Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[FrankO]

Hence Neil could see the policeman passing Brady Street. Hence the Ripper could have seen some one approaching before they could see him. This no doubt was why Polly took her last customer to that spot.

Hi Lechmere,

It's interesting to note that PC Neil heard PC Thain pass Brady Street, at a distance of some 135 yards. And that's quite probably what happened not too long before: the Ripper heard Cross turn into Buck's Row from Brady Street, which made him leave the scene.

All the best,
Frank

[Lechmere]

With reference to the first post by Barnaby:
The police immediately searched the railway very closely.
The slaughtermen in the yard seem to have been closely questioned also.

I think the Nichols murder is perhaps the most interesting as it shows the Ripper at work in a purer state – before he was influenced by the hue and cry that resulted from the publicity surrounding his own actions. I don’t think it was the first – I think Tabram was his first murder, but that was a try-out and didn’t receive much attention.

Because the Nichols murder is not discussed many inaccuracies get retold – about Cross, about who did what and when.

I don’t agree that there is no mystery – there is plenty. There were a number of policemen walking the beat nearby or passing through Bucks Row. Polly seems to have taken an hour to get to Bucks Row when she was last seen ten minutes away.
There are numerous errors by the police at the outset.
Also I think it is certain that Polly lay in a dark shadowy area. I think it was easier to see away from that spot – to Brady Street or up Bucks Row in a easterly direction, than it would have been to see the murder scene when approaching it at distance. This was due to the lighting.
Hence Neil could see the policeman passing Brady Street. Hence the Ripper could have seen some one approaching before they could see him. This no doubt was why Polly took her last customer to that spot.

[Phil H]

When I first started to study the Whitechapel murders with any seriousness, in about 1972, I felt that the Nichols' killing had something to tell us. I could never quite work out what. I still don't.

I have come to the conclusion gradually that there may be mistakes in the warmth of the body, allowing "Jack" a little extra time to depart the scene.

But then, more recently, I have started to ponder the question - could Cross/Letchmere have been Jack. In the dark whatever bloodstains there were may not have attracted attention. He was found standing over the body. We now know he gave a false name to the authorities. When Paul approached he simply pretended to have stumbled across the body and made up the story of a tarpaulin (for that story to have any reality, the street must surely still have been dark enough to make such confusion believeable).

Can someone enlighten me as to the grounds for dismissing Cross/Letchmere as a suspect for the other murders (or at least Chapman and Eddowes)? I assume they were assessed, but I cannot recall ever having seen them.

Thanks,

Phil

[Dave James]

Nichols was possibly the Ripper`s first victim and had not developed trophy taking. If he had designs on total evisceration and organ theft at that stage then why pick somewhere open and exposed like Buck Row, unlike the other murder sites. Even the random slashes to Nichol`s abdomen don`t appear to have been made in order to enter the abdomen, unlike the others.

Hi jon,
Good points, but was Buck's Row any more exposed than the other sites?

Annie Chapman in the yard of a house known to be used for 'immoral purposes' at a time when people were getting up and going to work and people out and about on the streets.

Liz Stride - Dutfield's Yard by a club that was just running down with people already getting ready to leave and the streets still quite busy.

Eddowes in Mitre Square near clubs just closing and discharging customers. Again very close to busy streets.

I mean, these were all open and exposed probably even more so than Buck's Row.

One thing you can say is that Jack liked to take risks! Catch me if you can!

All the best
Dave

[DVV]

If he had designs on total evisceration and organ theft at that stage then why pick somewhere open and exposed like Buck Row, unlike the other murder sites. Even the random slashes to Nichol`s abdomen don`t appear to have been made in order to enter the abdomen, unlike the others.

Hi Jon,

agreed. Actually, the idea that he had been disturbed comes from Baxter, after the Chapman's murder. It's all about his theory.

Amitiés,
David

[Jon Guy]

Perhaps the ripper heard Cross's footsteps and then left?

Possibly, Addy. The narrow streets and tall buildings may have amplified footsteps but there was still a lot going on around Bucks Row so it would not have been as quiet as we think at that time.

Also, it`s a good 100 hundred yards from the murder site to the corner of Brady St. Cross himself only heard Robert Paul`s footsteps when Paul was forty feet away, and Paul had already noted Cross standing in the road.

[Addy]

Hi Jon,

Perhaps the ripper heard Cross's footsteps and then left?

Greetings,

Addy

[Jon Guy]

Hi David

Interesting thread!!

You make a good point about the general consensus that the killer was disturbed by Cross. I have always been bothered by this, for a number of reasons:

Obviously, the first is Cross saw or heard nothing to make him think he had disturbed someone. Although dark, there was a lamp opposite the murder site, and could the Ripper have seen Cross when he turned into Bucks Row? If the Ripper saw Cross, then Cross should have seen the Ripper?

Despite the belief that Cross and Paul thought they detected Polly move, we can put that to bed now, she was obviously dead and would have died before the Ripper had finished cutting her throat.

Polly was already cold to the touch on discovery.

At 04.00am, Dr Llewellyn, gave a window of T.O.D. of up to half an hour.

Mrs Lilley possibly heard the assault taking place just after half three.

Nichols was possibly the Ripper`s first victim and had not developed trophy taking. If he had designs on total evisceration and organ theft at that stage then why pick somewhere open and exposed like Buck Row, unlike the other murder sites. Even the random slashes to Nichol`s abdomen don`t appear to have been made in order to enter the abdomen, unlike the others.

[Dave James]

Let's bring Polly back into the light

Hi all,
Barnaby started this thread by asking ‘Why is there so little interest in Nichols?’ and ‘Why isn't there more of a focus on this murder?’ His first reply, in effect, was that the case was cut and dried. I must admit that was also my attitude, having been into the Ripper case since the 1970’s where this was a common attitude.

However I decided to have a rethink and after trawling this site for more info I started to re-assess my thinking. Thanks to Tom and other writer’s dissertations I realised that there was more to Polly’s murder than meets the eye, as you will have seen by my postings.

So let’s start by re-assessing poor Dr Llewellyn. This was a local GP drawn into the case because he was the nearest doctor to the murder site. He was not a trained police surgeon; therefore he would only have had a basic knowledge of crime scene protocol – if that.

He is condemned for only making a brief examination at the crime scene – he sees a woman with her throat gashed open, not breathing. Her clothing was not disturbed so there was no reason to suspect any further foul play. His instructions were to remove the body and he would examine it more thoroughly later. You can’t fault that!

OK, he shouldn’t have talked to the Press saying that he thought the victim could have been killed elsewhere. That caused problems at the time and created a ‘Mad doctor murdering in a coach and dumping elsewhere’ scenario for the 1970’s and 80’s. But at the time how would he be aware of how discrete he was supposed to be? As I said, he was a local GP drawn into a horrific situation.

At first sight though, what he supposedly said makes sense. There was not a lot of blood about the scene – as has been seen since, and was known at the time, the blood was soaked into the back of the clothing and also pooled in the body cavities. This was known very soon afterwards, when Inspector Spratling examined the clothing at the mortuary. But it seemed to be ignored at the time and still is by some authors.

There is no doubt that Poll’s other injuries would have been found by Dr Llewellyn when he did his later examination, even though Inspector Spratling got there first.

So let’s be a bit fairer to poor old Dr Llewellyn!

As for Polly’s murder. She wasn’t just the first canonical, she was the first full blown Ripper murder. If you take Tabram as a warm up event, that was a rage attack. If you ignore Tabram, Polly was what would become Jack’s trademark calling card. Victim immobilised and laid out on the floor, throat cut, two slices, then evisceration. It is even possible that Polly would have lost body parts if Jack had had more time. The general consensus now being that Jack was disturbed by Paul Cross.

Let's face it, some of his other murders were touch and go as to whether he achieved his goal, time wise.

I feel that there is a lot more to this murder than meets the eye and this and similar threads give us the opportunity to explore further. All that it needs is the various threads to be collated and who knows, there could be a major clue in front of us, undiscovered because poor Poll has been badly ignored.
All the best
Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

Great work, Dave James!!!!

Actually, I think Dave has discovered something here, and that's great. It would appear from his evidence that the good doctor did not revisit the mortuary with the object of looking for missing organs in mind. But based on that visit he 'did not believe' any organs were missing. He is probably correct, because the abdominal wound was not all that big, but it doesn't appear that Polly was opened up and investigated for any missing organs. Therefore, it is a possibility...albeit less than likely...that something was missing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

I think a more likely explanation was that Llewellyn was covering his own ass, it has been said that he was inexperienced in this kind of situation, but is it possible that Baxter had already heard rumours of the 'unknown American' bodypart collector that he brought up at Chapman's inquest, as early as the beggining of September and that he asked Llewellyn to recheck after the 1st inquest session?

All the best
Dave

Hi Dave,

Very unlikely, imo. Nothing, in Nichols' case, could suggest such a theory before Chapman's murder.
I maintain that Baxter and Llewellyn managed to cut gossip short on 17 Sept.
Note also that Llewellyn wasn't even called on 3 Sept (2nd day of the inquest).

Amitiés,
David

[Dave James]

Timeline

Hi all,

I've put together a timeline of events to try and clear this up.

Polly Murdered Fri 31 August

1st inquest session - Saturday 1st September. Llewellyn gives evidence of injuries to Nichols.

2nd inquest session - Monday 3rd September. Inquest adjourned to Monday 17th September.

Funeral Thursday 6th September.

Annie Chapman murdered Saturday 8th September.

Daily News 18th September 1888 reporting on resumed inquest:

Dr. Llewellyn said that after he had given his evidence on the previous occasion [Sat 1st Sept] he visited the mortuary, and made a further examination of the body. He found a scar of old standing on the forehead. He did not believe that any portion of the body was missing.

So, the ‘further examination’ was between 1st September and the funeral on 6th September, in which Llewellyn examined the body further for signs of evisceration.

Annie Chapman wasn’t murdered until 8th September – two days after Polly’s funeral. So it couldn’t have been as a result of her murder and mutilation that the further examination was made.

From Baxter’s summing up 17th September:
The taking of some of the abdominal viscera from the body of Chapman suggests that that may have been the object of her death. Is it not possible that this may also have been the motive in case we have under consideration? I suggest to you as a possibility that these two women may have been murdered by the same man with the same object, and that in the case of Nichols the wretch was disturbed before he had accomplished his object, and having failed in the open street he tries again, within a week of his failure, in a more secluded place.

But, the idea of body part collecting cannot have been suggested until after Chapman’s murder on 8th September – two days after Polly was buried.

I think a more likely explanation was that Llewellyn was covering his own ass, it has been said that he was inexperienced in this kind of situation, but is it possible that Baxter had already heard rumours of the 'unknown American' bodypart collector that he brought up at Chapman's inquest, as early as the beggining of September and that he asked Llewellyn to recheck after the 1st inquest session?

All the best
Dave

[Hunter]

Testimony

Hello All,

This is from the Times- Sept. 18


'Mr. Llewellyn, surgeon, recalled, said that since the last inquiry he had been to the mortuary and again examined deceased. She had an old scar on the forehead. No part of the viscera was missing. He had nothing to add to his previous evidence.'

The last inquiry was on the 3rd so he had time to examine Nichols before burial. Hope this helps.

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[DVV]

Hi all

Dave James made a very good point : there's something unclear...

Llewellyn was re-called on Monday 17 September and testified that he had re-examined the body since "the last inquiry", and that no part of the viscera was missing...

Certainly he was re-called "in the light" of the Hanbury Street murder, but he couldn't have re-examined Nichols body "in that light" - since she was buried already...

The only solution, imo, is that he was re-called to cut gossip short.

Amitiés,
David

[Hunter]

Hi Tom
Thanks for your reply.
The point that I'm trying to make is that if Polly were buried on the 6th Sept and Chapman was murdered on the 8th Sept (during the period of the inquest), how and when was the examination carried out? Was Polly exhumed? I don't think that I've ever seen any reference to this happening.
I can understand a request for a further examination in light of the injuries to Chapman, and the possibility it was done by the same person, but under the circumstances, when was the request made?

Hello Dave,

As far as I know, Polly was buried on the 6th. Llewellyn was recalled after the Chapman murder to verify that Nichols had not had any organs removed- in light of what they found with Chapman. The date of that session of the inquest was after Chapman's murder.

Best Wishes,
Hunter