What if PC Thain lied?

[mklhawley]

Hi all,

This has nothing to do with my upcoming lecture, but I was curious. Polly Nichols was murdered along PC Thain's beat. He claimed he did not see her lying on the ground when he walked by at 3:15. Recall, Charles Cross saw her lying on the south side of Buck's Row at 3:40.

With the Nichols murder so similar to the Chapman murder, with the exception of no organs taken, it's hard not to suggest the Ripper was not interrupted when murdering Nichols. ...possibly interrupted by Thain walking his beat at 3:15.

Possible scenarios: Thain may have seen her in the darkness, but thought she was just another drunk or Thain was not where he was supposed to be (He would have gotten into a little hot water not walking his beat). Either way, it would have had incentive not to tell the truth.

I'd love to see your thoughts.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

I believe I messed up my double negative, so... "It's hard to suggest Nichols was not interrupted..."

[Fisherman]

It was not Thain, Mike - it was Neil.

There was blood running from the wound in the neck as Mizen arrived at the body, somewhere around 5-7minutes after Lechmere left the body. That would put the sighting of the blood in the vicinity of perhaps 3.52-3.55.

That effectively means that she must have bled for up against 40 minutes (or more) if she was there and cut on Neils 3.15 round.

So itīs a no as far as Iīm concerned.

[mklhawley]

Hi Fisherman,

I was just going by Casebook's Nichols bio:

"3:15 AM -- PC John Thain, 96J, passes down Buck's Row on his beat. He sees nothing unusual. At approximately the same time Sgt. Kerby passes down Buck's Row and reports the same."

Thanks!

Mike

[Monty]

Bucks Row was Neil's beat, Brady Street was Thain's. He passed the end of the row on his beat.

Kirby was the Section Sergeant.

Monty

[drstrange169]

Hello Mike,

You are right, the Casebook bio does indeed make that mistake. If anyone from Admin. is reading this maybe it could be corrected.

Also Fisherman's misinformation about Mizen's blood sighting should be noted as incorrect (see "Whatever happened to Lechmere" thread post 594).

These mistakes crop up every now and then.

[Wickerman]

PC Neil's testimony has him approaching the body by passing the Board School, he was heading towards Brady Street. So if the killer heard his approach he must surely have run eastward towards Brady St.

Cross & Paul entered Bucks Row from the Brady St. end.

I'm more inclined to think it was the approach of Cross, coming from Brady St., that interrupted the killer, who then fled westward around the Board School.

[drstrange169]

Certainly a logical and practical inclination.

One thing I've never understood is PC Neil's claim that he was "walking along the right side of the street" but "walked across" to Mrs Nichols.

Of course, Llolyds wrote "left side" so maybe it was just an error.

[Fisherman]

Hello Mike,

You are right, the Casebook bio does indeed make that mistake. If anyone from Admin. is reading this maybe it could be corrected.

Also Fisherman's misinformation about Mizen's blood sighting should be noted as incorrect (see "Whatever happened to Lechmere" thread post 594).

These mistakes crop up every now and then.

There are two versions of when Mizen saw the blood. One is that he did so as he first arrived at the scene. This is supported by The Echo.
The other is that he saw fresh blood floating and partially coagulated blood half an hour or more after Nichols was cut. This is suggested by more than just the one newspaper.

Dusty prefers to go with the statistics here, and therefore he rules out the only version where the bleeding and coagulation is in sync with the events.

I prefer to go with the realities. Itīs an inclination that I try never to strive from, regardless what happens to my theory.

So instead of listening to and taking the advice from Dusty, I recommend - as always - to read all the sources and then ask yourself which are the ones likeliest to be true. Once one does that, a fringe benefit is how one tends not to spend any time on Dustys advice afterwards.

[Fisherman]

Cross & Paul entered Bucks Row from the Brady St. end.

That is corroborated in just the one case.

I am just saying that to point to how we must be able to sift truths from claims when we look at this case. There is a tendency to follow in the leish provided by Lechmere. That is either wise - or not. The important thing is to keep in mind that both things may apply.

[Barnaby]

One noncontroversial point is that there was some discussion between Cross/Lechmere and Paul if she was breathing. This lack of clarity seems unlikely had she been attacked 25 minutes earlier.

[Wickerman]

That is corroborated in just the one case.

I was quite sure it was variously stated across a number of accounts.

I am just saying that to point to how we must be able to sift truths from claims when we look at this case. There is a tendency to follow in the leish provided by Lechmere. That is either wise - or not. The important thing is to keep in mind that both things may apply.

I appreciate you going easy on me Christer

[Fisherman]

Wickerman: I was quite sure it was variously stated across a number of accounts.

But how is that corroboration if none of those who gave the accounts were there, Jon? Regardless what one thinks about Lechmere and his viability as a suspect, it makes for a very useful exercise to look at the alternative scenarios. I often find it hard myself to drop the uncorroborated parts of Lechmereīs story. To me, that partly explains why he was left alone for so many years - envisaging the story he told himself is so very much easier than it is to envisage the alternative versions.

I appreciate you going easy on me Christer

Ha! I hope thinking about the alternative doesnīt keep you awake and trembling at night...
I am just as happy about how you are able to debate intelligibly, accepting in good mood how we differ from time to time. Itīs rarer than it ought to be.