Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[Lechmere]

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.

[Observer]

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

[Lechmere]

Hi Observer
You can pretty much find all sorts of different behaviours in serial killers to make a case for anything, so it isn’t I think very productive to enter a bidding war quoting various precedents, none of which could be exact matches. For example plenty of serial killers and murderers are involved in the police investigation in some way. The problem normal people have in fathoming what a serial killer would or wouldn’t do or risk, is that a normal person isn’t a homicidal psychopath and as such it is virtually impossible to see into their mind.
Accordingly I don’t think it is realistic to strike out a potential culprit on the basis that a normal person wouldn’t risk killing again so soon after being a witness at an inquest.

Could the Ripper have killed on his way to work?
If there was a working man, with a wife and (say) eight kids at home, and for whatever reason he developed into a serial killer – when would he be able to committed his crimes?
People of that background do become serial killers and I think it has to be accepted that Jack the Ripper could have been of that mould.
A working man could be at work over twelve hours a day six days a week, and would be at home and with the wife and eight kids or asleep for what... eight or twelve hours?

He would have to commit his crimes in a way that did not draw attention in his household. I would suggest that by far the most accessible moment for him to commit his crimes would, if he had an early start, be on his way to work. The streets would have been relatively quiet and he had a reason to be out.
When else could such a man have done it? In the late afternoon or early evening when in his way home? I don’t think so.
Or should he pop out late-ish, commit his crime and slip back home? That would be noticeable at home.
I think that if the culprit was a married man with a job, then the only time when he would have opportunity would be on his way to work, provided he had an early enough start. Or perhaps on Saturday night when he didn’t have to go to work next day (e.g. the Double Event when the attacks took place a bit earlier than the others).

Would he have been blood splattered? Maybe, maybe not.
Whoever did it, and whatever his personal status, would have faced that potential problem and would have possibly drawn attention to themselves – entering their lodging house, late and bloody for example, or sheltering in a doorway waiting for first light, with blood drying on his hands and staining his clothes.
Then again there were many public water sources where he could have washed his hands and face – there are at least four still in evidence in the immediate vicinity – Aldgate Pump, the fountain at St Mary’s Church, Whitechapel, the fountain outside Christ Church, Spitalfields, and the one outside Christ Church School on Brick Lane.
There used to be loads more easily assessable – there was a tap in Miller’s Court for example.
I think he took care not to get bloody and probably wiped his hands on their dresses.

[Observer]

Finally how likely is it that he would have killed gain so soon after?
I think we can find plenty of examples of serial killers behaving in a similar manner.

Hi Lechmere

I think you miss my point. How many serial killers have been called to give evidence at the inquest of one of their victims, give that evidence showing no outward signs of stress, and then six days later murder another victim within spitting distance of the previous murder? I think we'll have to agree to differ on the subject of Charles Lechmere/Cross as JTR.

Observer

[Lechmere]

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).

[Abby Normal]

Using his other name for fear of retaliation by the killer(s) is a reasonable explanation IMHO

[Lechmere]

That reasoning goes for whoever was the Ripper.
However I think he looked for victims on certain nights (when he was in the mood) and in certain areas and went with them wherever they took him.
I don't think it's likely he said:
" 'Ere I know a nice back yard we can use".
My guess is that if he felt unsafe in doing it in any location he would have made his excuses and left.

[Phil H]

In the context of Lechmere/Cross killing again so soon -

NOTE: that could be a reason why the backyard of No29 was so suitable - OFF the street this time, where interruption was less likely.

I'm not suggesting he did it, I am just refuting the casual dismissal of the possibility.

Phil

[Lechmere]

“A question. Noting the fact that Charles Cross/Lechmere discovered the body of Polly Nichols, conversed with Robert Paul at the scene of the crime, and then PC Mizen, gave his correct address, and a name which in all probability he had used before. How likely was it that 8 days later he murdered Annie Chapman?”

Observer...

If Cross did it, then he didn’t 'discover' the body of Nichols! It would imply he was interrupted by Paul and didn’t feel he had time to flee before being spotted, and so had no option but to converse with Paul, to brazen it out.
Similarly with Mizen. Once he was with Paul and they both bumped into Mizen then he would have had no option but to tell Mizen. However I would suggest the evidence points to Cross doing the talking, telling Mizen what he wanted to tell him about the incident, rather than Paul telling his side of it.
I would suggest he would have had to give the correct address and place of work as if the police came looking for him and he wasn’t there then they would have searched for him. As he had to walk those streets back and forth to work each day, it wouldn’t have been long before he was found. The line of least resistance was to tell the truth.

You have to remember that he only moved to Doveton Street just before the murders started so few people would have known him by that address. Still fewer in all probability knew he had ever been called Cross. Perhaps his mother, and perhaps not even her. If he did 'it' the person he would most have needed to keep in the dark would have been his wife.

(The gangs would also have been able to find him at his addres or workplace so that rational as to why he didn’t give his real name but did give his real address and workplace doesn’t add up. Paul wasn’t wary of giving a press interview that evening either.)

There is no evidence he had used Cross as a name before. He was 11 years old when it was entered on the census form.

Finally how likely is it that he would have killed gain so soon after?
I think we can find plenty of examples of serial killers behaving in a similar manner. Jack the Ripper certainly did. Would he have been worried about being linked to it? By then he had appeared at the inquest and been sent on his way, unnoticed. If he did 'it' this episode could have made him more confident.
It is possibly noteworthy that Chapman was murdered as few yards from Robert Paul’s workplace. Cross had accompanied Paul to his workplace after they left Mizen. This was out of Cross’s way. Going that way took longer for him to get to work. Even though Cross claimed to be in a hurry and late for work. It is possible that the next murder took place in that vicinity to implicate Paul.

[Hunter]

At the time of the Nichols murder there was speculation that gangs could be involved in these murders. Threats of reprisal against any 'informants' were a genuine concern. Some crimes went unreported to authorities for that reason. We can recall that the attack on Emma Smith was not initially known to police until her subsequent death required a coroner's inquest.

People were inclined to mind their own business than get involved in something that could end up as a matter of personal danger. A study of the testimony suggest that this was on the witnesses minds as they pondered what to do after finding the woman lying in a place where such crimes were known to be perpetratred.

The witness in this case was connected with summoning the police, instead of leaving the woman lying there and going on about his business. He had to give his place of employment ( Pickford and Co.), but he did not give his residence where his family was. I suspect the use of his stepfather's surname could have been for the protection of his family from reprisal.

[Observer]

I would concede that it is a strong possibility Cross/Lechmere did mislead the authorities for the very reason you mention.

Observer

[Observer]

HaHa. The only downer being the fact that old alkie red nose's odious lot now have more top flight titles than any other team.

Observer

[Colin Roberts]

Thomas Cross died in 1869

Thanks!

I now seem to recall your mention of his date of death, in an earlier post.

Reread the Enumerators instructions. Methinks the Enumerators who took the 1861 census in the poorer areas of the country had their work cut out for themselves.

Indeed!

By 1891, Enumerators were able to distribute a Yiddish version of the 'Householder's Schedule'.

I'll post a copy, if anyone would like to see it. But, give me a day, or two.

Regarding Cross, I remain unconvinced he set out to decieve the authorities, over his name. The fact that he gave his correct address would suggest otherwise.

I am inclined to believe that his initial intention was to mislead, for some seemingly innocuous reason, e.g. keeping his actual family name out of any perceived 'limelight'. But, that upon his realization of the seriousness of the circumstances; he provided the name of his employer, as well as his actual home address, whilst hoping that no one would cry 'foul', with regard to the surname, by which he chose to 'identify' himself.

The footie question

What did Tottenham manage to accomplish, this season, that Chelsea have never managed to accomplish, themselves?

Beat lowly Sunderland at home ?

Chelsea had a mare at home against Sunderland did they not?

The completion of fifty consecutive seasons of League Football, without a single League Title.

[Observer]

Hi again Colin my mistake Tottenham drew with Sunderland at home, but beat them at Sunderland

O

[Observer]

Hi Lechmere

A question. Noting the fact that Charles Cross/Lechmere discovered the body of Polly Nichols, conversed with Robert Paul at the scene of the crime, and then PC Mizen, gave his correct address, and a name which in all probability he had used before. How likely was it that 8 days later he murdered Annie Chapman?

Observer