Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[Hunter]

It would seem she was attacked from the front, rendered unconscious, and laid on the ground where her throat was cut.

Hi Tom,

I think all of your points are valid, but just to play devil's advocate here-

It would seem that an attack from the rear would be more advantageous as the victim would be less likely to fight back with her arms. He could also pull her back if she did resist to throw her off ballance. I am aware of the bruises on her face and good ol' Llewellyn's opinion of these, but the same hand reached with from the back could leave the same marks. These street prostitutes usually serviced their costomers from behind rather than from the front as this was less awkward. Many didn't allow full penetration to prevent venereal disease and unwanted pregnancy- Not to claim that poor Polly was necessarily concerned about that but that was probably her MO as well as the others.

Of course, in her besotten condition he may have just knocked her down and then choked her.

The one wound originating from the pubic area and ending over the thigh may have been the start of a uterus extraction that was either not followed through or was interrupted.

Just some thoughts.

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Hunter. I'll take a stab at your questions. But there's really not a lot of room for debate in this murder. I say this because all commentators seem to be in general agreement as to the details, and if everyone agrees, a debate is not likely to occur.

Was she attacked from the front or behind?

It would seem she was attacked from the front, rendered unconscious, and laid on the ground where her throat was cut.

Were there genital mutilations that were kept out of the public inquest ?

No. We have official files telling us of the injuries.

Was the killer interrupted by Cross ?

Almost certainly, unless Sam Flynn wants to 'revise' this murder out of the tally as well, along with Stride and Kelly. In fact, it's very likely the Ripper had time only to escape to a nearby yard where he watched Cross and Paul and possibly PC Neil. Although the mystery man who walked through Bucks Row unmolested after the police and doctors were on scene may have just been the 'Leon Goldstein' of this case, he may also have been the Ripper.

Was her murder silent or did the railway traffic muffle her cries.

Possibly neither. Many of the neighbors were not even awakened by the trodding steps of 7 policeman, so likewise Nichols may have been some noise and simply not have been heard.

Was the murderer right of left handed ?

He was right-handed. That's pretty well agreed upon.

Was Llewellyn as competent as one could be expected under those circumstances ?

Absolutely not. Not having investigated better at the scene can be chocked up to laziness. Just another dead whore, after all. But his later theorizing that her abdominal mutilations came BEFORE the wound to her throat is sheer stupidity.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

Were there genital mutilations that were kept out of the public inquest ?
Hunter

Impossible, imo. It couldn't have been kept secret by the numerous police and official reports.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Was Llewellyn as competent as one could be expected under those circumstances ?
Hunter

Definitely not... Another neighbor, by the way, just like Killeen, but not a forensic expert.
However he did better than Killeen.
In fact, from Killeen to Bond, one would note some kind of "improvement", though all of them have made mistakes at times.

Amitiés,
David

[Hunter]

Debate

Hello Everyone,

There seemed to be more press coverage over Tabram than Nichols but that may be because Chapman's followed close behind. All of the murders were spaced farther apart except these two- which places poor Polly as an afterthought.

There is still room for discussion- or debate if you will.

Was she attacked from the front or behind?

Were there genital mutilations that were kept out of the public inquest ?

Was the killer interrupted by Cross ?

Was her murder silent or did the railway traffic muffle her cries.

Was the murderer right of left handed ?

Was Llewellyn as competent as one could be expected under those circumstances ?

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[Tom_Wescott]

In the case of Nichols, there's not much to debate. There's no controversy over her candidacy as a Ripper victim, because her murder occurred before there was a recognized series, there's nowhere near the press information, and her case is unique in that there's not a single witness to debate over. What's interesting is to see how lacksadasical Dr. Llewellyn and the constables were when there was no pressure on them to catch a mad killer. It all changed after this murder.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[KatBradshaw]

Well not like in the case of Kelly indoors or like the double event.

[DVV]

She isn't killed in an especially interesting place or at an interesting time.

What do you mean, Kate ?

Amitiés,
David

[KatBradshaw]

I think it is a real shame that she is not given more attention.
We know so much about her history in comparison to the others which is probably why there is so much less to debate. We don't have to wonder if she is actually someone else or if she really is a Ripper victim. She isn't killed in an especially interesting place or at an interesting time.
But we must not forget that as much as the rest of the C5 she was a victim of Jack the Ripper.

[Tom_Wescott]

Here's a link to my favorite essay on Nichols.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-old-wounds.html

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Also, there's a distinct lack of hard facts about her injuries - and what little we have from Dr Llewellyn is somewhat confusing, to say the least. As it was, the papers couldn't have anticipated what was about to hit them within a week of Nichols' death, so their coverage is understandably patchy.

[sdreid]

I think there is importance and then interest. In a serial killer case, most would agree that the first, the second and the last murders are usually the most important and there's a very large chance that she was one of those first two. Regarding interest, as has been stated here, we don't know what really transpired after she spoke with her friend so there's not as much to discuss or argue about.

[Addy]

Hi JTRS,

He could also have bumped into the night watchman by accident and thought it would look suspicious if he didn't comment on something that would be known within minutes in the whole area. And in the dark/halflight you probably couldn't see his hands. Or he kept them in his pockets.

greetings,

Addy

[DVV]

Hi JTRS,

the man apparently didn't stop. He took absolutely no risk passing by and uttering his strange sentence to Mulshaw.
Elusive and unlikely as he may be, he is still the only suspect seen by a witness that night.

Amitiés,
David

[JTRSickert]

This murder has indeed the least "mystery" around it. However, I find the idea of JtR being disturbed in this case interesting too. A night watchman nearby said someone said to him Watchmen, old man, I believe someone is murdered down there. He saw Nichols surrounded by police. Whitehead and Rivett suggest this (not the nightwatchman!) might have been the Ripper.

Hmmm, I'm not so sure. It is interesting, but I have my doubts. While it is true that the killer may not have had much blood on himself, his hands may have very well been blood stained and, if I was the killer, I wouldn't want to draw attention to myself by going to someone to tell them about the murder. I would just get as far away as possible and not look back.