Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[FrankO]

The lady, I forget her name, was not immediately adjacent to the murder site, as I recall - one of two cottages away. there were also railway noises at about the same time.

Phil, Stephen,

Her name was Mrs. Lilley and the Echo of 6 September carried the following article:
"An important statement, throwing considerable light on a point hitherto surrounded with some uncertainty - the time the crime was committed in Buck's-row, or the body deposited there - was made this afternoon by Mrs. Harriet Lilley, who lives two doors from the spot where the deceased was discovered. Mrs. Lilley said: - I slept in front of the house, and could hear everything that occured in the street. On that Thursday night I was somehow very restless. Well, I heard something I mentioned to my husband in the morning. It was a painful moan - two or three faint gasps - and then it passed away. It was quite dark at the time, but a luggage went by as I heard the sounds. There was, too, a sound as of whispers underneath the window. I distincly heard voices, but cannot say what was said - it was too faint. I then woke my husband, and said to him, "I don't know what possesses me, but I cannot sleep to-night." Mrs. Lilley added that as soon as she heard of the murder she came to the conclusion that the voices she heard were in some way connected with it. The cries were very different from those of an ordinary street brawl.

It has been ascertained that on the morning of the date of the murder a goods train passed on the East London Railway at about half-past three - the 3.7 out from New-cross - which was probably the time when Mary Ann Nicholls was either killed or placed in Buck's-row."

Like Phil I think she may have heard the whispered voices of Cross/Lechmere and Paul.

All the best,
Frank

[Raoul's Obsession]

of course, her statement simply says she heard voices whispering, which need not mean that there were two assailants. While, her statement is probably most often taken to be in a roughly chronological order, she never specifies this to be the case. The whispers could have come before the groans and simply been the last words between Polly and Jack. The way she describes it, it almost sounds like the goods train comes by at the exact moment that the faint groans and breathing occured, which obviously cannot be the case as one would have drowned the other out. Therefore, if these aren't in chronological order, why should the whispers be.

Just a thought, though I am just as happy to accept that the whispers are those of Cross and Paul.

[Lechmere]

Or just as possibly a delayed falsely reconstructed memory.

[Phil H]

Lechmere

It's always the dilemma, isn't it? How does one deal with testimony (court of media related) that doesn't quite fit.

For myself, and I respect your conclusion, I cannot quite "rationalise" Mrs Lilley's words (thanks Frank for the reminder of the name) out of existence. Hence my own conclusion, confused but maybe with some basis in fact.

But, as you say, she may have wanted to get in on the post-murder act and we know that women gathered by the stable entrance to disucss the murder in the days following. Putting herself in the stoty may well have been too much for Mrs L to resist!

Phil

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Why is there little interest in the Nichols murder?

Good question!

Most of the discussion centers round Kelly and Stride (which I understand, given that theirs are the more conspiracy-friendly), but I always found the hallmark rippings of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes to be the eeriest and most intriguing murders - especially as they're the ones we know are dead cert Ripper victims (even though in 99.9 likelihood Stride and Kelly are too, but because there's so much debate about them things get a bit messy with suspects et cetera).

Though on the subject of this Lechmere/Cross fella (who I'm assuming is the one who said there'd been a murder; it's been a while since I've been on here, I'm losing bits of my memory for these things!), it is quite an intriguing notion - though not one I really buy into. Have we got a physical description of him or anything?

[Lechmere]

There's no description beyond a reference to him attending the inquest in his workclothes and apron (sacking material if I remember right).
Again - he was to ordinary to be mentioned or described.

Phil H - I was not totally discounting Mrs Lilley's statement, but it doesn't help much even if true. As has been pointed out all it can tell us is that she heard some sort of moaning and whispers at around the time the train went past. Did the moan come first or the whispers? Did the train pass as these sounds were created or just after. Was it the same train or the same night? Was she questioned by the police on the morning of the murder, if so why didn't she tell them?

Nearly all witness statements in this case don't really fit. Often people are desperate to get involved in some way with a high profile case to give meaning to their otherwise dull lives. You don't have to be a serial killer for there to be a need to insert yourself. No doubt many of these people are trying to be helpful and are desperate to try and remember some scrap which they think could be helpful, but actually just causes more confusion.

[Ben]

As Frank has sensibly observed, the various factors that prompt some to view Hutchinson with suspicion are simply non-existent in Cross’ case. Dan Norder expanded on this in a Hutchinson/Cross comparison post from a few years ago:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=9672&postcount=16

His ultimate conclusion that “Everything about Cross as a suspect applies at least equally, and usually more so, to Hutchinson” is one I very much share and endorse. While I can understand the rationale in suggesting that some of the Hutchinson-as-killer arguments could also be applied to Cross, it makes no sense whatsoever to suggest that they work better for the latter. The argument that Hutchinson is the more suspicious of the two and therefore the less likely to be the killer is obviously a complete non-starter, for obvious reasons.

Best regards,
Ben

[lynn cates]

paralells

Hello Ben.

"His ultimate conclusion that “Everything about Cross as a suspect applies at least equally, and usually more so, to Hutchinson” is one I very much share and endorse."

Makes sense to me. After all, Lechmere/Cross; Topping/Hutchinson. I tend to agree with you both.

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

Hi Lynn,

Lechmere was an alias of Cross. "Topping" wasn't an alias - just the middle name of someone called George Hutchinson who almost certainly had nothing to do with the Whitechapel murder investigation, in my view.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Au Contraire...

Hi Lynn,

Lechmere was an alias of Cross. "Topping" wasn't an alias - just the middle name of someone called George Hutchinson who almost certainly had nothing to do with the Whitechapel murder investigation, in my view.

All the best,
Ben

I believe that Cross was in fact an alias of Lechmere.

I consider Topping to be something which goes on a pizza.

[Ben]

Whoops, you're quite right, Sally. I had it backwards.

"I consider Topping to be something which goes on a pizza."

Fishy, and with a very thin base.

[sleekviper]

If his stepfather had treated him as his own son, and introduced him to others in law enforcement as his son, it may have been the natural choice to use that name in direct contact with the police.

[Lechmere]

Yes - if he had a good relationship with his first step father.

[Sally]

Fishy, and with a very thin base.

Yummy

[Lechmere]

Cross was definitely found at the crime scene – Hutchinson placed himself near a crime scene several days later.
That is a big difference.

Cross’s statement stands up better than Hutchinson’s – however I do not agree that it is a ‘non-starter’ to say that this makes Hutchinson less suspicious and Cross more suspicious (for reasons I have already given). To the contrary I think that Hutchinson’s over elaborate story is an argument that mitigates against him being a likely suspect.

Cross did have somewhere to go and was late for work, but didn’t go straight to work, he went on a detour with Robert Paul.

Cross by his own account (depending on which version we take) had between 3 and 18 minutes unaccounted for between leaving home and finding Polly.

However as I said, turning this thread into a Hutchinson-Cross bidding war won’t be very profitable.