POLLY NICHOLS: some questions

[Phil H]

Lynn

Thanks very much for the link.

I had read that dissertation and have it on file, though I have not looked at it in a while.

It may have been that which started my mind playing with ideas - in which case I owe MICHAEL CONNOR an acknowledgement. here it is, sincerely and with apologies.

But essentially that article states in detail the ideas that have been nagging at me. What I have not seen is any refutation of that idea.

If there is not one - I am sure I have seen him dismissed somewhere, but long ago - I find it strange that there is so little interest in a man who was found standing over a newly assaulted woman, and who then gave a false name! Surely he must be a prime suspect unless there is clear evidence to dismiss him in any/all of the other cases.

Thanks again,

Phil

[Carol]

[QUOTE=Phil H;175824]
One possible source of the confusion may be the testimony of Holland (called Jane Oram by The Times - Sourcebook p42) which says that "Holland" was told by Nichols that "she was living where men and women were allowed to sleep" [which is past tense not indicative of an intention later] but added that she should come back and live with witness. Witness believed deceased stated she had been living in Flowery Dean-street[sic]."

Hi Phil H,
I've probably got the wrong end of the stick, but to my mind 'she was living where men and women were allowed to sleep' actually is meant in the present tense. I'm an expat and have had to learn Swedish but I'm sure that when I was young and living in Chatham, Kent (one of the Medway towns where many Eastenders came to live and work in the Dockyard in the 19th century) we would have said the same when telling someone else where another person had said she was living. 'Cath said she was living where men and women were allowed to sleep' - Cath herself had said 'I'm living where men and women are allowed to sleep'.

My memory might be failing me and having two languages in one's head on a daily basis does lead to confusion at times, but I thought I'd mention it 'just in case'.

Love
Carol

[lynn cates]

answers

Hello Phil. Regarding #1, I think you are correct to identify "The Times" article of September 4 as the most likely source for the claim.

Regarding #2, you might have a go at this.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...html#highlight

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Question 1

On page 207 of the latest edition of the A-Z, under the entry on Emily Holland, the text says, in relation to her last conversation with Polly Nichols:

"[Nichols] was off to earn [her doss money] again and refused to accompany Holland back to Thrawl Street, saying she wanted to go somewhere where she could share a bed with a man (i.e. Flower and Dean Street)."

I have never come across the BOLDED part of that statement before - and it seems to me to be of potential importance. Does anyone know what the source is?

The usual wording given, in every book I have consulted (which is most of the work on JtR since the late 60s) is that she had spent her doss money 3 times already that day.

The Sourcebook, p32 of the p/back edition, reproduces the report by Swanson, and on p 51, The Times report, which reads:

""...[Nichols] was going about to get some money to pay her lodgings, and she would soon be back." No mention of wanting a place where she could share a bed with a man, or implications of F&D St. Sugden, p 45 (p/back edition) also does not mention this.

So where does the statement come from? It seems to me of potential importance because:

a) it could mean that she had a man in mind to share a bed with (and might pay?); and,

b) that during the course of the night she had for some reason determined NOT to return to 18 Thrawl St, at least that night (from which she had been turned away earlier saying "I'll soon get my doss money... "(A-Z p 375) which rather implies she intended to return there). If so what had happened - allowing for the fact that she was inebriated - to change her mind?

I recognise that the A-Z (p 375) asserts very categorically that Nichols had been living from 24 August-30 August at the "White House", 56 Flower and Dean St. But Holland was much more vague - see below. Note that Swanson's report (Sourcebook p 32), gives her address as 18 Thrawl Street. Also, if Polly had not been living at the Thrawl St lodging house for the previous few nights and yet had gone there earlier that night (to be turned away) why did she do that?

If she had a man in mind - with whom she intended to share a bed (as the A-Z entry might imply), could he have been her killer? Did she know him and his haunts? [I doubt it, frankly, but I'd like to clear this up.]

One possible source of the confusion may be the testimony of Holland (called Jane Oram by The Times - Sourcebook p42) which says that "Holland" was told by Nichols that "she was living where men and women were allowed to sleep" [which is past tense not indicative of an intention later] but added that she should come back and live with witness. Witness believed deceased stated she had been living in Flowery Dean-street[sic]."

This again - though ambiguous - seems to contradict the A-Z's confident assertion both in regard to their last conversation and Nichols' last place of abode.

Can anyone shed light on any of this?

Question 2:

I asked this on another (old) thread but it seems to have been ignored.

Can anyone tell me (or direct me to a source) where the reason for Charles Lechmere/Cross being ruled out as a suspect, then and now?

He was found (by Paul) bending over the (allegedly) still warm body of Nichols - no one else was ever found in this position viz a viz a Ripper victim! He gave a false name to police (which seems to have been a unique circumstance). His route to work could have taken him directly along Hanbury St, past No 29 where Chapman was killed a week later.

I have never seen any alibi or reasoning as to why he is not considered a suspect?

If he has been exhonerated because he has been looked at in connection only with the "canonical five", how would he stack up if (say) only Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were involved?

Again I'd be grateful for any light others can shed on this, and also for views.

Thanks

Phil