work?
If there was a working man, with a wife and (say) eight kids at home, and for whatever reason he developed into a serial killer – when would he be able to committed his crimes?
People of that background do become serial killers and I think it has to be accepted that Jack the Ripper could have been of that mould.
A working man could be at work over twelve hours a day six days a week, and would be at home and with the wife and eight kids or asleep for what... eight or twelve hours?

He would have to commit his crimes in a way that did not draw attention in his household. I would suggest that by far the most accessible moment for him to commit his crimes would, if he had an early start, be on his way to work. The streets would have been relatively quiet and he had a reason to be out.
When else could such a man have done it? In the late afternoon or early evening when in his way home? I don’t think so.
Or should he pop out late-ish, commit his crime and slip back home? That would be noticeable at home.
I think that if the culprit was a married man with a job, then the only time when he would have opportunity would be on his way to work, provided he had an early enough start. Or perhaps on Saturday night when he didn’t have to go to work next day (e.g. the Double Event when the attacks took place a bit earlier than the others).

Would he have been blood splattered? Maybe, maybe not.
Whoever did it, and whatever his personal status, would have faced that potential problem and would have possibly drawn attention to themselves – entering their lodging house, late and bloody for example, or sheltering in a doorway waiting for first light, with blood drying on his hands and staining his clothes.
Then again there were many public water sources where he could have washed his hands and face – there are at least four still in evidence in the immediate vicinity – Aldgate Pump, the fountain at St Mary’s Church, Whitechapel, the fountain outside Christ Church, Spitalfields, and the one outside Christ Church School on Brick Lane.
There used to be loads more easily assessable – there was a tap in Miller’s Court for example.
I think he took care not to get bloody and probably wiped his hands on their dresses.

[Observer]

Hi Lechmere

You make a good point regarding the possibility that the Ripper struck whilst going to work, at least for the Chapman killing. Although I am of the opinion that he killed Chapman whilst returning from work. I think Anderson got it spot on when he stated that the killer did not reside in a lodging house. Your suggestion that he was a working married man, possibly with children, has a lot going for it in my opinion. And a nightwatchman, or someone whose job meant he could come and go freely would fit the bill. Failing this, it could well be that it was a bunch of Russians, with strong affiliations to The Fenians.

Regards

Observer

[Lechmere]

Of the ‘normal’ suspects Chapman, Hutchinson and Kosminski have some plausibility – but are each very lacking in certain respects. I have nothing against the possibility of the Ripper being a ‘loner killer’. But I have to admit I have no real time for the various conspiracy theory options.

[Lechmere]

Colin
With reference to the twists and turns referred to by Robert Linford on the other site:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23718718-partygoer-stabbed-to-death-by-gang-armed-with-knives-planks-and-bicycle-spokes.do

[Phil H]

Lechmere,

I am a little confused. You wrote:

Of the ‘normal’ suspects Chapman, Hutchinson and Kosminski have some plausibility – but are each very lacking in certain respects. I have nothing against the possibility of the Ripper being a ‘loner killer’. But I have to admit I have no real time for the various conspiracy theory options.

When you say - I have nothing against the possibility of the Ripper being a ‘loner killer’. That's fine, but you then say you have no time for the conspiracy theories.

So where is the middle ground?

Are you implying that you believe that JtR had an accomplice? If not, then surely the only option is a lone killer?

Or are you saying that while the "usual suspects" you list are not (to you) satisfactory candidates, Lechmere/Cross would be?

I would argue that there is MUCH less reason to suspect Cross/Lechmere than (say) Kosminski, though (pace Fisherman) there is NO evidence to sustain a reasonable case against Hutchinson, and only the fact that he was named by Abberline, to implicate Chapman. (Sugden, I assume, was pressured by his publishers to name someone and chose Chapman as the one that could be argued without undermining the major part of his work - if he had chosen one of the conventional supects - Kosminski, Druitt etc - his academic credentials could easily have been shot down, and attention would have been focused on that point alone).

For myself, I differ from you Lechmere in that I don't think Cross/Lechmere "dunnit", I just think his story warrants more attention that it has hitherto received.

Phil

[Lechmere]

Sorry - when I said 'lone' killer I actually meant 'loner' killer - i.e. a single person perhaps living in a lodging house, possibly with an unstable work background, as opposed to a family man with a steady job.

I listed Chapman, Hutchinson and Kosminski just because I think they are the best generally accepted suspects. I think each has big flaws – probably Chapman has the least flaws.

As for Cross I am just putting the case for him as a potential suspect and drawing attention to the many aspects of his story and his background which should I think be looked at in much greater detail. I think it adds up to much greater grounds for suspicion that nearly all other suspects, indeed enough to rival the most popular suspects.
For example considerable research has gone into Flemming/Fleming – in trying to identify him, or into Joe Barnett, but virtually nothing into Cross – as you point out.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Lechmere

You make a good point regarding the possibility that the Ripper struck whilst going to work, at least for the Chapman killing. Although I am of the opinion that he killed Chapman whilst returning from work. I think Anderson got it spot on when he stated that the killer did not reside in a lodging house. Your suggestion that he was a working married man, possibly with children, has a lot going for it in my opinion. And a nightwatchman, or someone whose job meant he could come and go freely would fit the bill. Failing this, it could well be that it was a bunch of Russians, with strong affiliations to The Fenians.

Regards

Observer

You are covering a lot of territory there, Observer. As for the Russians having done it, what evidence have you that they would have "strong affiliations to The Fenians." It would appear to me that the Russians would have little reason to trust the Fenians and vice versa. One other point, how many working men "could come and go freely" -- if they came and went when they were supposed to be working, they wouldn't be doing their job, would they?

Chris

[Lechmere]

Chris
The nature of some jobs allows to worker to flit about. That is one reason why quite a lot of serial killers fit the 'white van man' profile. The Victorian equivalent would be 'carman'.

[Ben]

there is NO evidence to sustain a reasonable case against Hutchinson

Then there's no evidence to sustain a "reasonable case" against anyone, unless people have extremely funky ideas as to what "reasonable" ought to mean in this context.

[Lechmere]

I guess you would have to say a 'reasonable case' in the context of other Ripper suspects, rather than against any normal benchmark for proof of guilt.

[Observer]

You are covering a lot of territory there, Observer. As for the Russians having done it, what evidence have you that they would have "strong affiliations to The Fenians." It would appear to me that the Russians would have little reason to trust the Fenians and vice versa. One other point, how many working men "could come and go freely" -- if they came and went when they were supposed to be working, they wouldn't be doing their job, would they?

Chris

Hi Chris

When I mentioned the Russians, and the Fenians, I was being a little sarcastic. You see certain posters entertain the idea that those two groups of people might be responsible for the Whitechapel atrocities. Sorry if I misled you. Regarding "how many working men could come and go freely", not a lot would be the answer, although there are a few.

More interestingly however there were job's such as slaughter men, who worked nights, and when they had reached their quota they would get away early so to speak. The following from the inquest of Polly Nichols

" Henry Tomkins, horse-slaughterer, 12, Coventry-street, Bethnal-green, was the next witness. He deposed that he was in the employ of Messrs. Barber, and was working in the slaughterhouse, Winthrop-street, from between eight and nine o'clock on Thursday evening till twenty minutes past four on Friday morning. He and his fellow workmen usually went home upon finishing their work, but on that morning they did not do so"

also

" [Juryman?] Where did you go between twenty minutes past twelve and one o'clock? - I and my mate went to the front of the road.
[Juryman?] Is not your usual hour for leaving off work six o'clock in the morning, and not four? - No; it is according to what we have to do. Sometimes it is one time and sometimes another.

I am at the moment looking at several other jobs of work involving "job and finish".

Regards

Observer