Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere -I think that Lechmere/Cross would be a very good suspect (anyone actually standing over one of the bodies would be worth looking at),
and I have no trouble with the timing. (Note that Danilo Restivo...my big interest at the moment- is accused of murdering Heather Barnett in a very Ripper-ish way, in the morning, on the way to a computer course).

However, my big bugbear with Cross, would simply be that the Nichols murder was near the beginning of the Ripper murders.

I can't believe that Cross would risk being seen near the site of another murder once he had come to the attention of the authorities, and had gained some notority amongst his neighbours.

I think that if the real killer found himself in the position of Cross, then he would have layen low for a good while.

And how come Criss wasn't "checked out" ? Or would this be his first 'crime' do you think?

[Abby Normal]

Lechmere -I think that Lechmere/Cross would be a very good suspect (anyone actually standing over one of the bodies would be worth looking at),
and I have no trouble with the timing. (Note that Danilo Restivo...my big interest at the moment- is accused of murdering Heather Barnett in a very Ripper-ish way, in the morning, on the way to a computer course).

However, my big bugbear with Cross, would simply be that the Nichols murder was near the beginning of the Ripper murders.

I can't believe that Cross would risk being seen near the site of another murder once he had come to the attention of the authorities, and had gained some notority amongst his neighbours.

I think that if the real killer found himself in the position of Cross, then he would have layen low for a good while.

And how come Criss wasn't "checked out" ? Or would this be his first 'crime' do you think?

Hi Ruby
or perhaps he thought that no one ever suspect him now. He was a witness at the inquest!

But as I said before, eventhough he should be considered because as you and Lechmere have both pointed he was found standing near a victim, I have a hard time reconciling that JtR would do his thing on the way to work.

[Lechmere]

I think Tabram was a Ripper murder – and it was on Cross’s route to work and partly explains why he didn’t walk straight to work down Old Montague Street and Wentworth Street after meeting Mizen.
I am tempted to suggest that Ada Wilson and/or Annie Millwood were ‘warm ups’ but there are problems over the timings and the triggers if Cross was the culprit.
Either way I don’t think for a moment that Nichols was the first – whoever did it.

I don’t think he gained notoriety among his neighbours. He had literally only moved into Doveton Street a matter of months before the attacks started, so he probably wasn’t known.

Serial killers do continue killing after being looked at by the police – Sutcliffe did. I don’t think trying to get inside his mind to fathom what he would or wouldn’t have done is very profitable. Didn’t your man Restivo do something similar? They often have a compulsion.
As I have said, if it was Cross, the way he breezed through the inquest could have given him confidence.

I don’t think Cross was a criminal. I think he was pretty law abiding – apart from the obvious (if he did it of course).

As for ‘checking out’, he had a proper job and a house. That ticked two big boxes for the police. The police wouldn’t have had access to the census records to find his real name.

At the time the police were thinking it was a gang attack or Leather Apron, or a mad foreigner.
Having said that we know that the police took a good look at Robert Paul (I am sure that was because he slagged the police off to the press and didn’t come forward) and the butchers from Winthrop Street.
As for Cross, they seem to have not taken any interest in him.

When the inquest was adjourned, the hue and cry about Pizer started and then the Chapman murder occurred and the search switched to Iscenschmidt. It is clear the police thought they had their man when he was locked up. Then we had the double event. By then Cross had been swept away and forgotten by the tide of events.

An innocuous local worker who seemed helpful and who gave a straight forward story would not have attracted attention I think.

It is curious that the murder took place on Friday and he attended the inquest on the Monday, in his work clothes, although he must have known he wouldn’t be able to go to work. He must have known he was attending the inquest or he wouldn’t have presented himself. I think he didn’t tell his wife he was going to the inquest and pretended he was going to work.
She couldn’t read about it in the papers as she was illiterate.

[Monty]

Lechmere -I think that Lechmere/Cross would be a very good suspect (anyone actually standing over one of the bodies would be worth looking at),
and I have no trouble with the timing. (Note that Danilo Restivo...my big interest at the moment- is accused of murdering Heather Barnett in a very Ripper-ish way, in the morning, on the way to a computer course).

However, my big bugbear with Cross, would simply be that the Nichols murder was near the beginning of the Ripper murders.

I can't believe that Cross would risk being seen near the site of another murder once he had come to the attention of the authorities, and had gained some notority amongst his neighbours.

I think that if the real killer found himself in the position of Cross, then he would have layen low for a good while.

And how come Criss wasn't "checked out" ? Or would this be his first 'crime' do you think?

We know Cross wasn't checked out do we? That his story and background wasn't verified?

We have Hutchinson who, it was stated by Abberline, was questioned quite closely and this is a reasonable example of seeming procedure.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Monty
There are particular reasons why Hutchinson would have been questioned closely - given the nature of his story.
Abberline was only brought in after Nichols was murdered anyway and it is clear the police attempted to adopt more rigorous procedures as the autumn progressed.
If Cross had been rigorously checked out I am sure he wouldn't have been called Cross, including in the internal police reports.

[Monty]

Lechmere,

Yes, there are reasons why Hutchinson was looked at more intensively however I think it naïve to think he was the only one.

Having viewed statements made from other murder cases before and and 1888 its quite obvious that witnesses were checked out and not merely taken at face value.

With regards his name there may have been a valid reason why he was named as Cross which we are not party to as of yet. This has been covered before.

As for his wife, whilst illiterate surely a relative, friend etc discussed his inquest appearence.

Monty

[GregBaron]

Take a ride in my car...

Hi all,

Just some questions that have occurred over this debate. I’m not exactly sure what a carman is but I suppose it is one who has some sort of vehicle from which he provides transport. Would a car be a nice thing to have when picking up prostitutes? “Hey lass just jump in my car and I’ll wheel you to the nearest alley, no one will hear a thing.” Or perhaps it would be a good prop to have after a murder to deflect suspicion?, but if this was the case wouldn’t any witnesses say “Hmm. I saw a mysterious car lying against a wall in Hanbury Street” for example. Wouldn’t someone also steal an unattended car? Secondly, would the ripper be standing some feet off admiring his handiwork when he could be further mutilating or more likely skedaddling……………and finally, would a man who had just throttled, violently cut a throat twice and reached up under tight clothing to slice through viscera not A) have some blood about his person B) Have a large knife about his person C) At least have a blood cleaning rag about his person D) Show some signs of being flushed, red-faced, sweating, disheveled etc.. after what would have been rather serious exertion……..D) Would the cops not notice or attempt to notice such things? Anyway, just throwing a little fuel on the fire…………


Greg

[GregBaron]

No cars necessary...

I just looked up Cross and realized that he probably picked up his cars at his employers so he wouldn't have them outside of work. Makes sense. This makes moot my car points. The others may still invite speculation however....


Greg

[Lechmere]

Monty
The police papers on the Nichols case name various people as being specifically questioned – i.e. the ones who were deemed particularly worthy of questioning. Cross isn’t one of them. I don’t take this to mean that he wasn’t questioned at all.
He must have provided a more detailed statement prior to his inquest appearance, but I would also suggest that he precipitated this by going to a police station voluntarily to give his statement.

As evidence for Cross voluntarily going to a police station, Paul was dragged out of bed several days later after he failed to show and only appeared at the inquest after the adjournment.

If he wasn’t known as Cross to anyone – and I would suggest the balance of probabilities from what we know of his life is that he wasn’t - then no one is likely to have mentioned his involvement to his wife.

They had spent their previous married and non married lives in the area south of Commercial Road (in various streets around Berner Street for want of a better landmark). This is a totally different district to the Doveton Street area, which while it came under Mile End Old Town was more normally considered part of Bethnal Green. Most likely they knew no one around their new home.
His wife had eight young children to bring up, including a new born and sickly girl. I don’t suppose she got out much.

Gregbaron
The things you mention – blood stains, concealing a knife, a red sweaty face - would have been problems for whoever did it.
A lodging house dweller would have looked a bit conspicuous to the deputy for example.
If the culprit stayed out all night then he ran the risk of being stopped and questioned by a policeman on the beat. They did stop and question people regularly and clean rough sleepers out of regular haunts (e.g. read the statements by the policemen involved in finding the Pinchin Street torso).

[GregBaron]

A mere innocent...

Gregbaron
The things you mention – blood stains, concealing a knife, a red sweaty face - would have been problems for whoever did it.
A lodging house dweller would have looked a bit conspicuous to the deputy for example.
If the culprit stayed out all night then he ran the risk of being stopped and questioned by a policeman on the beat. They did stop and question people regularly and clean rough sleepers out of regular haunts (e.g. read the statements by the policemen involved in finding the Pinchin Street torso).

Good point Lechmere but aren't we here talking about a near immediate apprehension....I guess we don't know exactly how long Nichols had been dead when Cross peered over her body but from the timelines and medical evaluations it couldn't have been much.......did he have time to get cleaned up and appear calm by the time Paul came near....? I guess we don't know but after all someone had to find the body............and Cross going to work certainly doesn't pertain to Stride or Eddowes....I personally think JTR would be a hard occupation to have while working and married with multiple children...............but yes of course I know I'm just speculating......

[Tom_Wescott]

Monty, Lechmere, et al,

Was Cross among the people who petitioned for more money to appear at the inquest? I cleary recall that Albert Cadosch had come to do so, but I thought Cross also made a stink about it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Rubyretro]

[

QUOTE=Lechmere;180851]I think Tabram was a Ripper murder Either way I don’t think for a moment that Nichols was the first – whoever did it.

I agree with you here !

I don’t think he gained notoriety among his neighbours. He had literally only moved into Doveton Street a matter of months before the attacks started, so he probably wasn’t known.

I think that as everyone in the area must have been talking about the murders, they would know and gossip about any neighbour who had found a body and appeared at the inquest; local shopkeepers would gossip about him with customers.

Serial killers do continue killing after being looked at by the police

I certainly agree.

Didn’t your man Restivo do something similar? They often have a compulsion

.
Yes indeed -but he let some time elapse, and moved far away. I can't believe that JTR would be seen standing over a body one day, and then risk being recognised anywhere near a murder site with such a short gap and in the same area.

As I have said, if it was Cross, the way he breezed through the inquest could have given him confidence.

certainly but he could get away with that once, not twice.

I don’t think Cross was a criminal. I think he was pretty law abiding – apart from the obvious (if he did it of course).

yes, that is my idea of JTR.
[QUOTE]As for ‘checking out’[/QUOTE
Ah ..so you think that the Police couldn't check out his exact movements
to the minute, at the times of the murders. They wouldn't check out a witness as a suspect. They wouldn't be very wary of someone who seemed normal and respectable.

When the inquest was adjourned, the hue and cry about Pizer started and then the Chapman murder occurred and the search switched to Iscenschmidt. It is clear the police thought they had their man when he was locked up. Then we had the double event. By then Cross had been swept away and forgotten by the tide of events.

He'd have soon been remembered if he'd been spotted in Berner Street or Hanbury. The area is very small, and he must have got around it on his cart.
[QUOTE]

An innocuous local worker who seemed helpful It is curious that the murder took place on Friday and he attended the inquest on the Monday, in his work clothes, although he must have known he wouldn’t be able to go to work. He must have known he was attending the inquest or he wouldn’t have presented himself. I think he didn’t tell his wife he was going to the inquest and pretended he was going to work.

Or he didn't have many clothes, and didn't know how long his part of the inquest would last and whether he couldn't go to work as well (he was worried about loss of money)

[Lechmere]

GregBaron
There seems to have been hardly any blood in the Nichols scene - what there was soaked up in her dress under her body.

Plus I think whoever did it lifted the skirts and slashed at the abdomen, using the skirts as a shield - in other words with his body over her face or chest. She lay with her head towards Brady Street and her legs towards the school building. I think the killer faced toowards the school - the way PC Neil would approach. This would also account for him not realising that Paul (or Cross if Cross didn't do it) was coming up behind him. He was disturbed in the act.

So in the case of the Nichols murder I don't think there would be much blood and don't forget both Cross and Paul claim to have prodded and touched the body and don't appear to have had blood on them.

Would he have been flushed and hyperventilating? Maybe, maybe not. He could have been serenely calm. We are dealing with a nutter. Cross’s approach to Paul in the street was a bit odd. He didn’t call out. He went up to him in a way that made Paul think he was about to get mugged.
People think a killer would be in a frenzy, frothing at the mouth. The likelihood is that the killer wouldn't have appeared in this manner.

The Double Event was on Saturday night / Sunday morning so no work! But I have pointed out his mother lived near to Berner Street and his eldest daughter lived with his mother.

Yes someone had to find the body, but of all the bodies in all the Whitechapel murders, this was the only time the alarm was not immediately raised by the finders.

Tom
I know Robert Paul complained – Robert Paul comes across as a bit anti-establishment. I have never seen anything about Cross complaining.


Rubyretro
Whoever did it ran the risk of being spotted. Numerous serial killers are spotted and continue, are investigated and continue as if nothing happened.

On the inquest, where details of clothes are given, invariably people turned up in their Sunday best, knowing they were on show and that they wouldn’t be going anywhere else.

“so you think that the Police couldn't check out his exact movements to the minute, at the times of the murders. They wouldn't check out a witness as a suspect. They wouldn't be very wary of someone who seemed normal and respectable.”

A witness whose story wasn’t discredited and who presented themselves promptly and without fuss would not tend to invite attention as a suspect – I think.
The police were not wary of respectable looking people - householders with full time jobs. They did have an innate suspicion of people who did not have regular employment and who lived in places like lodging houses, as the police had an expectation that such people were more likely to commit crime.
As for checking his movements to the minute – had they done so they would have found that he had time to spare (possibly). We cannot know for sure.
The times all the witnesses give with respect to the Nichols murder are difficult to reconcile properly. In this case five minutes here or there make all the difference and people didn’t have such an accurate method for recording time. For example Robert Paul says he left home at 3.45. That would mean he found Cross at 3.50. Cross said he left at 3.20 or 3.30, which would mean he was at the murder scene at 3.28 or 3.38.
Then try adding in when PC Neil said he found the body, when Dr Llewellyn was called and so on and soon it becomes difficult to reconcile exactly. As the murder would have taken a few minutes to carry out, these discrepancies are important but not easy to unravel.

[Monty]

Monty
The police papers on the Nichols case name various people as being specifically questioned – i.e. the ones who were deemed particularly worthy of questioning. Cross isn’t one of them. I don’t take this to mean that he wasn’t questioned at all.

He must have provided a more detailed statement prior to his inquest appearance, but I would also suggest that he precipitated this by going to a police station voluntarily to give his statement.

As evidence for Cross voluntarily going to a police station, Paul was dragged out of bed several days later after he failed to show and only appeared at the inquest after the adjournment.

If he wasn’t known as Cross to anyone – and I would suggest the balance of probabilities from what we know of his life is that he wasn’t - then no one is likely to have mentioned his involvement to his wife.

They had spent their previous married and non married lives in the area south of Commercial Road (in various streets around Berner Street for want of a better landmark). This is a totally different district to the Doveton Street area, which while it came under Mile End Old Town was more normally considered part of Bethnal Green. Most likely they knew no one around their new home.
His wife had eight young children to bring up, including a new born and sickly girl. I don’t suppose she got out much.

You dont suppose she got out much?

Theres a lot of suggestion here. A lot.

Monty

[Ben]

A witness whose story wasn’t discredited and who presented themselves promptly and without fuss would not tend to invite attention as a suspect – I think.

But then there's no reason for anyone to suspect such an individual in the first place, Lechmere, us included. Not being suspicious is an interesting new criterion for assessing the likelihood of a person's complicity in the crimes, but not one I'd personally champion.