Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[Lechmere]

Monty
“If Jack was Jewish, Saturday was the Sabbath.”
Does this imply – to you – that he couldn’t have been Jewish?
If he was Christian then Sunday was his Sabbath.
Murders took place on Sunday morning and Saturday morning so it doesn’t get us very far – unless he was an atheist! Or unless his religion didn’t affect his murderous intent, or when he worked.

Did Cross have much choice about telling Mizen about Nichols’s body when he bumped into him while having Paul in tow? I would suggest not. And remember he didn’t make it clear to Mizen that she was dead.

[Versa]

Martha Tabram was killed in the early hours of Tuesday morning. The Monday had been a Bank Holiday. So Cross could have been on his way to work.
Polly Nichols was killed in the early hours of Friday morning – Cross was definitely on his way to work.
Annie Chapman was killed in the early hours of Saturday morning – a normal work day in 1888.
The ‘double event’ was in the very early hours of Sunday morning. This is the anomaly, so far as being committed on the way to work is concerned - if he did it of course.
Mary Kelly was killed in the early hours of Friday morning.
Alice McKenzie was killed in the early hours of Wednesday morning.

Very thorough answer thank you

[Versa]

Were Saturday's day's off in 1888? I thought "the weekend" was a later invention, and then for country house parties and so on.

Yes good point, I wasn't 100% sure what could be considered a work day and its often banded about that the murders took place at weekends (hence some people's claims of a working man killing weekends )

[Monty]

Hi,

I have a couple of points/questions regarding Cross as a suspect (and IMO it doesn't hurt to consider him)

1. If part of the Cross theory is that he killed on his way to work doesn't the fact that most of the victims were killed at the weekends make that less likely?

2. Dismissing Cross because he acted calmly and gave his real address, place of work etc is folly as the police actually returned one of Jeffrey Dahmer's victims into his 'care' and a naked teenage victim that was badly wounded at that.... Which proves that at least some killers are capable of acting calmly and pulling the wool over the eyes of the police.

I'm trying to think of a killer who drew a Policemans attention to a recently despatched body.

If Jack was Jewish, Saturday was the Sabbath.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Martha Tabram was killed in the early hours of Tuesday morning. The Monday had been a Bank Holiday. So Cross could have been on his way to work.
Polly Nichols was killed in the early hours of Friday morning – Cross was definitely on his way to work.
Annie Chapman was killed in the early hours of Saturday morning – a normal work day in 1888.
The ‘double event’ was in the very early hours of Sunday morning. This is the anomaly, so far as being committed on the way to work is concerned - if he did it of course.
Mary Kelly was killed in the early hours of Friday morning.
Alice McKenzie was killed in the early hours of Wednesday morning.

On the subject of what address to give, what option did he have? If he had given totally false details and didn’t present himself so he could appear at the Inquest, he risked a major search being undertaken to find him. He wasn’t an itinerant who could just move to the other side of London and take rooms in a doss house. He had a regular job and family. He walked those streets back and forth every day. If he was the culprit the safest and most sensible thing would have been to play along as just as much as necessary.

[Phil H]

If part of the Cross theory is that he killed on his way to work doesn't the fact that most of the victims were killed at the weekends make that less likely?

Were Saturday's day's off in 1888? I thought "the weekend" was a later invention, and then for country house parties and so on.

Up to the late 60s or early 1970s, in the UK, people worked on Saturday mornings - the Civil Service had just stopped a year or to before I joined in late 1974 - but older colleagues still remembered those days. Through my childhood my father - in local Government, went to the office on Saturday mornings.

Phil

[Versa]

Hi,

I have a couple of points/questions regarding Cross as a suspect (and IMO it doesn't hurt to consider him)

1. If part of the Cross theory is that he killed on his way to work doesn't the fact that most of the victims were killed at the weekends make that less likely?

2. Dismissing Cross because he acted calmly and gave his real address, place of work etc is folly as the police actually returned one of Jeffrey Dahmer's victims into his 'care' and a naked teenage victim that was badly wounded at that.... Which proves that at least some killers are capable of acting calmly and pulling the wool over the eyes of the police.

[Phil H]

If I HAD a suspect, your post might have some validity Tom, but I don't. I have written, earlier this morning, that I have NOT promoted Cross/Lechmere as a suspect.

...should we now dismiss anything you have to offer out of hand, under the assumption it's motivated solely by your theory? Just wondering since that's how you work.

You are, of course, free to treat my posts in any way you wish - indeed, I often dismiss my own posts out of hand.

I don't think, though, that you'll find I have any particular "theory", again I have made it clear several times that my approach to this case is one of "juggling" several alternatives, as it is quite impossible (IMHO) to draw absolute conclusions on the basis of the partial and divergent evidence we have.

My point, which I think you are referring to, is that there are people on these boards who do not appreciate debate, or recognition of, alternatives to their pet (or published) theory.

But please feel free to dismiss my posts anytime,

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil H. Since you have a suspect to support, should we now dismiss anything you have to offer out of hand, under the assumption it's motivated solely by your theory? Just wondering since that's how you work.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Hold on Phil,

Where am I trying to close this thread?

I was merely providing a reason /reasons why Cross isn't such as a suspicious Chap as others propose. You gave tweo reasons, invalid in my opinion, and missed the main one as to why people do not discuss his validity as a murderer.

If you wish to have a debate, then do not state others are not prepared to talk about him because they are either pushing an aternate suspect or just pain tired of discussing yet another suspect.

There is a more viable reason.

Monty

[Phil H]

Im not here to convince you Phil.

I never asked you to, Monty. Indeed, my views here are not about believing something or not - and i am seeking to convince you of nothing, Discussion assists thought, raises new ideas and possibilities - is a good thing. I'm just seeking to shed a little light into one aspect of the case that doesn't get discussed much if at all. I have NO axe to grind!

And Hutchinson holds no sway with me either, not that it matters.

Then, quite frankly that part of the discussion was not FOR you. My point was simply that Hutchinson has been discussed ad nauseam, Lechmere/Cross hardly at all and that rarely and indirectly. Surely, on a forum like Casebook, with debate hardly overflowing day by day, we have time and opportunity to discuss almost any aspect of the case, however minor (and do!).

So where's the problem and why try to close down debate/discussion? It does no harm to anyone.

Individual judgements on people's actual or potential responses to situations will differ because we are all different. To expose those is (IMHO) both stimulating and informative.

Thanks for your view, Monty

Phil

[Lechmere]

I think I provided quite a few more reasons to suspect Cross, over and above the name issue.

However, just suppose for a moment that he did do it.

Say he is over the body, facing west in the direction that Neil would come from, as he was probably well that this was the direction of Neil’s beat, as this was his route to work
Then he is interrupted by the sound of approaching footsteps behind him – say 100 yards away.

What are his options? He can leave the body rapidly and retreat westwards, possibly into the arms of Neil. But who is it coming behind him? Another policeman or a civilian? If he flees and it is a policeman, he could be pursued into the arms of Neil.

It can easily be argued that his best option would be to brazen it out.

He could have wiped his hands on Polly’s clothes, pulled down her dress as much as possible, hidden his knife and reversed into the middle of the street just as Paul gets to 40 years away.

How unrealistic is any of this?

The rest follows, with Cross putting on an insignificant humble look.

[Monty]

Im not here to convince you Phil. Im sure youre bright enough to draw your own conclusions.

The fact remains that it would have been easier and less risky to have fled from Paul rather than hide in a doorway until the man was vertually upon him. Presuming his sight and hearing were satisfactory.

And Hutchinson holds no sway with me either, not that it matters.

Monty

[Phil H]

If what I wrote constitutes "clamouring" in your eyes , Monty, then you have a pretty low threshold. No wonder people get strident on Casebook - mild comment would go unrecognised.

As I said, I am interested in consistency and the potential irony. I have never proposed Cross/Lechmere as a suspect, except I think to make a point.

His actions at the scene, if he was her killer, were to me illogical. [My emphasis.]

I think the key words there are those I have BOLDED.

I see no reason why a clever risk-taker - and we know JtR took risks - could not have "loitered at the scene, engaged a 3rd party, [drawn] attention to the 3rd party thta he thought the woman was dead, then went with that 3rd party to find a Constable to report their find, gave testimony at inquest and then, to top it all, gave his address."

People discuss Hutchinson as a suspect and he gave a statement to the police.

It is even possible - were we to assume for a moment that JtR was not a complete lunatic obviously unable to control himself - that he had a pre-thought out "story" to use were he to be discovered almost in flagrante - such as "hey, look I just discovered a body!"

So, I am neither clamouring, Monty, not convinced by your dismissal of the arguments.

Phil

[Monty]

So that's not clammering (sic) for Cross to be Jack Phil?

His actions at the scene, if he was her killer, were to me illogical. The fact remains Cross loitered at the scene, engaged a 3rd party, drew attention to the 3rd party thta he thought the woman was dead, then went with that 3rd party to find a Constable to report their find, gave testimony at inquest and then, to top it all, gave his address.

Hmmmm

Monty