Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[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

[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.

[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?

[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

[Lechmere]

Or just as possibly a delayed falsely reconstructed memory.

[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.

[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

[Phil H]

Stephen,

My assumption has always been that the lady concerned, may have heard soething around the time of the murder, then dozed off without realising it, and woke up again to hear the whispered conversation between Cross/Lechmere and Paul.

I have never been drawn to a double-act as far as this or any other of the murders is concerned.

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.

It's a very weak foundation to build anything on - weaker even than my efforts to implicate Lechmere/Cross.

Phil

[Stephen Thomas]

What about the witness who heard 2 male voices around the time of the murder?

[Lechmere]

But, but, but, the questionable aspects of the Hutchinson story invite suspicion and surely (in my opinion) would have invited close attention from the police.

A sensible culprit would not have behaved in that manner I would submit – particularly a cool customer as I suspect the Ripper must have been. I would suggest that Cross’s behaviour is more as I would expect the Ripper to have behaved – tell as much of the truth as you can. Be as helpful as you can, avoid suspicion as much as possible.

We know the police questioned the butchers from Winthrop Street. We know Paul was dragged out of bed. We know that many residents and night watchmen in Bucks Row were questioned. We know the railway line was searched and the surrounding streets scrutinised for traces of blood. We have a fair idea how the police went about their investigation into Polly Nichols’s murder. It seems that Cross himself slipped through the net and wasn’t given any attention.

Why would he give a false or alternative name?

As I say, maybe he was known as Cross at Pickfords.
I don’t buy the suggestion that he wished to protect his family from press scrutiny as the Ripper scare hadn’t developed and he and Paul made it clear to Mizen that they were not sure if she was dead and if she was dead she may have ‘swooned’ or something similar. They did not think she had been cut up (unless of course Cross had done the cutting up, in which case he wasn’t going to let on).
The other alternative is that he used a name that he had never used before as it was the first one that he could think of, and maybe he had a grudge against the police as his stepfather during his formative years was a policeman. Maybe he wanted distance between himself and the crimes so that he wasn’t mentioned in reports under his real name and his contemporaries wouldn’t immediately identify him with the witness. Maybe he didn’t want his wife to know that he was involved in case she twigged. She was illiterate by the way and couldn’t have read the press reports.

[FrankO]

Not much more than we have on others such as Hutchinson, yet we spend a lot of time discussing HIM it seems.

Phil,

The difference between Cross & Hutchinson, like (poster) Lechmere proposed, is that, unlike Hutchinson, Cross came forward before the inquest, and didn’t present a strange sounding story - a story that raises more questions than it answers.

I agree, its difficult to take things further in the light of an apparent lack of contemporary interest - but I think there's more to him as a suspect than can be said of some other suspects about whom books have been written.

I agree with you there, Phil. It’s a pity for us that he wasn’t suspected at the time and that, therefore, we don’t have potentially more telling information about him.

All the best,
Frank

[Sally]

I agree, its difficult to take things further in the light of an apparent lack of contemporary interest - but I think there's more to him as a suspect than can be said of some other suspects about whom books have been written.

Like Joesph Barnett, for example?

Sorry Phil, couldn't resist!

Back to Nichols and the mysterious Lechmere...

[Phil H]

I’d say that ‘misled’ is an overstatement, Phil.

In part i was over-stating the case for effect. I seemed to be shouting without being heard. But precisely what is the distinction between misleading and lying where the police are concerned?

So, yes, we do have a man who was found to be standing close to Nichols’ body (not ‘standing over the body’),

We have only testimony to go on - Paul's and Cross/Lechmere's. So I am not really prepared to discuss fine distinctions. Lechmere was very close to a still warm body, he was looking at it - whether he had been close and moved away is, in my view, possible and plausible.

... unfortunately, there’s nothing much to go on beyond these 2 facts.

Not much more than we have on others such as Hutchinson, yet we spend a lot of time discussing HIM it seems.

Richardson, who denied seeing Chapman's body has had his testimony questioned - it was at the time - and there is a dissertation on whether he saw more than he claimed. I see Lechmere as perhaps warranting a similar attention, at least.

I agree, its difficult to take things further in the light of an apparent lack of contemporary interest - but I think there's more to him as a suspect than can be said of some other suspects about whom books have been written.

Phil

[FrankO]

In Lechmere/Cross we have a man who clearly misled the police. Who effectively lied and apparently got away with it.

I’d say that ‘misled’ is an overstatement, Phil. In what way did he mislead them? He apparently told them he worked at Messrs. Pickford and Co in Broad Street, which they could easily check. And again, many people back then & there used aliases. It doesn’t seem to have been a big deal.

So, yes, we do have a man who was found to be standing close to Nichols’ body (not ‘standing over the body’), and we do have somebody that gave another name than the name on his birth certificate. In that respect he’s interesting and would undoubtedly have been investigated if it had been a modern case, given the behavior of modern murderers. But, unfortunately, there’s nothing much to go on beyond these 2 facts.

Like Lechmere worded so well in his comparison between Cross and Hutchinson, Cross apparently didn’t give the slightest hint of being involved in Nichols’ murder. Just like, for instance, George Morris didn’t give any hint that he was involved in Eddowes’ murder. So, to me, it’s an interesting thought that Cross may have been Jack the Ripper, but, based on the little we know about him, it doesn’t go any furthe.

All the best,
Frank

[Sally]

Lechmere

is spelled variously (sigh) in the historic record - census returns and such; as Leckmore, Leckmere, and Latchmore for example. Just an aside.

And Lechmere (yes, you!) I don't want to get bogged down in Honest Geo. either; but the comparison does invite itself here. I shall consider what you say