Disregarded evidence

[Fisherman]

Hi Phil!

Yes, I agree very much with what you are saying here, and a lot of confusion may adher to Lilley´s testimony. Lets also keep in mind that those fifteen minutes of fame would have had an allure for many people.

To me, the technical evidence built into what Neil tells us - that blood was trickling from the wound in Nichols neck as he shone his light on her - is what tells us that whatever Lilley heard, if it was tied to the passage of the luggage train, then it was not related to the murder as such.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

The problem with Mrs Lilley's "evidence", for me, is the evident unreliability of what one hears either when dozing or newly awake.

She might well have heard the train sounds, and the voices, but there could have been no time, or ten minutes between the two.

As an example - in the 80s I was interviewed for the BBC radio "Today" programme in regard to a project with which I was involved. I woke up at six to listen and thought I was wide awake - I had been informed that the piece if it appeared would be broadcast at around 6.30am. I was eager to hear how the interview came over. Next thing I knew the phone was ringing. It was my mother saying "Did you hear it?" Despite myself I had fallen asleep again!

Now if that could happen when I was TRYING to be alert, how much easier on an ordinary darkish morning in 1888.

I am sure everyone can recall similar personal examples.

So I place no value on the timings which might emerge from Mrs Lilley - bar perhaps the train, and I do think she heard Cross/Lechmere and Paul talking in an undertone. Like Hutchinson being seen but not identified outside Miller's Court, it is the simplest solution.

An alternative would be that she heard Polly and her killer, but I think that on the whole less likely that the other option I have mentioned.

Phil H

[Fisherman]

Hi Tom!

A luggage train went by as Lilley heard the sounds. That luggage train went by at 3.30.
At 3.45-3.50 somewhere, PC Neil found Nichols´body. At that stage, the blood was still oozing from the neck wound.
A woman that has all of the neck vessels severed and - to boot - has her stomach ripper open, will bleed out in the fewest of minutes. I find it hard in the extreme to believe that Nichols would still have bled a full fifteen to twenty minutes after she was cut. Blood oozing three or four minutes after the cut, would however be forensically correct - and in total line with Nichols being cut by Lechmere.

Let´s keep in mind that Buck´s Row was a street in which prostitution was on offer. What Lilley heard - if she indeed DID hear anything - could have been a sexual transaction. They do include the occasional moan and gasp too. Also, note that Lilley does not say that the voices she heard were those of two men; it could apparently have been the voices of a man and a woman too. Or two women and five men - Lilley does not specify how many the voices were.

It is tantalizing to see a connection with Lechmere and Paul here, but the time schedule seems not to go along with the suggestion.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Somebody set me straight...

I must be daft or something, because far from confirming that Cross killed or didn't kill Nichols, all Harriett Lilley seems to be confirming is that a woman was murdered under her window, and two people subsequently spoke together in a low voice in the same spot. This makes perfect sense as Nichols was murdered there, and moments later, Cross and Paul spoke to each other, presumably in whispers. Here's her account from the Echo:

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."

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

confusion

Hello Dave.

"Like his gluteus maximus and his olecranon process?"

This calls to mind an old friend of mine who was a retired psychiatrist. He once confessed to me that he always confused the xiphoid process and the coccyx. I laughed until I cried.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

corrected

Hello Lucky. thanks. Many of the responsible of the press corrected their errors. Agreed.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mr Lucky,

I am a bear of very little brain, so I suggest you take up this particular argument with Fisherman or Lechmere.

Personally, I think the Crossmere-as-Ripper argument is pants.

Regards,

Simon

[Mr Lucky]

Ripper rules.

A witness statement is accurate if it supports a particular argument.

However—

A witness statement is questionable if it doesn't support the same particular argument.

Hi Simon

So, I think Cross is the killer and Mrs Lilley is accurate as she supports my particular argument. But, Lechmere thinks Cross is the killer and Mrs Lilley is questionable as she doesn't support his argument.

Overall, not looking too good for Cross.

[Hunter]

Ah - ha Jon guy is a spoil sport - yes there are doubtlessly good reasons why some of this was disregarded!
Yet is still presented to bolster theories.
I am very sceptical of all newspaper presented evidence that aimed to solve the case (other newspaper based information is a different matter) and am very sceptical of virtually every witness statement in this case.

Maybe this is a stupid question... but...
What was the purpose of the OP?

[Cogidubnus]

The blood stains on Bucks row aren't disproved, Lechmere's just got them in the wrong place.

What? Like his gluteus maximus and his olecranon process?

Yes I see...

Dave

PS Sorry Ed I couldn't resist!

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Ripper rules.

A witness statement is accurate if it supports a particular argument.

However—

A witness statement is questionable if it doesn't support the same particular argument.

Regards,

Simon

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Cog

The blood stains on Bucks row aren't disproved, Lechmere's just got them in the wrong place.

[Cogidubnus]

Don't worry Mr Lucky...I suspect it's all a clever ploy to discredit the Harriet Lilley statement (just about the only part of the above farrago which hasn't so far been disproved) by mere association...

All the best

Dave

PS If I'm wrong, the answer is dead easy. Simply state that the Harriet Lilley evidence may be regarded as not included in this posting...and may be dealt with separately...

[Mr Lucky]

Well, I don’t recall any reference to those. But the blood stain theory was later repudiated.

Hi Lynn

It's in Lechmere's OP, one of five points he believes were disregarded, along with the blood stain theory. You appeared to be suggesting that what may appear disregarded may actually have been investigated, but found untrue so I wondered how that could fit in with Mrs Lilley's statement

Indeed. But my claim was that it was corrected and I was trying to account for WHY there was a discrepancy in the first place.

Yes, I agree with you about why there was a discrepancy, but I wanted to point out that the press corrected themselves regarding this matter at the earliest opportunity, and did so remarkably quickly, and not from Inquest testimony.

The press correcting themselves in the 'later account's but not removing the offending text from what were, in some cases just the previous paragraph (though from an early telegram), is for me an example of how little editing was done once the text had been sent for composition.

[lynn cates]

discrepancy

Hello Lucky. Thanks.

“Not sure how this "investigated, but found untrue" can be applied to Mrs Lilley and the 3.7 from Newcross.”

Well, I don’t recall any reference to those. But the blood stain theory was later repudiated.

“Mann and Hatfield didn't give testimony until the 17th. The assumption that the cuts and tears in the clothes were due to the attack were corrected far quicker than that, under the heading 'a later account' or 'later telegram' in the same issue of some of the newspapers that made the claim, in some cases this was before the inquest had even started.”

Indeed. But my claim was that it was corrected and I was trying to account for WHY there was a discrepancy in the first place.

Cheers.
LC