Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[GregBaron]

Take a ride in my car...

Hi all,

Just some questions that have occurred over this debate. I’m not exactly sure what a carman is but I suppose it is one who has some sort of vehicle from which he provides transport. Would a car be a nice thing to have when picking up prostitutes? “Hey lass just jump in my car and I’ll wheel you to the nearest alley, no one will hear a thing.” Or perhaps it would be a good prop to have after a murder to deflect suspicion?, but if this was the case wouldn’t any witnesses say “Hmm. I saw a mysterious car lying against a wall in Hanbury Street” for example. Wouldn’t someone also steal an unattended car? Secondly, would the ripper be standing some feet off admiring his handiwork when he could be further mutilating or more likely skedaddling……………and finally, would a man who had just throttled, violently cut a throat twice and reached up under tight clothing to slice through viscera not A) have some blood about his person B) Have a large knife about his person C) At least have a blood cleaning rag about his person D) Show some signs of being flushed, red-faced, sweating, disheveled etc.. after what would have been rather serious exertion……..D) Would the cops not notice or attempt to notice such things? Anyway, just throwing a little fuel on the fire…………


Greg

[Monty]

Lechmere,

Yes, there are reasons why Hutchinson was looked at more intensively however I think it naïve to think he was the only one.

Having viewed statements made from other murder cases before and and 1888 its quite obvious that witnesses were checked out and not merely taken at face value.

With regards his name there may have been a valid reason why he was named as Cross which we are not party to as of yet. This has been covered before.

As for his wife, whilst illiterate surely a relative, friend etc discussed his inquest appearence.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Monty
There are particular reasons why Hutchinson would have been questioned closely - given the nature of his story.
Abberline was only brought in after Nichols was murdered anyway and it is clear the police attempted to adopt more rigorous procedures as the autumn progressed.
If Cross had been rigorously checked out I am sure he wouldn't have been called Cross, including in the internal police reports.

[Monty]

Lechmere -I think that Lechmere/Cross would be a very good suspect (anyone actually standing over one of the bodies would be worth looking at),
and I have no trouble with the timing. (Note that Danilo Restivo...my big interest at the moment- is accused of murdering Heather Barnett in a very Ripper-ish way, in the morning, on the way to a computer course).

However, my big bugbear with Cross, would simply be that the Nichols murder was near the beginning of the Ripper murders.

I can't believe that Cross would risk being seen near the site of another murder once he had come to the attention of the authorities, and had gained some notority amongst his neighbours.

I think that if the real killer found himself in the position of Cross, then he would have layen low for a good while.

And how come Criss wasn't "checked out" ? Or would this be his first 'crime' do you think?

We know Cross wasn't checked out do we? That his story and background wasn't verified?

We have Hutchinson who, it was stated by Abberline, was questioned quite closely and this is a reasonable example of seeming procedure.

Monty

[Lechmere]

I think Tabram was a Ripper murder – and it was on Cross’s route to work and partly explains why he didn’t walk straight to work down Old Montague Street and Wentworth Street after meeting Mizen.
I am tempted to suggest that Ada Wilson and/or Annie Millwood were ‘warm ups’ but there are problems over the timings and the triggers if Cross was the culprit.
Either way I don’t think for a moment that Nichols was the first – whoever did it.

I don’t think he gained notoriety among his neighbours. He had literally only moved into Doveton Street a matter of months before the attacks started, so he probably wasn’t known.

Serial killers do continue killing after being looked at by the police – Sutcliffe did. I don’t think trying to get inside his mind to fathom what he would or wouldn’t have done is very profitable. Didn’t your man Restivo do something similar? They often have a compulsion.
As I have said, if it was Cross, the way he breezed through the inquest could have given him confidence.

I don’t think Cross was a criminal. I think he was pretty law abiding – apart from the obvious (if he did it of course).

As for ‘checking out’, he had a proper job and a house. That ticked two big boxes for the police. The police wouldn’t have had access to the census records to find his real name.

At the time the police were thinking it was a gang attack or Leather Apron, or a mad foreigner.
Having said that we know that the police took a good look at Robert Paul (I am sure that was because he slagged the police off to the press and didn’t come forward) and the butchers from Winthrop Street.
As for Cross, they seem to have not taken any interest in him.

When the inquest was adjourned, the hue and cry about Pizer started and then the Chapman murder occurred and the search switched to Iscenschmidt. It is clear the police thought they had their man when he was locked up. Then we had the double event. By then Cross had been swept away and forgotten by the tide of events.

An innocuous local worker who seemed helpful and who gave a straight forward story would not have attracted attention I think.

It is curious that the murder took place on Friday and he attended the inquest on the Monday, in his work clothes, although he must have known he wouldn’t be able to go to work. He must have known he was attending the inquest or he wouldn’t have presented himself. I think he didn’t tell his wife he was going to the inquest and pretended he was going to work.
She couldn’t read about it in the papers as she was illiterate.

[Abby Normal]

Lechmere -I think that Lechmere/Cross would be a very good suspect (anyone actually standing over one of the bodies would be worth looking at),
and I have no trouble with the timing. (Note that Danilo Restivo...my big interest at the moment- is accused of murdering Heather Barnett in a very Ripper-ish way, in the morning, on the way to a computer course).

However, my big bugbear with Cross, would simply be that the Nichols murder was near the beginning of the Ripper murders.

I can't believe that Cross would risk being seen near the site of another murder once he had come to the attention of the authorities, and had gained some notority amongst his neighbours.

I think that if the real killer found himself in the position of Cross, then he would have layen low for a good while.

And how come Criss wasn't "checked out" ? Or would this be his first 'crime' do you think?

Hi Ruby
or perhaps he thought that no one ever suspect him now. He was a witness at the inquest!

But as I said before, eventhough he should be considered because as you and Lechmere have both pointed he was found standing near a victim, I have a hard time reconciling that JtR would do his thing on the way to work.

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere -I think that Lechmere/Cross would be a very good suspect (anyone actually standing over one of the bodies would be worth looking at),
and I have no trouble with the timing. (Note that Danilo Restivo...my big interest at the moment- is accused of murdering Heather Barnett in a very Ripper-ish way, in the morning, on the way to a computer course).

However, my big bugbear with Cross, would simply be that the Nichols murder was near the beginning of the Ripper murders.

I can't believe that Cross would risk being seen near the site of another murder once he had come to the attention of the authorities, and had gained some notority amongst his neighbours.

I think that if the real killer found himself in the position of Cross, then he would have layen low for a good while.

And how come Criss wasn't "checked out" ? Or would this be his first 'crime' do you think?

[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?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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

[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.