Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

I feel this is one of the more believable witness statements. She could have fabricated what was said between the whisperers to garner a spot of immediate fame, but didn't. No description given etc. Seems she had nothig to gain from this; she simply heard a few noises.

"The voices she heard were in some way connected with it". This suggests that the voices and moans happened within seconds - in order to make that connection.

If so, and you believe the voices were that of Cross and Paul, then that makes Cross a good suspect.

On the other hand, however, why would Paul and Cross whisper? A client/prostitute are more likely to whisper. So, I'll go with the voices being Jack and Polly, and, Cross, on turning into Buck's Row at 3.36, disturbed Jack.

[Ben]

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

I agree, Lechmere, so I’ll just briefly address your points, and then we’ll call it quits on this particular bidding war.

I cannot understand the argument that Hutchinson’s more “elaborate story” decreases the likelihood of him having been responsible for the crimes. The story only increases the likelihood that he was lying, and when added to the independent corroboration of his presence at the crime scene, irrefutably provided by Sarah Lewis, a far more suspicious picture is painted than Cross’ legitimate reason for being on the streets on the small hours and straightforward account of his movements.

There are compelling indications that Hutchinson lied about his reasons for standing outside a crime scene on the night in question, and that he only came forward with an “elaborate story” once he realised he’d been spotted.

This is all absent in Cross’ case.

It's also unusual for serial killers to make themselves known to the police (in whatever guise) so early in the series.

But meanwhile, back on topic…!

[Lechmere]

I made the point that the odd or strange details relating to Hutchinson, which are the things that attract modern attention, are the very things which I submit would have also attracted the police's attention at the time. This would have led in my estimation (although not in yours) to the police 'checking him out' reasonably thoroughly or as thoroughy as they would have been able to at the time. This this in turn makes it less likely, in my opinion, that he would have been the culprit.

By comparison Cross's story is simple and unremarkable and so it didn't and doesn't attract attention. A cool calculating serial killer would have been like that I suspect, rather than someone who came out with the somewhat haphazard tales of Hutchinson, which as I have said before, probably were lies in good measure.
However although Cross's story was simple, it doesn't add up either. But as it is simple and unremarkable, the fact that it doesn't add up is less obvious, then and evidently now. That is the interesting thing about it.

As I said, I also tend towards the view that Hutchinson lied, but I am not at all sure (as you know) about his coming forward due to him being supposedly identified. This identification was not noted by anyone at the time and so can hardly be deemed 'irrefutable'.

Cross's involvement with the police in the case - early in the sequence- wasn't of his own making. He didn't 'make himself known', he had no choice and even then he gave at best an 'alternative name' rather than 'make himself known'.

[Sally]

But Lechmere..

(Not having a bidding war, absolutely not)

And I really do mean that.

But, your argument appears to be based on the fact that you think Hutchinson's account was more unlikely than that of Lechmere (not you - Cross, then); and that therefore the police would have made sure they checked him (Hutchinson) out.

Yet, the police didn't consider Hutchinson's tale to be unlikely, did they? At first, anyway - at least, we have no evidence for that. It appears that they initially accepted it.

So then what you have is their acceptance of both Hutchinson and Cross's accounts? How do we know then, to what extent they checked out these witnesses - or even if they did?

If we think that they did, do we then have to place Cross and Hutchinson on an even footing? Do we say that because they were checked out by the police we can assume that they were both innocent? Do we say (alternatively) that perhaps neither of them was innocent?

There seems to me to be little to decide between them on the checking out score.

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

The gist of your argument still seems to be that the more “odd or strange” Hutchinson’s story appears to be, the less suspicious he becomes. I think the reverse is far nearer the mark; that a less suspicious account is indicative of a less suspicious individual. We have no conclusive evidence that the more unusual elements of Hutchinson’s account “attracted the police's attention at the time”. They may well have played a role in his discrediting, but there’s no reason to think that it led to suspicion that he might have been the murderer. But even if such suspicions did arise, there is even less reason to conclude that the police were able to make any progress with those suspicions.

You seem to be of the mindset that IF the killer pretended to be a witness and supplied false information to the police, he would have done it better than Hutchinson. Again I disagree, because there’s no reason to think so. The simpler explanation to me is that more evidence of bogus information = greater reason to consider its author suspicious.

I most assuredly regard the identification of Hutchinson as the man seen by Lewis as “irrefutable” because the alternative necessitates the acceptance of a truly remarkable “coincidence.

But I thought the plan was to avoid turning this into a “Hutchinson-Cross bidding war”?

All the best,
Ben

[Phil H]

Sally

So then what you have is their acceptance of both Hutchinson and Cross's accounts? How do we know then, to what extent they checked out these witnesses - or even if they did?

If we think that they did, do we then have to place Cross and Hutchinson on an even footing? Do we say that because they were checked out by the police we can assume that they were both innocent? Do we say (alternatively) that perhaps neither of them was innocent?

I'm no expert on Hutchinson and have never got my head around the "Topping" question, plus I get bored rigid by the unending duel between Fisherman and Ben... so I am not going to comment on him. However...

...some observations on Cross/Lechmere:

I don't think that on 31 August the police knew what they were looking for, and I suspect that Cross/Lechmere was taken at face value. They may even have been looking for a "gang" after Smith and Tabram... If Lechmere/Cross gave an alibi for one of both of the previous cases, he might have been dismissed as a potential suspect in the Nichol's killing.

Three police constables were involved soon after the discovery of the body, only one of them met Cross/Lechmere and Paul and he did not insist they went back with him to the scene - I am sure that he did not search or question them very deeply if at all.

By the time of Chapman's death the "Leather Apron" scare was underway, was it not - they were looking for a foreign man who dressed in a particular way. Would it have "crossed" (!) anyone's mind that the man who appeared at the Nichols' inquest probably walked past 29 Hanbury St every day on his way to work?

By the time of MJK's death, the police were looking for a man who could have killed at least FIVE victims. But let's for a moment consider a scenario in which Cross/Lechmere killed only Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes (I'm not asking you to agree with me, just to follow the reasoning) he would surely have been ruled out as a suspect if he could have shown he could not have killed Stride and MJK - even if anyone had thought about "that bloke" found standing over or close to the corpse of Nichols!

I do not, seriously believe in Lechmere/Cross as a suspect or propose him as such, but he intrigues me and I am having some fun mentally playing with the idea.

But - and this is the point that strikes me as so ironic what if "Jack" - the killer we have never been able to identify - had always been known to us, and was the man found so close to the first canonical victim, who's name (s) have long been known!!!

Talk about a solution always in plain sight - it would be so classically simple. What fools we would have been.

Phil

[lynn cates]

walk this way

Hello Phil. Funny you should mention "Leather Apron." Do you recall the press report that noted his most identifiable feature? It was his peculiar walk. IF there were really a Leather Apron, perhaps it would do to compare the various suspects and their walks. Perhaps there is something in that?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Ministry of Funny Walks

IF there were really a Leather Apron, perhaps it would do to compare the various suspects and their walks.

I don't know whether you have your tongue in your cheek, LC, but do we HAVE such detailed information about ANY suspect? Lawende and Mrs Long both saw men who were standing still didn't they?

Phil

[Sally]

Phil

I don't think that on 31 August the police knew what they were looking for, and I suspect that Cross/Lechmere was taken at face value. They may even have been looking for a "gang" after Smith and Tabram... If Lechmere/Cross gave an alibi for one of both of the previous cases, he might have been dismissed as a potential suspect in the Nichol's killing.

Yes, I agree that it was probably too early on at that stage - and yes, they may have been looking for a gang, or at least more than one perpetrator, thanks to Dr Kileen, whose life was otherwise unremarkable - perhaps like that of Cross or Hutchinson?

Three police constables were involved soon after the discovery of the body, only one of them met Cross/Lechmere and Paul and he did not insist they went back with him to the scene - I am sure that he did not search or question them very deeply if at all.

Yes, I concur. All this agreement, Phil. I don't know, I really don't..

By the time of Chapman's death the "Leather Apron" scare was underway, was it not - they were looking for a foreign man who dressed in a particular way. Would it have "crossed" (!) anyone's mind that the man who appeared at the Nichols' inquest probably walked past 29 Hanbury St every day on his way to work?

Crossed!

No, I doubt it. And you could you could say that Lechmere's habitual proximity to the murder site might be viewed as suspicious. But how can we know? It might have no significance at all.

By the time of MJK's death, the police were looking for a man who could have killed at least FIVE victims. But let's for a moment consider a scenario in which Cross/Lechmere killed only Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes (I'm not asking you to agree with me, just to follow the reasoning) he would surely have been ruled out as a suspect if he could have shown he could not have killed Stride and MJK - even if anyone had thought about "that bloke" found standing over or close to the corpse of Nichols!

I think you're right, Phil, hypothetically.

But - and this is the point that strikes me as so ironic what if "Jack" - the killer we have never been able to identify - had always been known to us, and was the man found so close to the first canonical victim, who's name (s) have long been known!!!

Talk about a solution always in plain sight - it would be so classically simple. What fools we would have been.

Well, if the best hiding place is in plain sight (as it always seems to be in murder mystery stories) then Cross must be a contender, I guess.

But, a couple of points - first, the problem that recurs with the witnesses in the case is that we know little about many of them. Cross is just a name, really, a bit-part player in the drama. If we knew more about him perhaps we could hypothesise further - but how to advance our knowledge? I spend enough of my time trying to learn more about the people involved in the case, and I almost never succeed - it's very difficult in some cases.

Second - I think we come back eventually to the question of what sort of person we are looking for in the Ripper(s) (just for you, Phil!).

I mean, are we looking for a person who shows evidence of criminal activity? Most killers have also been involved in other crimes - because murder is on the road, but it isn't the road in itself, usually - a muderer doesn't appear fully fledged out of the blue; but has travelled to get there.

If Cross, Hutchinson, etc can be shown to have had no (traceable) involvement with crime; should we discount them from our enquiries?

[c.d.]

Well we know that Tumblety sashayed.

c.d.

[Phil H]

Sally - thanks for your reply - how nice to find that, for once, we are in essential harmony!

But, a couple of points - first, the problem that recurs with the witnesses in the case is that we know little about many of them. Cross is just a name, really, a bit-part player in the drama. If we knew more about him perhaps we could hypothesise further - but how to advance our knowledge? I spend enough of my time trying to learn more about the people involved in the case, and I almost never succeed - it's very difficult in some cases.

I agree absolutely. I started reading about JtR seriously when I was around 21 (I'd had Cullen's and McCormick's books before that) sitting under the statue of "Uncle Jack" in the National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth! So I have spent just short of 40 years, like you, trying to make sense of all the evidence - and I've gone through the stage of thinking (as suspect books came out one after another) "Ooh! that's an interesting idea, I think he might have something." I did that for Druitt, Kosminski and even for a few months Stephen Knight (but I was still young then)!! And then new evidence emerges and you are back to square one. So now I keep several, balls in the air - I'm a bit of a Druittist, partly persuaded by Kosminski (or someone of his ilk) and even look twice at Barnett, as you know!

Second - I think we come back eventually to the question of what sort of person we are looking for in the Ripper(s) (just for you, Phil!).

Sally - I do appreciate the exta "s". Thank you. But I don't rule out one Ripper, I just find it more useful to have a second hypothesis on hand, given that the first one seems increasingly sterile and the alternative - multiple killers, offers some interesting possibilities.

If Cross, Hutchinson, etc can be shown to have had no (traceable) involvement with crime; should we discount them from our enquiries?

We should probably discount them becauuse we have insufficient evidence to do anything else!! All the discussion of them is effectively supposititious, with speculation built upon hypothesis - a dangerously unstanel comination, in my view.

But I think my comment in a previous post, sums up why Lechmere/Cross has been intriguing me. This discussion has allowed me to glimpse the point. It is that it would just be SO ironic if the man standing at the first canonical murder had always been our man. But I agree, we will never know.

Thanks, I enjoyed your post very much,

Phil

[lynn cates]

Fiddymont

Hello Phil.

"Lawende and Mrs Long both saw men who were standing still didn't they?"

Yes, I think so. But try Mrs. Fiddymont's friend.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

On the ‘checking out‘ score the circumstances are very different and it is up to individual interpretation to decided whether there would have been equal reason for the police the check each out.

I will add that a further difference that should inform us on whether each (Hutchinson and Cross) was ‘checked out’ is the presumption that Hutchinson was later (or sooner perhaps) dismissed as a credible witness – based on a couple of press reports and on his absence from later memoirs discussing Ripper sightings (except Dew).

This apparent dismissal has understandably fed the belief that the police came to the conclusion that Hutchinson’s story was not true. That in turn leads me to suppose that he would have been checked out more rigorously than Cross.

I am not saying that the more suspicious someone’s story is the less likely they could be the culprit. I am saying that the more suspicious someone’s story is the more likely it is that the police would take extra notice.

That is an explanation as to why Cross was and is ignored, whereas Hutchinson hasn’t been ignored and (dare I say it) was probably investigated thoroughly by the police – although we cannot know as most records are missing. That is my guess.

As I have also stated, Cross was also a regular householder with a regular job. Hutchinson was neither and the records indicate that the police tended to focus their attentions on the itinerant rather than the seemingly stable, although we now know that serial killers come in all varieties.

I am mindful that this is a Polly Nichols victim section of the forum not a suspect thread, so it isn’t really the place for a Cross v Hutchinson debate – although it is interesting to ponder why one is discussed ad nauseam while the other ignored.

One detail Phil – I don’t think Cross will have walked past 29 Hanbury Street on his way to work every day. This is one of the key and totally unnoticed facts that has many possible implications. He would have walked down Old Montague Street and Wentworth Street. It is five minutes quicker that way.

Mizen seems to have been more concerned with continuing with his knocking up duties than taking heed of what Cross and Paul (although I’m not sure Paul did any of the talking) told him. Maybe because they under played what they had found.

Lynn – I can see you are setting poor Isenschmidt up as a child, Nichols and Chapman killer.

[lynn cates]

who, me?

Hello Lechmere.

"Lynn – I can see you are setting poor Isenschmidt up as a child, Nichols and Chapman killer."

Would I do that? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

One detail Phil – I don’t think Cross will have walked past 29 Hanbury Street on his way to work every day. This is one of the key and totally unnoticed facts that has many possible implications. He would have walked down Old Montague Street and Wentworth Street. It is five minutes quicker that way.

Lechmere, you are of course, quite right. My apologies if I seemed to add certainty to his route. I thought that I had tried to use the word "potential" or "probable" (or some such) when I had made the point previously. If I forgot to do so in this case it was an oversight.

But equally, we cannot say he DID NOT use that route, at least on occasion. It was not far out of his way, was it?

Phil