Mary Ann Nichols

[How Brown]

Forum for discussion and background on this victim....

[Shawn-a]

Polly spent 9 months straight at a workhouse. Then she went back for a month here and a month there and then less and less.
I haven't found evidence that she was an alcoholic....
So far the more mainstream (still living with a man, Ha ha) Catherine seems to be the biggest drunk....

[Wickerman]

One current theory doing the rounds argues that the placement of the body of 'Polly' Nichols was important to JtR.
The argument suggests that the body was not found on the pavement as is commonly understood but rather, the murder was committed and body actually found between two large gateposts that were the entry to Brown's Stables. It is suggested that there was a considerable recess between the edge of the pavement and the wooden gate. This then would be a deep threshold, for want of a better word. Deep enough to conceal a person who wished not to be seen and deep enough to conceal a body laid out parallel with the gate.
What do we find in contemporary evidence to support such a belief?

Where was the body found?
Inspr. Spratling - "on a yard crossing at Bucks Row".
Central News - "lying at the side of the street".
Ch. Inspr. Swanson - "lying on the footway".
P.C. John Neil - "lying in the street - outside the gateway".
Dr. Llewellyn - "flat on her back on the pathway".
George Cross - "lying in front of the gateway".
Robert Paul - "lying right across the gateway".
The Times - "almost under the windows of Mrs Green"

The above collection of sources gives a general idea for the location of the body, but could they, when taken together, support the argument that the body was lying across a deep threshold alongside stable gates, essentially concealed from view of anyone looking up or down the street?

Mrs Emma Green, who lived at New-Cottage, directly adjacent to the gates of Brown's stables, helps to throw a little light on that specific argument, in her inquest testimony we read:
"She opened the window and saw three or four constables and two or three other men. She saw the body of deceased lying on the ground.."

If the location of the body, being out of sight between the deep gateposts, is so critical to any particular theory then the statement of Mrs Green tends to destroy that portion of the theory.

[Spiro]

Jon,

Some interesting points you raise here on yet another theory doing the rounds. Just an addition that may be of help, P.C. John Neil's inquest testimony as paraphrased in Sugden's Complete History reads:

"...lying on her back, lengthways along the footway and outside the gate to Mr Brown's stables, her head towards the east, her left hand touching the gate."

[Tom_Wescott]

Spiro,

Stay out of these matters. In case you aren't aware, you've been completely discredited.

Jon,

There was a paved upramp leading to the gate that divided the sidewalk (pavement). Her body laid across this at a slight angle(head closer to gate), allowing the blood to flow down under her clothes with some going in the gutter. There was no where at that site the Ripper could hide, though (as suggested by Magpie) he probably was hiding somewhere nearby as Cross and Paul looked at the body and then fled after they left the scene. The stable gateway and upramp resembled, and may even have been identical to, that found in Dutfield's Yard where Stride was killed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

There was a paved upramp leading to the gate that divided the sidewalk (pavement). Her body laid across this at a slight angle(head closer to gate), allowing the blood to flow down under her clothes with some going in the gutter......

I just erased my previous response, I thought you were talking about a ramp between the pavement and the gate.
No, you are only referring to the grading from the road to the gate which divides the pathway (sidewalk). Such a grade (shallow ramp) was usually cobblestone. This is shown in contemporary drawings, yes she was laid across the grading, this though does not address my point.


There was no where at that site the Ripper could hide, though (as suggested by Magpie) he probably was hiding somewhere nearby as Cross and Paul looked at the body and then fled after they left the scene. The stable gateway and upramp resembled, and may even have been identical to, that found in Dutfield's Yard where Stride was killed.


Can you also explain why you think the 'recess' was not deep enough to conceal a person, contra to the published theory?, are you saying the gate was reasonably flush with the house wall?

Thanks Jon

[Tom_Wescott]

I just erased my previous response, I thought you were talking about a ramp between the pavement and the gate.
No, you are only referring to the grading from the road to the gate which divides the pathway (sidewalk). Such a grade (shallow ramp) was usually cobblestone.

Is that right.

This is shown in contemporary drawings, yes she was laid across the grading, this though does not address my point.

It should, since you were asking if her body was found between two posts. The answer is no.

Can you also explain why you think the 'recess' was not deep enough to conceal a person, contra to the published theory?, are you saying the gate was reasonably flush with the house wall?

I don't know what recent 'published theory' you're referring to, so I don't know if anything I'm saying is 'contra' to it, but Cross and Paul were standing (and kneeling) right in front of the recess of the gate. Pretty obvious he didn't hide at the murder spot. Unless, perhaps, I'm not fully understanding what you're asking.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Jon,

I just went back and reread your first post. It seems you (or your source) is suggesting that Polly was laid out straight directly in front of and parallel to the gate, thus fitting inbetween the two 'gateposts'. NO, she wasn't. She was laid out well in front of it, in the way of the sidewalk and quite visible. He left hand was out to her side and touching or close enough to touch the gate. Her bonnet was lying nearby. This indicates a certain amount of distance between her body and the gate doors. The whole gate thing makes me think you're reading that Chetcuti stuff. If so, I wouldn't put any stock in it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

No Tom, its not Chetcuti.
So you also agree that the 'theory' I referred to is wrong?

Just as a follow-up, for those who still may not appreciate the futility of the theory, here (I hope) are a couple of pic's of Bucks Row in the 1960's, notice how narrow the sidewalk is/was.

[Magpie]

I don't know what recent 'published theory' you're referring to, so I don't know if anything I'm saying is 'contra' to it, but Cross and Paul were standing (and kneeling) right in front of the recess of the gate. Pretty obvious he didn't hide at the murder spot. Unless, perhaps, I'm not fully understanding what you're asking.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom.

Didn't Ivor Edwards say that the gate was in fact deeper at the time of the murders than later photos show (and hence researchers believed).

I do think it extremely likely that the Ripper was hiding close by and would have returned to finish the job had Cross and Paul passed by Nichols without noticing. As soon as Cross noticed the body and moved toward it, the Ripper would have realized that the gig was up and would have withdrawn from the scene. I did base that speculation in part on the excellent observation that you initially made that the Ripper appeared to have been disturbed at the scene.:thumbsupbud:

[Wickerman]

Here also is a pic of the sidewalk on Winthrop St. The house construction & design were the same as on Bucks Row.

[Tom_Wescott]

Of course the theory you're referring to is wrong. Would you mind sharing who's theory it is?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Now, if that lady in the above pic fell down on the sidewalk/pathway/footpath, call it what you will.
Her body would occupy the whole damn thing, just as we see in contemporary drawings of the location of the body of Nichols..

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom.

Didn't Ivor Edwards say that the gate was in fact deeper at the time of the murders than later photos show (and hence researchers believed).

I don't know what Ivor Edwards has said on the matter. I haven't read his book in years. But I go off contemporary (1888) illustrations whenever possible.

I do think it extremely likely that the Ripper was hiding close by and would have returned to finish the job had Cross and Paul passed by Nichols without noticing. As soon as Cross noticed the body and moved toward it, the Ripper would have realized that the gig was up and would have withdrawn from the scene. I did base that speculation in part on the excellent observation that you initially made that the Ripper appeared to have been disturbed at the scene.:thumbsupbud:

I agree with you as well. I'm not entirely sure what Wickerman is talking about or what I'm agreeing or disagreeing with there. Seems he has an agenda as he won't name the author of this new theory or fully spell out what the theory is. Bottom line is, she was not snuggled up to the gate and there was nowhere in that immediate spot (ie stableyard gate) for the killer to hide.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Of course the theory you're referring to is wrong. Would you mind sharing who's theory it is?

No I don't mind, but Ivor E. might be able to explain it better than anyone.
If I've misunderstood anything, please clarify.

[Tom_Wescott]

No I don't mind, but Ivor E. might be able to explain it better than anyone.
If I've misunderstood anything, please clarify.

Yep, there's the agenda. You know, you're better than this. Oh, and about your praise of Spiro's diligent research, and my 'naive' comments regarding it. Are you aware it was Spiro who was wrong, and the word reads 'neurosthenia' as Ivor stated and NOT 'neurasthenia' as Spiro so smuggly stated with certainty while accusing Ivor of lying. Turns out, it was Spiro who was being disingenuous. I won't say 'I told you so', and in return I'd request you not think of me as naive again.
And how the hell am I supposed to clarify anything? This is your thread and your line of inquiry. I still am not sure what the hell you're talking about. I've posted what the evidence says to me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Magpie]

I don't know what Ivor Edwards has said on the matter. I haven't read his book in years. But I go off contemporary (1888) illustrations whenever possible.



I don't think that Ivor was suggesting that the gate was deep enough for the Ripper to have attacked Nichols out of easy view from the street, but didn't posit it as a hiding place as such. I don't have a copy with me, or I'd look it up.

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't think that Ivor was suggesting that the gate was deep enough for the Ripper to have attacked Nichols out of easy view from the street, but didn't posit it as a hiding place as such. I don't have a copy with me, or I'd look it up.

Jon is saying this is a new theory 'making rounds', so he must not be referring to Ivor's book. Who knows what he's talking about. Anyway, Magpie, it seems you and I agree on pretty much everything regarding Nichols.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Magpie]

The one thing that I wonder about is:

Cross thought Nichols was alive. He even felt her face and hands, but there's no record of him having blood on his hands.

Llewellyn allegedly believed that the abdominal injuries were caused first (certainly the lack of blood from the neck supports this somewhat) and we know that they were not visible until later in the mortuary.

We've always assumed that Cross and Paul missed the cut throat because it was to dark to see it (certainly the PC with the lamp saw it right away) but maybe the reason they didn't see it because at the time of their discovery her throat hadn't been cut yet....

Suppose, as Tom has suggested, that Nichols was Jack's first attempt at a mutilation murder. He had no experience or idea how to go about it. Nichols is rendered insensitive (whether by alcohol or by the Ripper) and the Ripper lifts her clothing and starts cutting away. However Nichols stays make it next to impossible for the Ripper to effectively disembowel her, but the injuries are severe enough to send her into shock.

Jack then hears Cross approach and retreats to where he is hidden but can see Nichols--if Cross passes by, he'll go back, if Cross raises the alarm, he'll scarper. As far as Jack knows Nichols is still alive (however barely)

Cross doesn't pass by but goes through the whole rigmorole with Paul, before leaving to find a policeman. Not knowing whether Nichols might survive (or how long), the Ripper dashes over to Nichols body, cuts her throat to make sure, then takes off, before the PC with the lantern shows up to find her corpse.

From his first attempt with Nichols the Ripper comes away with ideas to make future crimes less risky--cut the throat before mutilating, find a more isolated killing ground etc.

This is idle speculation, but it isn't completely ruled out based on anything we know about that night either.

:thumbsupbud:

[Magpie]

Anyway, Magpie, it seems you and I agree on pretty much everything regarding Nichols.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yes, we do seem to view Nichols killing in much the same way. I think that in some ways Nichols killing is more important to the case than some people give credit for (it's always Kelly, Kelly, Kelly)

[Tom_Wescott]

Magpie,

I'm going from memory here, but I believe it was Paul who thought he detected movement while brushing up against her chest. Any movement he felt, assuming it was not wishful thinking, was probably caused by either himself or Cross bumping the body. Given the severity of Nichols' throat wound, not to mention the others, she was certainly dead before they arrived. Cross, I believe, felt Nichols' face and hand, which had no blood on them. Paul felt her hand and chest, also no blood. So neither man should have gotten blood on them.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, we do seem to view Nichols killing in much the same way. I think that in some ways Nichols killing is more important to the case than some people give credit for (it's always Kelly, Kelly, Kelly)

AMEN! Same goes for Stride.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Yep, there's the agenda......

It seems Mr Edwards refuses to face questions from readers so it should not come as a surprise to anyone if other 'not-so-restricted' message boards do not mind lending themselves to such enquiries.



.....And how the hell am I supposed to clarify anything?....

Well, you butted in!
I don't recall asking you anything in my initial post, but you chose to jump right in there, at the same time accusing Spiro of 'butting in'. I don't mind, all opinions are welcome, even those of Mr Edwards.
And, I didn't say anything about a 'new' theory, I said 'current' theory.
Research does involve accurately reading what other people write.

[Wickerman]

I don't think that Ivor was suggesting that the gate was deep enough for the Ripper to have attacked Nichols out of easy view from the street, but didn't posit it as a hiding place as such. I don't have a copy with me, or I'd look it up.

Thats precisely the scenario offered on pp. 27/8 of the paperback version.

I just see no need for any argument involving relocating the body. Mr Edwards admits in his book that the distances between the various murdered bodies does not precisely match the suggested 950 yds. I could understand the need for a spurious theory to relocate the bodies so they do match the numbers, but even when he re-writes history the numbers still do not match. Pointless!.

[Wickerman]

The one thing that I wonder about is:

Cross thought Nichols was alive. He even felt her face and hands, but there's no record of him having blood on his hands...

Well actually Cross testified that he thought she was dead, but that Paul thought she was breathing. Whereas Paul said he thought she was dead also.
So, it looks like they both thought she was dead but that Cross assumed Paul thought she was alive.
That does not sound like a good basis for a theory - they both say they thought she was dead.

Her hands & face were cold, the blood was not flowing, she was dead.
Perhaps the lack of blood was due to her being strangled before her throat was cut?, coupled with the fact the morning was cold and what blood had flowed, mostly, had already soaked into her clothing.

[Tom_Wescott]

It seems Mr Edwards refuses to face questions from readers so it should not come as a surprise to anyone if other 'not-so-restricted' message boards do not mind lending themselves to such enquiries.

Not sure where you get any of that from. I've asked him many a question and always received an answer. I didn't always agree with the answer, but it was received nonetheless. If you're referring to Spiro's false charges, then you're clearly out of the loop. Ivor has produced the evidence at his site that not only was Spiro ridiculously mistaken about Ivor's motives - as I said from day one - but Spiro's shoddy research was wrong, NOT Ivor's. The register clearly lists 'neurosthenia and NOT neurasthenia'.

Well, you butted in!

Butted in? It's a message board, you egomaniac. You asked a question and I answered. I thought it was a legitimate inquiry to start with. Only later did I realize it was yet another attempt of this board to undermine Ivor somehow. Not sure where you got this theory you're attributing to him, though. It would help if you'd cite your source.

I don't recall asking you anything in my initial post, but you chose to jump right in there,

Again, that's what message boards are designed for.

at the same time accusing Spiro of 'butting in'.

That's because Spiro has ostracized himself from the legitimate Ripper community. He pulled the biggest no-no a so-called writer/researcher can pull. His credibility is gone. Besides, who but a newbie quotes Sugden for inquest testimony? Please. You quote the files or a particular newspaper (or, preferrably, check a few). But that's beside the point. Spiro's circle is tiny now and consists only of the handful who share his agenda. When I say you're better than this, Jon, that's a big compliment. You actually have something to offer and shouldn't associate yourself with wannabe parasites. It makes absolutely no sense for you and I to butt heads over somebody else's war, so let's end this defense/offense thing.

I don't mind, all opinions are welcome, even those of Mr Edwards.

And yet I'm butting in?

And, I didn't say anything about a 'new' theory, I said 'current' theory.
Research does involve accurately reading what other people write.

A 'theory currently making the rounds' would be interpreted by anybody as 'new', particularly when that theory is discussed by you and is one I and, apparently, Magpie, have not heard before. I would also suggest this theory of yours is not making any rounds.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Magpie]

Edit...my apologies Wickerman if I appear to be dismissing your post--I'm really not :) After checking around I can see where your previous post was using the Times for the inquest testimony, and the two reports contain differences)

Well actually Cross testified that he thought she was dead, but that Paul thought she was breathing. Whereas Paul said he thought she was dead also.
So, it looks like they both thought she was dead but that Cross assumed Paul thought she was alive.
That does not sound like a good basis for a theory - they both say they thought she was dead.



Firstly, I'm not stating or promoting a theory, just suggesting a scenario:)

Actually Cross told the policeman they encountered "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." --he was obviously not sure, although it's possible that Paul's belief that she was breathing might have made him hedge his bet. It should also be remembered that it was Cross who wanted to try and prop Nichols up--which indicates he thought she was drunk rather than dead. When prompted by a member of the jury, Cross said that "In his opinion deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries."

Cross testified that Paul told him that he thought she was breathing--no assumption at all. Paul confirmed that he thought she was breathing faintly. Nowhere in Paul's testimony did he say he thought she was dead. He helped rearrang her clothing to preserve he modesty, supporting Cross's assertions that they thought she had been raped and was merely unconscious.

Although both said that her hands were cold, Cross said that her face was warm, while Paul claimed it was cold.


Her hands & face were cold, the blood was not flowing, she was dead.
Perhaps the lack of blood was due to her being strangled before her throat was cut?, coupled with the fact the morning was cold and what blood had flowed, mostly, had already soaked into her clothing

The morning being cold would not have anything to do with the lack of blood (although it might affect the cooling of the body). if the cut throat had been the cause of death, then the blood should have done more than just flow--it should have sprayed--but it didn't. The "clothes soaked up the blood" has been accepted for a long time as given, but quite frankly the inquest testimony doesn't really support that assumption. Llewllyn says there was no blood on the chest of her clothing, Paul rearranged her skirts without feeling blood or getting himself bloodied.

Helsen said there was blood on the collar of her dress and ulster, but not on the back of the skirt, Spratling says there was blood "upper part of the dress body, and also on the ulster" (similar to Helsen's testimony) but was definate that there was very little on the underlinen. There was also a clean white hankerchief in one of her pockets. No-one who saw or handled Nichol's undergarments described any significant staining at all. It is frustrating that the two inmates who could have best described the clothing were hardly questioned at all.

Had the blood soaked into the back of her clothing, then there should have been some kind of transfer print from both the dress to the underlinen and the dress to the pavement, but there was neither. There was no arterial spray on the nearby gate or wall.

All of this supports the idea that Nichol's was dead (or very nearly dead) when her throat was cut. I would agree that strangulation would definately explain that (and the bruising seems to confirm it), but neither Llewellyn (whose actually testimony did not include a cause of death, unfortunately) nor Baxter offered that as a possibility.

Anyway, I'll leave it for now. Thanks for giving me something to think about--it made a particularly boring staff meeting pass quite quickly this afternoon:thumbsupbud:

Hmmm....I just noticed something rather odd about Cross's testimony, but I'll save it for another post, or possibly thread.

[How Brown]

Tom:

I'm still waiting for someone ( like one of Ivor's fluffers,which you clearly are for reasons unknown....since you know first hand what happens when one counters that guy with details ) to respond to my questions from before.....in particular,the 1860/1863 claims. Take some time off from busting Spiro's balls and be a man and do so.


Originally Posted by WickerMan
It seems Mr Edwards refuses to face questions from readers so it should not come as a surprise to anyone if other 'not-so-restricted' message boards do not mind lending themselves to such enquiries.


Not sure where you get any of that from. I've asked him many a question and always received an answer. I didn't always agree with the answer, but it was received nonetheless. If you're referring to Spiro's false charges, then you're clearly out of the loop. Ivor has produced the evidence at his site that not only was Spiro ridiculously mistaken about Ivor's motives - as I said from day one - but Spiro's shoddy research was wrong, NOT Ivor's. The register clearly lists 'neurosthenia and NOT neurasthenia'.

First of all...Ivor has NOT produced jackshit. He has not produced the evidence for all to peruse he clearly states he handled TWICE in his book. Use your head...if he says he has handled this material,then why does he need some sort of verification from the London Hospital NINE YEARS later? In addition,he has declared he HAD a copyright. Sending Hebblewhite to do a man's job does not cut it.

I'm not arguing that Spiro's original post should not have had this evidence that Spiro states he has. Spiro placed that post without notice and after an exchange with him,I felt that in time he would co-operate and display the disclosure from the London Hospital. He has not. I cannot milk a brick. I accept that this incident has cast some displeasure from people within the community.I am not the only one Spiro assured that verification of his original statement was available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WickerMan
Well, you butted in!


Butted in? It's a message board, you egomaniac. You asked a question and I answered. I thought it was a legitimate inquiry to start with. Only later did I realize it was yet another attempt of this board to undermine Ivor somehow. Not sure where you got this theory you're attributing to him, though. It would help if you'd cite your source.

Tom...straight up. No one here has an "agenda" ( man,do you sound like Hebblewhite,but with brains) to undermine the Stephenson research or Ivor. Ivor has taken full advantage of his intended and calculated effort from back in 2003 to extricate himself from mainstream Ripperology ( the phony "libel" threats against Spry) to be able to push his book without criticism. Its that simple.

The only reason Edwards continues to harangue me( who cares? No one I met at the Convention thought he was worth yawning at...) is because he knows that there are numerous inaccuracies in pre-JTRForums.com Stephenson research that he is afraid to answer. Since I am some sort of "leader" in that I own a website which is attempting to provide a factual account of Stephenson's life,I am,as well as anyone else,a threat to his book sales.











That's because Spiro has ostracized himself from the legitimate Ripper community. He pulled the biggest no-no a so-called writer/researcher can pull. His credibility is gone. Besides, who but a newbie quotes Sugden for inquest testimony? Please. You quote the files or a particular newspaper (or, preferrably, check a few). But that's beside the point. Spiro's circle is tiny now and consists only of the handful who share his agenda. When I say you're better than this, Jon, that's a big compliment. You actually have something to offer and shouldn't associate yourself with wannabe parasites. It makes absolutely no sense for you and I to butt heads over somebody else's war, so let's end this defense/offense thing.

Spiro has contributed MORE to modern Stephenson/Ripper research than Edwards has EVER. He was NOT incorrect in that Edwards put the wrong status where a "m" should have been. Maybe if Edwards put the correct information the first time,all of this would not be necessary. Why don't you acknowledge that? Or are you afraid of asking the guy?

And anyway...who the eff are you to determine who is legitimate in the field? Thats right....no one.

Let me ask you this....WHAT has Edwards contributed to Stephenson research,besides effing it up? Tell me now.

Running around with Henry Lincoln and the jerkoffs who see conspiracies and patterns in every event that ever occurred? A nice diversion for kiddies and misfit adults who see faces of Elvis in waffles.

Avoiding correcting glaring mistakes in "his" census? He had the access to census reports that HIS mentor Harris had,provided by Mr.Birchwood,who by the way.....was the man who found the cemetery where Stephenson was laid to rest....and no one else.

Avoiding ME? Why? I'm a moron with no credibility as he has kindly pointed out.

WHO is the parasite here? Someone who bought the usage of the Cremers material and didn't examine it as it should have been,but hastily publishes a book without reading it?

Hop off the soapbox,Wescott....your act is wearing thin with me.

Make you last nasty response about Spiro,your last one.

[Magpie]

I'm going from memory here, but I believe it was Paul who thought he detected movement while brushing up against her chest. Any movement he felt, assuming it was not wishful thinking, was probably caused by either himself or Cross bumping the body.



Yep, you remember correctly, Tom. There are differing accounts of exactly what sort of hand/chest contact took place though--in Cross's testimony, he claims that Paul deliberately placed his hand on Nichol's chest to check her breathing. I agree it was likely wishful thinking if anything.

Given the severity of Nichols' throat wound, not to mention the others, she was certainly dead before they arrived.


Yes, no doubt. I'm sorry, I expressed that badly--I wasn't suggesting that she was still alive in any kind of salvageable way, only that it's possible that she was literally breathing her last breath when found.

Cross, I believe, felt Nichols' face and hand, which had no blood on them. Paul felt her hand and chest, also no blood. So neither man should have gotten blood on them.


Agreed, but that would remain true whether the throat was cut when they arrived or after they left. As dark as it was, I find it hard to credit that they didn't notice the wounds in her throat--one went literally from ear to ear and down to the bone!

Isn't it possible that Cross and Paul, because they later heard that Nichols throat had been cut, accepted that the wounds had been there when they found her and rationalized the fact that they never saw them by assuming that it was the lack of light that obscured them?

Because no-one considered that the killer was still around and possibly came back, a certain amount of "gap-filling" and rationalization took place to construct a plausible chain of events?

The usual caveat applies--this is just brainstorming with a view to stimulating conversation about anomalies in the case. I'm not saying this is what happened--only that it may be as plausible as the consensus version of events.

[Dan Norder]

He was NOT incorrect in that Edwards put the wrong status where a "m" should have been.

Actually, having seen the records in question, I'm think that that scribble there probably is an M. People have been saying that the marks should have been an "U" for unmarried and "M" for married, but why then are there no "M"s on the page to go against all the supposed "U"s (other than one solitary messed up letter that might be an "M" or a "W")? What we do see, however, are some marked "S", and a scribble some see as an "M" and some see as a "U". But if they are using "S" for single, then there should be no "U" for Unmarried, and those marks that have been claimed as lower case "U"s would make more sense as "M"s.

I have no horse in this race, just calling "M"s as I see "M"s.

[How Brown]

Dan:

Its good that you shared this with us....

How about Spiro's other claims/declarations ?

How many of them are in synch with what he provided before?

Thank you.;)

[Dan Norder]

I can't keep track of all the claims that were made... but I do know the most serious charge turned out to be completely wrong, and, in general, people on both sides are making rather unfair assumptions about the level of deception on the other.

[How Brown]

..........back to the discussion on Mrs.Nichols...

Sorry for the diversion.:o

[Tom_Wescott]

This is an illustration from the 'Illustrated Police News' of Sept. 15th (I'm hoping it posts properly. I've never posted pics before). Notice that the dimensions of the gate, which reach to the signage of the neighboring buildings, are the same as the gate of Dutfield's Yard. What might be a wicker walk-through is depicted on the right gate, same spot as the Dutfield's Yard gate. In fact, one could be forgiven for thinking this was an image from the Berner Street murder scene, except that its publication predates the murder by two weeks.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Magpie]

It does have a certain "Bernerness" around it...

[Tom_Wescott]

Yep, you remember correctly, Tom. There are differing accounts of exactly what sort of hand/chest contact took place though--in Cross's testimony, he claims that Paul deliberately placed his hand on Nichol's chest to check her breathing. I agree it was likely wishful thinking if anything.

Yes, there are some minor discrepancies over the papers. In one, it reads as though they saw a constable approaching while still with the body. I've often wondered if they didn't flee so quickly for fear of being held culpable. In any event, there's no reason to expect either to have blood on their hands.

Yes, no doubt. I'm sorry, I expressed that badly--I wasn't suggesting that she was still alive in any kind of salvageable way, only that it's possible that she was literally breathing her last breath when found.

Yes, I know what you mean. But I feel it very unlikely that she was breathing in any way shape or form by the time Cross found her. She had no windpipe left.


Agreed, but that would remain true whether the throat was cut when they arrived or after they left. As dark as it was, I find it hard to credit that they didn't notice the wounds in her throat--one went literally from ear to ear and down to the bone!

Yes, but it was extremely dark she was wearing clothing that obscured her neck, her head was turned to the left, further obscuring the wound, and the blood flowed to her left then back under her. Due to her proximity to the gate, neither man could get to her left side, so would be ignorant of the bleeding.

Isn't it possible that Cross and Paul, because they later heard that Nichols throat had been cut, accepted that the wounds had been there when they found her and rationalized the fact that they never saw them by assuming that it was the lack of light that obscured them?

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're asking or saying here.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Magpie]

Yes, there are some minor discrepancies over the papers. In one, it reads as though they saw a constable approaching while still with the body. I've often wondered if they didn't flee so quickly for fear of being held culpable. In any event, there's no reason to expect either to have blood on their hands.


True. I'm wondering if they didn't spend the entire incident keeping a very watchful eye on each other, as well...



Yes, I know what you mean. But I feel it very unlikely that she was breathing in any way shape or form by the time Cross found her. She had no windpipe left.

Well that was sort of what I was suggesting--was that when they found her, possibly she did have a windpipe left.





Yes, but it was extremely dark she was wearing clothing that obscured her neck, her head was turned to the left, further obscuring the wound, and the blood flowed to her left then back under her. Due to her proximity to the gate, neither man could get to her left side, so would be ignorant of the bleeding.


of course had Cross made good on his plan to prop her up, he and Paul would have been immediately aware of the wound, as I'm sure her head would have lolled around in a most alarming way..



I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're asking or saying here.


No worries--I'm not sure I have much of an idea myself :rolleyes:

I was speculating along the lines of....

1) Cross and Paul found out later that Nichol's throat was cut, but
2) Cross and Paul did not see her cut throat, therefore
3) Cross and Paul accepted that her throat was cut, but that they didn't notice it--and therefore they rationalize the reasons why they didn't see what they later "knew" was there.

(an entirely valid scenario, and I'm the first to admit the most likely)

[Magpie]

It does have a certain "Bernerness" around it...

On the other hand the wicket-gate seems completely out of scale. It looks more like a large cat-flap. None of the other illustrations of the gate show a wicket entrance, nor suggest a gate large enough to justified one.

But the height of the gate and abutting wall is consistent across most illustrations and photos.

[Tom_Wescott]

(an entirely valid scenario, and I'm the first to admit the most likely)

Since it's your theory, I suppose it stands to reason that you'd be the first to admit it's the most likely. :) However, I don't know how you can qualify it as such. Your scenario requires both men to have known for a fact that her throat wasn't cut, and I just don't see that. I illustrated how its probable they wouldn't have noticed her throat and see no reason to assume otherwise, or that they'd lie about the condition she was in when they found her.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

On the other hand the wicket-gate seems completely out of scale. It looks more like a large cat-flap. None of the other illustrations of the gate show a wicket entrance, nor suggest a gate large enough to justified one.

But the height of the gate and abutting wall is consistent across most illustrations and photos.

You're quoting yourself from a post I didn't see elsewhere. Interesting. NOTE: Nevermind, I just scrolled up further and noticed it. :) Anyway, you're right, many other illustrations of Buck's Row don't show a wicker gate. Some of Berner Street didn't, but we know it's not there. Wickergates make sense for stables because a man can walk in or out while leaving the big gates closed to prevent a horse/pony from escaping. In any event, it would appear that even if there were a wicker gate, it too was locked that night, so would have no bearing on the murder. My point of posting the pic wasn't to illustrate the potential for a wicker gate, anyway, but to point out its similarity to Dutfield's Yard. I wonder if the Ripper didn't expect the Buck's Row gate to be open as well when he took Polly there?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Magpie]

Since it's your theory, I suppose it stands to reason that you'd be the first to admit it's the most likely. :) However, I don't know how you can qualify it as such. Your scenario requires both men to have known for a fact that her throat wasn't cut, and I just don't see that. I illustrated how its probable they wouldn't have noticed her throat and see no reason to assume otherwise, or that they'd lie about the condition she was in when they found her.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom.

Um....There seems to be confusion here. What I described isn't my theory--it's exactly what happened. It doesn't require the men to know anything, or to lie about the condition. Crosses and Paul's testimony would be the same (and equally honest) whether there was a wound that they had missed or whether there was wound that was made after they left.

They didn't see the throat, they didn't notice a wound. Later someone says "didn't you notice her throat was cut?" and they immediately think of reasons for why they missed the wound, without even thinking that perhaps there was no wound to miss.

Anyway, as a discussion point, I can see this is a non-starter, so I'll drop it for now :)

[Tom_Wescott]

Magpie,

Wasn't trying to ruffle your feathers, I just thought you were suggesting they noticed her throat wasn't cut and later lied to keep from looking foolish or suspicious. But now I understand where you're coming from. In any event, with the constable hot on their heels, don't you feel it's less likely that the Ripper came back after they left and cut her throat and attempted the mutilation, and more likely that he was already started when he heard Cross and then either fled or hid nearby until they'd gone?
Now that I fully understand your point, I can see it's definitely NOT a non-starter. Like most if not all of your observations, it deserves serious consideration and is plausible. I just don't feel it's likely.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Magpie]

My point of posting the pic wasn't to illustrate the potential for a wicker gate, anyway, but to point out its similarity to Dutfield's Yard. I wonder if the Ripper didn't expect the Buck's Row gate to be open as well when he took Polly there?


A most excellent point! It would be interesting to find out whether that gate/yard was in the habit of being left open, or whether the Ripper checked it out earlier (of course it could be that it was Nichols who took him there)

[Magpie]

Magpie,

Wasn't trying to ruffle your feathers, I just thought you were suggesting they noticed her throat wasn't cut and later lied to keep from looking foolish or suspicious.


No ruffled feathers at all:) I can see where the confusion lies, and I admit I wasn't expressing it very well.


But now I understand where you're coming from. In any event, with the constable hot on their heels, don't you feel it's less likely that the Ripper came back after they left and cut her throat and attempted the mutilation, and more likely that he was already started when he heard Cross and then either fled or hid nearby until they'd gone?



Absolutely, and I acknowledge that that is what most likely happened. There is a discrepancy in the newspaper coverage of the testimony that fuzzies the timing a little--the initial report I read left a (slightly) longer window before the police turned up than the other, which left no window at all.

Although as I mentioned there was an interesting glitch in Cross's testimony that I'm going to bring up in a seperate thread.


Now that I fully understand your point, I can see it's definitely NOT a non-starter. Like most if not all of your observations, it deserves serious consideration and is plausible. I just don't feel it's likely.


Thank Tom. I don't seriously think that Jack came back to cut Nichol's throat. The possiblity of it came up when I was considering that the physical evidence of the scene and the state of the body does seem to support Llewellyn's alleged belief that Nichols died from the abdominal, rather than throat, injuries.

We talked about how Jack likely made some mistakes on Nichols and learned from them before the other killings (mutilations, stays etc). Perhaps he also learned that mutilating a dead, as opposed to dying, victim was much easier.

It certainly seems that Baxter's sole reason for disregarding Llewellyn's opinion and suggesting that Nichol's throat had been cut first was because be then it was known that Chapman's throat was--but by Chapman the killer had modified his technique.

But you are right--none of this has anything to do with whether her throat was cut when Cross found her--It's something that he could have done in a second when he heard Cross appoaching.

[Tom_Wescott]

But you are right--none of this has anything to do with whether her throat was cut when Cross found her--It's something that he could have done in a second when he heard Cross appoaching.


I think Llewellyn possessed bad deductive skills. I also think the blood evidence would bear out that her throat was cut prior to the mutilations. As the throat was fully cut twice, but the mutilations were incomplete, I'd say that's where he was when he heard footsteps. We can get a good idea of how far away from the spot footsteps become audible by studying where Paul was when Cross first heard his approach. It's not scientific, but it's something.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[How Brown]

Tom & Magpie:

Here's a thought I've had for a long while...let me see what you or anyone else thinks:

This is a good discussion on Nichols,by the way.

Anyway....has it ever been considered that perhaps the mutilation ( not evisceration ) of Mrs.Nichols was all he really intended in that case?

Isn't it concievable that had he wanted to remove organs,he could have easily taken her to a far less risky spot ( and that spot on Bucks Row is pretty risky....out in the open) ?

I sort of felt that had this been his first attempt at evisceration,the Ripper was taken aback by the natural odors that emanate from all of us and that perhaps on this first attempt,this is what prevented him from carrying through. Of course,he does eviscerate Mrs. Eddowes some time later....

So maybe,just maybe....the wounds on Mrs.Nichols were really all he had in mind and then on the second murder...8 days later....in a confined space....he "experiments" a little.

Whattya think?

[Night Stalker]

How :

I agree with what you have said, this may have been JTR's, begining into his acts of mutilation. With every murder, he has to go that one step further. So as we see, the mutilations become more violent each time.

With your mention of the location of Bucks Row. I believe, he was gripped by the moment, his "red mist" if you like. He saw his opportunity, the red mist falls and the rest we know. Once he has sated his urge, he flees the scene.

NS -

[Tom_Wescott]

has it ever been considered that perhaps the mutilation ( not evisceration ) of Mrs.Nichols was all he really intended in that case?

I thought about this and other possibilities when working on my recent Nichols article for RN. Of course, the same has long been postulated about Stride, who received no abdominal wounds whatsoever. My feelings are that in the Stride case it's more plausible (though short of 'likely') that the Ripper did not intend to mutilate and obtain organs; in the Nichols case, I'd say it's almost certain he did intend to obtain organs. I'll go into why after I comment on your other points.

Isn't it concievable that had he wanted to remove organs,he could have easily taken her to a far less risky spot ( and that spot on Bucks Row is pretty risky....out in the open) ?

It is plausible, but then the same could certainly be said of Chapman and Eddowes, who were both murdered in (I feel) far riskier spots. But we don't ask the same question about them for the simple fact that they were extensively mutilated and found with organs missing. In the case of Buck's Row, the killer picked a rather good spot in that it was midway down a dark road that did not have heavy foot traffic. If you consider his timing with the police beat, he had a good four-five minutes from when I believe he fled to when the PC showed up. The Ripper was stationary and silent with the victim. This means he would have heard any approaching footsteps before they would be aware of him, and he had two directions to flee, so the chance of capture was minimal. In the case of Chapman, he had only one direction he could flee, that being the doorway, in which case he'd have to move past the intruder to make his getaway. With the possible exception of Mary Kelly's room, Buck's Row was the least risky spot, the irony of that being it was here that he appears to have been interrupted.

I sort of felt that had this been his first attempt at evisceration,the Ripper was taken aback by the natural odors that emanate from all of us and that perhaps on this first attempt,this is what prevented him from carrying through. Of course,he does eviscerate Mrs. Eddowes some time later....

Of course, we don't know this was his first evisceration, though I believe the evidence suggests it was his first evisceration on a woman wearing stays, and thus he was probably inexperienced on killing women in a less-controlled environment. I don't feel her natural odors would have been a deterant. It's likely he smelled close to nothing, since he was operating under her clothes which would have absorbed most of the odor. Certainly Cross and Paul weren't repelled moments later. In any event, this was an environment we can't really comprehend today, where there's a slaughter house, butcher shop, or open-air meat market on every corner, combining their odors with that of constant horse excrement and the odor of thousands of men and women of irregular bathing habits. Given the timing of Charles Cross, the most logical conclusion is that the Ripper was interrupted, and had he been given just a couple more minutes, Nichols would not have been found whole.

So maybe,just maybe....the wounds on Mrs.Nichols were really all he had in mind and then on the second murder...8 days later....in a confined space....he "experiments" a little.

I think the Chapman murder, coming so close on the heels of Nichols, gives us a killer of extreme calm. This would apply to both cases, because it'd be wrong to think a man went from timid to daring in only 8 days. As you point out, Chapman was killed in a confined space. It was becoming light out, there was a man moving across the yard just on the other side of the fence, and above him was a wall of windows. Yet he eviscerated Chapman in such a way that had Dr. Phillips in awe. I would imagine that he was also prepared in some way for an intruder. I don't think he would have used his knife on them, but he certainly wouldn't allow for his own capture. [/QUOTE]

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Night Stalker]

I think the Chapman murder, coming so close on the heels of Nichols, gives us a killer of extreme calm. This would apply to both cases, because it'd be wrong to think a man went from timid to daring in only 8 days.

Tom :

I tend to agree with authors like William Beadle. I believe JTR's, rage was fuelled with alcohol. This can turn the most timid man into a rage in a short time. Violence often follows a drinking binge.

NS -

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom :

I tend to agree with authors like William Beadle. I believe JTR's, rage was fuelled with alcohol. This can turn the most timid man into a rage in a short time. Violence often follows a drinking binge.

NS -

Except there was no rage in what the Ripper did. In the case of Nichols, he was struggling under her stays to inflict his mutilations. He remained calm and didn't even lash out, ripping angrily through the clothing or stabbing her maniacally. Of course, we're talking about a mutilating killer here, so clearly there's an underlying rage. But this is not a quiet, timid man turned into a methodical killer simply by drinking alcohol, even though he may have been an addict of some kind. The hypothesis that the Ripper had no intention of taking organs from Nichols, even though he mutilated her in such a way as to facilitate the procurement of organs, is possible in the way that all things are, but is not likely.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[How Brown]

I agree with Tom that the Ripper didn't act out of rage and probably was sober when at work.

The reason I feel that the killer was sober is that he made no mistakes or made any appreciable noise. People who drink aren't as cognizant of the noise they make . People who are drunk are less capable of normal tasks,whether they admit it or not most of the time. The Ripper,regardless of his having savoir faire or just a level headed prole...did not get nabbed.

You make good points Tom. I like throwing these ideas around about Mrs.Nichols murder because its probably the least discussed of the murders. There's a few ideas I've had over the last year about this particular murder....

You may well be right about the fact the odors weren't as noticable to him as I think they are or someone else might think it was. The stays could well have prevented this from being an open air butchery. Good point.

Then.....

What would have happened afterwards,had it been a Chapmanesque murder? I wonder how the reaction would have been to it,being outdoors and so near the London Hospital.....

You know how money talks...I sometimes think had it been an Eddowesesque type evisceration ( which I think one would agree that the severity of the wounds on Eddowes and awful display made it a more impressive murder in the eyes of the authorities ) and being near the Hospital,perhaps different strategies would have been implemented.

[Tom_Wescott]

You may well be right about the fact the odors weren't as noticable to him as I think they are or someone else might think it was. The stays could well have prevented this from being an open air butchery. Good point.

I don't think the killer would have been perturbed by the odors either way. He certainly wasn't in Chapman's case only 8 days later, and that was very much an open air butchery.

You know how money talks...I sometimes think had it been an Eddowesesque type evisceration ( which I think one would agree that the severity of the wounds on Eddowes and awful display made it a more impressive murder in the eyes of the authorities ) and being near the Hospital,perhaps different strategies would have been implemented.

I'm not sure about 'different' strategies, but I imagine they would have been quicker to view a medical man. Probably the same strategies that went into effect following Chapman and then escalated after Eddowes - much to the chagrin of the London Hospital staff - would have been implemented sooner. The authories would have still been just as reticent to voice publicly that the killer had medical skill.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[admin tim]

“Typologies based on motivation assume that serial killers always act according to a plan. In real life, random, unpredictable environmental factors come into play. For example, David Berkowitz ran away after his first victim screamed and bled. He had not anticipated this and so bought a gun for future attacks. Moreover, serial killers may have different motives for different victims. Their motives may change over time, and there may be a progression in the killings (personality degeneration, less and less planning, time between episodes decreases, violence increases). For example, Dennis Nilsen killed a man in the middle of his killing sequence simply because the man was annoying and in his way.”

Maybe Jack really was a novice at murder and/or mutilation at the time of Polly's murder and just couldn't cut the mustard - or the stays - on his first go. Not having his MO down pat at the time through dint of practice, maybe he just botched the job from being unprepared for what he was to encounter. I know I'd be as nervous as a cat.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tim,

That's more or less what I was suggesting. In this case, the 'unexpected' came about in the way of Polly's undergarments. He learned his lesson and slashed through Chapman's clothing. Everything else, though, the approach, the lure, the attack, the escape, seems not to have failed him. The Berkowitz example doesn't really apply here. If I'm not mistaken, he stabbed the woman 7 times and yet she left the hospital THAT SAME NIGHT. Clearly, the Ripper was not the novice with the knife that Sam's kid was.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

The first thing I noticed about the little pic Tom posted was that bloody lamp post, surprised no-one mentioned it. There was no lamp post there.
The dwg actually does show a bit of a high wall to the right, and on the left of the gate(s) the first house has a different design than the rest of the row. All this is accurate for Bucks Row, except the bloody lamp post.


Isn't it concievable that had he wanted to remove organs,he could have easily taken her to a far less risky spot ( and that spot on Bucks Row is pretty risky....out in the open) ?

Actually buddy, Bucks Row was not as wide open as you might think. I was there just before they pulled the place down in 1972. The street was extremely narrow, in fact Mitre Sq. was more than twice as wide as Bucks Row. Leonard Matters was in Bucks Row in the '60's he offers this description:
"It is a narrow, cobbled, mean street, with shabby dirty little houses of two storeys, and only a three-feet pavement separates them from the road, which is no more than twenty-five feet wide from wall to wall"
The Mystery of Jack the Ripper, Matters, 1964, p.36.

A pavement only 3ft wide, as I pointed out earlier would be largely covered by a stout woman laid across it. Even if the body looked like a tarpaulin from a distance you would still need to walk around it.

I was surprised just how closed in you feel when you enter Bucks Row, especially at night, it was going dusk when I was there, so we didn't linger
;)
Consider 25ft wide from house to house across the street, even if Matters is out a little,.....my bloody living-room is wider than that!

[Night Stalker]

Tom, How :

We agree to disagree, in our opinions and theories. But that is a good thing I believe, it keeps our brains ticking over.
I have just finished reading :-
The Trial of Jack The Ripper - Euan Macpherson
&
Jack The Ripper - Maxim Jakubowski & Nathan Braund

Both excellent books in my opinion, which have broadend my JTR horizons.That being the reason, I disagree with the cold, methodical killer style. My view is of the opertunist, who can't sate his urges and must go on until he is caught or caged. Both my favourite suspects, David Cohen and William Bury, fit my way of thinking. I also believe strongly, that if Bury's, trial was held in London, He would have been hanged as the Ripper.

But that said, I respect your views gents as I hope you respect mine.:thumbsupbud:

rgds NS -

[Wickerman]

....Agreed, but that would remain true whether the throat was cut when they arrived or after they left. As dark as it was, I find it hard to credit that they didn't notice the wounds in her throat--one went literally from ear to ear and down to the bone!

But with her being stout or plump, her neck might not be so exposed, I mean she was short, likely a short neck and not exactly skinney, if you know what I mean.
Her clothes were likely ruffled up to some degree, anyway, I can't see a problem with them missing the cut across the throat, especially in the dark.


...Because no-one considered that the killer was still around and possibly came back, a certain amount of "gap-filling" and rationalization took place to construct a plausible chain of events?

Once the body is discovered, isn't it quite reasonable for the killer to expect all hell is going to break loose, people shouting, running around knocking on doors, lamps flashing, whistles blowing...what conceivable reason would the killer have for hanging around and risking that?
Did I misunderstand you?

[How Brown]

Night Stalker:

Of course,your views are respected. :)

[Night Stalker]

Howard :

Thats not the point I was making, but thanks anyways.

What I meant was, we can all theorize about what happened. But no-one can 100% state the facts, if we could JTR, would have been caught a long time ago. All I was saying, is that we all have our own theories and suspects. This is what makes this site good for lively debate.

rgds NS -

[Tom_Wescott]

Howard :

Thats not the point I was making, but thanks anyways.

What I meant was, we can all theorize about what happened. But no-one can 100% state the facts, if we could JTR, would have been caught a long time ago. All I was saying, is that we all have our own theories and suspects. This is what makes this site good for lively debate.

rgds NS -

You're absolutely right, NS, regarding our not being 100% sure. If we were, I imagine there'd be nothing to discuss and we'd all lose interest, right? But what we CAN do is take the best information available, persue each possible scenario, and use logic, reason, and a bit of imagination to determine what most LIKELY happened in each case. Bury is an interesting suspect, but there's many, many holes in the argument, some of which are not pursued with objectivity in McPherson's excellent presentation of the case against Bury. Anyone viewing the actual case evidence with a particular suspect in the forefront of his mind is going to be the person least likely to 'get it right', because your perception of that suspect will lead you down blind paths. By 'perception', what I'm getting at is that McPherson saw Bury as a rage-filled drunkard. His readers then see Bury as a rage-filled drunkard. BUT, what if Bury WAS Jack the Ripper and was actually methodical in his approach? In the case of these murders, it is possible to look back in time and see what happened. It really is. That might not tell us for certain who the Ripper was, but it could tell us who he wasn't.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

The first thing I noticed about the little pic Tom posted was that bloody lamp post, surprised no-one mentioned it. There was no lamp post there.
The dwg actually does show a bit of a high wall to the right, and on the left of the gate(s) the first house has a different design than the rest of the row. All this is accurate for Bucks Row, [U]except the bloody lamp post.[/QUOTE]

I thought about mentioning the lamp post, but I didn't want to cause confusion. My guess is that it was pasted in simply to fill in the empty left-hand field of the drawing. In other words, it was an artistic touch. Either that or it's a carry over from the drawing next to it in the montage.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Night Stalker]

Tom :

Thank you for your impressive and logical points. I can't argue with your sound logic. I have also read William Beadles take on Bury, which is very well layed out and gives more information, on how Bury may have carried out the murders. It is also interesting that Beadle states, that Bury could have used his horse and cart to escape, which gives a great twist to the killings.

Rgds NS -

[Tom_Wescott]

NS,

Thanks for that, NS. Actually, MacPherson offers far more information on Bury than Beadle does. I have both books as well. My advice is to go with MacPherson on areas where he and Beadle differ. Now, that applies to Bury ONLY. MacPherson coverage of the Ripper murders ranks as one of the worst in years.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

..... Anyone viewing the actual case evidence with a particular suspect in the forefront of his mind is going to be the person least likely to 'get it right', because your perception of that suspect will lead you down blind paths....

Unfortunately you describe the majority of books available. When new students to the case are faced with 9 out of 10 books proposing some fringe theory or other I'm sure the students think this is what Ripperology is all about.
The extremely few authors who largely stick to the facts are worth their weight in gold as compared with the others. Some theorists actually do turn up the odd usefull nugget of information, but I think overall the theorists present the wrong image for Ripperology.
There isn't enough factual data to point the finger at anyone as being JtR, and thats the basic fact of the matter.

[Wickerman]

..Maybe Jack really was a novice at murder and/or mutilation at the time of Polly's murder and just couldn't cut the mustard - or the stays - on his first go....

I never took the murder or the mutilations as the work of a novice, but then if you remember I am the one who suspects he garrotted his victims first. Whether he was adept with a knife is arguable but I do think with Nichols the stays caused him a problem. He didn't expect that.


...Not having his MO down pat at the time through dint of practice, maybe he just botched the job from being unprepared for what he was to encounter. I know I'd be as nervous as a cat. [/SIZE][/FONT][/I][/FONT]

Practice?, he appeared to suddenly improve in the week between Nichols & Chapmans murders. Are you suggesting he spent the week practicing, on what, where & how?
:)

[admin tim]

My personal opinion is that Nichols was his first actual murder victim and he botched the job. By necessity, the learning curve was very steep, and he quickly figured out what needed to be done and how best to do it.

I think you can look at the murders/mutilations as they progressed and see that Jack got very good very quickly. Eddowes in Mitre Square was the pinnacle of his craft just a few weeks later - murdered in a public area with all kinds of people about, mutilated there in just a few minutes, and very skillfully at that, and with a beat constable walking the area.

Another of my personal theories is that he really DID practice his craft - on cadavers. I have a novel working where Jack is a post-mortem room attendant at LH, where he takes advantage of the supply of unclaimed bodies to develop the necessary skills. In truth, who would know? - or care?

[Tom_Wescott]

Unfortunately you describe the majority of books available. When new students to the case are faced with 9 out of 10 books proposing some fringe theory or other I'm sure the students think this is what Ripperology is all about.

That is unfortunate, because a 'suspect' book can deliver a proper reappraisal of the facts, with valid new observations or ideas, that do not conflict with the known facts, and STILL put forth a good argument for their suspect. The reason most don't is because a) most authors don't appear to be capable of proper analysis, b) They don't care, because they just want to talk about their suspect, and c) The truth isn't often their primary motivator.

I think James Tully and Bill Beadle did a good job, for what was available to them at the time, of offering a proper assessment of the murders. Not sure what's happened to Bill since, though.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Adam Went]

Hi everyone,

Personally I believe in the theory that Martha Tabram was Jack's first victim, so I disagree that Mary Nichols murder was a botched job, but what I do believe is that with his first couple of murders, Jack was very careful with the time and place he chose for the murder. While Nichols was killed in an open area, remember that there was also a serious lack of witnesses to this killing. Unlike other victims, nobody saw her just before her death. If Jack was just at the beginning of his killings, perhaps he wanted an "easy target" in a reasonably quiet area. This is exactly the opposite when you're talking about other killings like that of Cathy Eddowes, because there was a huge number of risks involved with that. That seems to suggest that as time went on, Jack cared less and less about risks and became more and more confident, because he was certainly lucky not to get caught several times.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a "botched job" just because there was less mutilation, it could just be as simple as Jack trying to take the easy path early on in the killings. Thoughts, anyone?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

While Nichols was killed in an open area, remember that there was also a serious lack of witnesses to this killing.

As opposed to the crowds that gathered 'round to watch him butcher the other women?

It doesn't necessarily have to be a "botched job" just because there was less mutilation, it could just be as simple as Jack trying to take the easy path early on in the killings. Thoughts, anyone?

As Nichols was dead and he was not caught, I don't think this qualifies as a 'botched job'. However, the injuries to her abdomen - similar to those on Chapman - suggest he was attempting to procure an organ or two and failed in doing so. I think we can safely say he was not squeamish, though I agree with Adam that he was being more careful at this point. And he DID watch the papers. Chapman's inquest concluded on Sept. 29th. The next night he went out again. The police were perplexed, the doctors were in awe. He must have felt invincible. But something happened on the night of the double event to take that feeling away. It could only be that he came close to capture. Where, how, and by whom, we can't say for sure. It might not even be on record. But at some point that night, he slipped up. Waited more than a month to kill again and did so in doors. [/QUOTE]

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert Linford]

Tom, perhaps he was seen by a policeman who somehow didn't take the action the authorities afterwards decided that he should have taken.

Macnaghten in his unofficial memorandum mentions a City PC on a beat near Mitrte Sq. Harvey was sacked July 89 - same month as Long.

I can't help feeling....

Robert

[Adam Went]

Hi Tom And Robert,

Tom:

"As opposed to the crowds that gathered 'round to watch him butcher the other women?"

No, what I meant was that nobody saw Polly Nichols just before the time she died. That's different in that for every other victim, there was always someone who claimed to have seen them a matter of minutes before their death. Elizabeth Long saw Annie Chapman, IsraelSchwartz possibly saw Elizabeth Stride, Joseph Lawende & Co. saw Cathy Eddowes, George Hutchinson and MJK, etc.

Of course there was always the risk that somebody could come across Jack while he was killing, but because there was less witnesses for Polly Nichols than the others, perhaps it's fair to say that he chose to kill her in a place that was of less risk to him than the later murders?
Or, it could all just be a coincidence.

Robert:

Sir Melville mentioned lots of things in his memorandum that have turned out to be absolute rubbish, and a complete confusion of the facts. How can we be sure that he had his details right when he was talking about the PC's that got sacked?

I just don't really like to trust anything that came from his memorandum....he seemed to have a very bad memory. I know the feeling...

Cheers,
Adam. :)