Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[Ben]

No, not at all.

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

[Observer]

And a total lack of common sense?

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[Observer]

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

Hi Ben

Never a truer word spoken !

Regards


Observer

[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

[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.

[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]

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'.

[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]

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.

[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]

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