Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[Observer]

Then there's no evidence to sustain a "reasonable case" against anyone,

Hi Ben

Never a truer word spoken !

Regards


Observer

[Wickerman]

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.

Practical and sensible, yes. And with all due respect to Lechmere, I wondered how Hutchinson crept in under the 'plausible' banner.
Surely to be plausible your suspect must be placed at, or in some way associated with, more than one murder, preferably, most of them.

(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).

Some researchers are very objective at synthesis, putting together a scenario, while being somewhat subjective with their own beliefs. Melvin Harris was the epitomy of this, he was exceptional in his de-bunking efforts but he appeared to abandon all objectivity when developing his own suspect.
Anyone who has a suspect loses objectivity.

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[Ben]

Gosh, it's like "splat the rat" these days when it comes to painfully clueless "objections" to the potential culpability of certain individuals. If Hutchinson doesn't belong under the "plausible" banner, then nobody does. But if people want to persist in these annoyingly gauche "objections", do please let me know, and we'll have another long and entertaining Hutchinson debate here.

If not, shush.

[Observer]

Hi Ben

Not the place to discuss this, but

"If Hutchinson doesn't belong under the "plausible" banner, then nobody does."

And this observation was totally lost on the LV Police Force?

Observer

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

Yes, I believe it was.

Not that we can attach any blame to the police for this, who had no experience of serial crime and its perpetrators.

Ben

[Observer]

And a total lack of common sense?

Observer

[Ben]

No, not at all.

"Common sense" is dictated to large extent by experience.

[Lechmere]

Wickerman
Hutchinson at least has points about him that are arguable and I can concede that a case can be made for him as the culprit. It stretches certain things (which I won’t go into again) but I can see how the arguments follow. It has to be said this is only compared to most other suspects, nearly all of whom are barely worth discussing in my opinion. At least he was near one murder scene (or at least he claimed to have been) and as Ben never tires of pointing out that is more that can be said for virtually all other suspects (including Chapman and Kosminski).

By way of contrast Cross was right on top of one murder scene, then walked past the next one (Annie Chapman) and then walked either past or very close to the Kelly crime scene, and went that way quite possibly to avoid the Tabram murder scene – all on the same night. Of course other people who lived in that area of the East End and worked in the city would also have travelled those same streets, so he wouldn’t have been unique. But his mother and eldest daughter lived very close to the Stride murder scene and Torso find, and Wentworth Model Dwellings was on his route back from Mitre Square. And at risk of losing my objectivity, none of the other City worker wayfarers was found over a corpse... and then gave an alternative name etc. etc. etc.

Observer
As I pointed out in a more appropriate thread an American newspaper had the common sense to suspect Hutchinson, and I would suppose they had even less experience with the criminal mentality than the nascent Metropolitan Police.

[Observer]

Observer
As I pointed out in a more appropriate thread an American newspaper had the common sense to suspect Hutchinson, and I would suppose they had even less experience with the criminal mentality than the nascent Metropolitan Police.

Hi Lechmere

Thanks for that. That's very interesting. I wasn't aware that there were contempories of Hutchinson who were suspicious of his behavior on the morning of the 9th November. And they had these suspicions without the knowledge of the workings of the serial killer's method and mentality. Amazing !!! I'd hazard a guess that a few of the lads who worked in Commercial Street Police Station had a slight inkling that Hutchinson might be a guilty man. It's a great Pity that none of their reports have survived the passage of time, they would tell a story of that I'm sure. My apoligies for discussing Hutchinson here on this thread.

Regards

Observer

[Abby Normal]

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).

Hi Letchmere
Not sure if you were responding to me but..

If Cross gave his other name for fear of retaliation, I just put forth that it would not be that shocking if that was the reason. Technically, he probably HAD to give his current address for legal/logistical reasons for being a witness and appearing at the inquest. Giving his other name may have been OK in the eyes of the police. Heck, as far as we know, he may have asked police that he needed to give another name for fear of reprisal and they were OK with it.
Its not like it was a fake name-technically it was his name.

A name alone, especially an odd name like Letchmere, may also have been just as useful to a gang/murderer in trying to locate someone who worked "on the streets" such as a carman.

By the way, I agree with you that Cross should be looked at more carefully as potential suspect-for some of the reasons you state. But i have a hard time reconciling the fact that JtR, a carman, late for work, would ever consider killing on his way to work.

[Lechmere]

By his own testimony he left home at either 3.20 or 3.30 (both times are given). At a brisk walk it is 25 minutes door to door. He wasn't late for work. He made himself late (possibly, maybe he lied) by dawdling around prior to 'finding' Polly, and then by walking a longer route to get to work just so he could accompnay Robert Paul and avoid walking in the direction of the Tabram murder after leaving Mizen.

[Abby Normal]

By his own testimony he left home at either 3.20 or 3.30 (both times are given). At a brisk walk it is 25 minutes door to door. He wasn't late for work. He made himself late (possibly, maybe he lied) by dawdling around prior to 'finding' Polly, and then by walking a longer route to get to work just so he could accompnay Robert Paul and avoid walking in the direction of the Tabram murder after leaving Mizen.

Hi Lech
Do you find it probable that a serial killer on foot, on his way to work, would use that time to act on his urges?

Is a serial killer going to think to himself that I should bring my knife with me on the way to work-just in case?

No, I think these murders took a modicum of planning-He went out when the urge was strong and he knew he had time.

Now if Cross was lying about being on the way to work...
But the police must have checked that out right?

[Lechmere]

My guess is that the Ripper committed his crimes when he both was ‘in the mood’ and he had opportunity. I would expect that sometimes he would want to find someone but couldn’t – either there were too many people about, or something similar. I also think that he committed the crimes swiftly. Maybe it took five minutes - in some instances much less. Nichols from being picked up to being killed could have taken much less than ten minutes. This would allow time for her to be picked up on Whitechapel Road and walk around to Bucks Row. The act of murder and mutilation would only take a couple of minutes.

I went through the rationale of how a serial killer who had a family and a normal job would get the opportunity to kill. I think that if he had an early start job, on his way to work would be about the only time available.

Just say for the sake of argument that Cross was the Ripper and that he wanted to kill people to satisfy his urges. When would he have been able to accomplish his crimes? I would suggest that almost the only available time would be on his way to work. Perhaps he left a little early. Doing it then gave him an alibi for being out and about and it wouldn’t make his wife suspicious that he was out at strange hours.

The other time he (or any other working man) would have been able to do it was Saturday night as Sunday wouldn’t have been a work day. The double event was on Saturday night/Sunday morning. It happened near Cross’s mother’s house, where she lived with her third husband. Cross’s eldest daughter also lived with his mother. I dare say he visited sometimes, maybe on Saturday nights.

By strange coincidence they had lived in Pinchin Street, just opposite ‘that’ arch. Cross also lived in Pinchin Street as a child (when it was called Thomas Street).

[Abby Normal]

My guess is that the Ripper committed his crimes when he both was ‘in the mood’ and he had opportunity. I would expect that sometimes he would want to find someone but couldn’t – either there were too many people about, or something similar. I also think that he committed the crimes swiftly. Maybe it took five minutes - in some instances much less. Nichols from being picked up to being killed could have taken much less than ten minutes. This would allow time for her to be picked up on Whitechapel Road and walk around to Bucks Row. The act of murder and mutilation would only take a couple of minutes.

I went through the rationale of how a serial killer who had a family and a normal job would get the opportunity to kill. I think that if he had an early start job, on his way to work would be about the only time available.

Just say for the sake of argument that Cross was the Ripper and that he wanted to kill people to satisfy his urges. When would he have been able to accomplish his crimes? I would suggest that almost the only available time would be on his way to work. Perhaps he left a little early. Doing it then gave him an alibi for being out and about and it wouldn’t make his wife suspicious that he was out at strange hours.

The other time he (or any other working man) would have been able to do it was Saturday night as Sunday wouldn’t have been a work day. The double event was on Saturday night/Sunday morning. It happened near Cross’s mother’s house, where she lived with her third husband. Cross’s eldest daughter also lived with his mother. I dare say he visited sometimes, maybe on Saturday nights.

By strange coincidence they had lived in Pinchin Street, just opposite ‘that’ arch. Cross also lived in Pinchin Street as a child (when it was called Thomas Street).

Hi Lechmere
Good points and interesting details-thanks.

However, there is still the problem of showing up at work with blood, internal organs and a knife

[Lechmere]

I would suggets a knife would be easy to conceal. He went to work with a big apron of sacking material (he appeared at his inquest in it - another odd feature as he wouldn't have ben able to go to work).

We don't know that the Ripper would have been covered in blood and if he was that wouldf be a problem whether he was going to work or not. I would suggets that whoever the Ripper was would ahve wiped himslef on the victims clothes - they all had big dresses and then washed in one of the many easily accessible taps or pumps that dotted the area.

We don't really know for sure that he took organs with him. If he did how far did he take them? The Eddowes kidney was on Sunday morning, when the apron was cut off - maybe he wrapped it in some paper he found and that's why he dropped the apron?