Forums Brainstorming-Polly Nichols

[How Brown]

In preparation for the August 24th,2008 Rippercast program that JMenges has graciously asked me to appear on, I wanted to ask the members here some questions regarding Mrs. Nichols.

1. Why is it that Polly Nichols is so seldom discussed in the context of the Case?
A cursory glance here and elsewhere demonstrates that of all the MacNaghten Five victims, her murder is the least explored as far as scenario, possibilities, and other aspects.

2. I, for one, consider the Hanbury Street murder of Mrs. Chapman the most risky of the M5 murders. You may do so as well. However, as is often undertaken by the hardcore among us, its "good" to reevaluate the Case during our study in our mutual effort to "rethink" things and to "see" things from different perspectives. Allow me to ask the general membership the following questions and please offer your insights as they are very valuable to the overall understanding of this murder...one thats "unsung" in my view.

A. No other victim was killed in the street.... Is her murder the riskiest?
B. Could she have been assaulted without the "warm up" of a proposition for sexual favors?
C. Why is the first of the Macnaghten Five victims the least discussed?
D. Following the Nichols murder, as Stephen Ryder mentioned on the "Is It Real?" program a year ago...it had been assumed that a murder skein was already underway according to the presentation in contemporary newspapers . Why do you think that is?
E. Since the mutilation on Mrs. Nichols' person was substantially less than that of Mrs.Chapman...do you think that the "shock value' is what inspired the Press to take a more "serious" stance towards what was transpiring in the East End?

If you wish to comment on one or more or all of these questions,I will be sure to mention your answers ( anonymously) at some point during the Podcast. In addition,if you wished to answer any of these questions in private,please contact me. I'm in the phone book...:kiss:

Thank you very much.

[Stan Reid]

Hi How,

My guess to why it is least discussed is because we know the least about what happened. She was not seen with a man before she was killed. If it was Jack's first murder, then I think you'd have to say it is the most important. It is where he decided to cross over. Chapman is important also because it shows that he liked killing enough to continue. All the ones after that though are just same old - same old.

[admin tim]

1. Why is it that Polly Nichols is so seldom discussed in the context of the Case?
A cursory glance here and elsewhere demonstrates that of all the MacNaghten Five victims, her murder is the least explored as far as scenario, possibilities, and other aspects.

2. I, for one, consider the Hanbury Street murder of Mrs. Chapman the most risky of the M5 murders. You may do so as well. However, as is often undertaken by the hardcore among us, its "good" to reevaluate the Case during our study in our mutual effort to "rethink" things and to "see" things from different perspectives. Allow me to ask the general membership the following questions and please offer your insights as they are very valuable to the overall understanding of this murder...one thats "unsung" in my view.

A. No other victim was killed in the street.... Is her murder the riskiest?
B. Could she have been assaulted without the "warm up" of a proposition for sexual favors?
C. Why is the first of the Macnaghten Five victims the least discussed?
D. Following the Nichols murder, as Stephen Ryder mentioned on the "Is It Real?" program a year ago...it had been assumed that a murder skein was already underway according to the presentation in contemporary newspapers . Why do you think that is?
E. Since the mutilation on Mrs. Nichols' person was substantially less than that of Mrs.Chapman...do you think that the "shock value' is what inspired the Press to take a more "serious" stance towards what was transpiring in the East End?


1. For one thing, this murder was not 'spectacular'. Had Polly been found with her intestines strung out and an organ missing, I am sure her murder would be receiving equal billing. This murder also occurred on a deserted street, in wide-open spaces as it were, so it did not possess the same element of risk for the perpetrator as did the later crimes. In other words, it was mundane and pales in comparison with the others. No one discusses the home run king's single, you know, if he hits a home run his other 4 times at bat.
2. A. I agree that Chapman's murder was the riskiest, although others seem to think that Eddowes' murder was. Polly's murder was way beneath these two in terms of apparent risk.
B. Anything is possible here. Solicitation of sex may never have entered the picture, and the Ripper may have been able to determine that she was a willing prostitute without overt proposition on his part or hers.
C. See #1. It was so different from the later murders that it really didn't fit into discussion of those subsequent.
D. For the same reason that the Cleveland Torso Killer is blamed by some for the Black Dahlia Murder. Journalists and authorities of the time were probably eager to blame ANY murder in the East End committed by knife on the Ripper. The former were seeking sensationalism to sell papers; the latter were desperately trying to come to grips with a series of crimes for which they were literally and figuratively clueless.
E. Yes. 'Ordinary' murders were three for a nickel and barely made a stir when reported. But, as stated in D), sensationalism sells. It sells today, and it sure sold in 1888, the more daring, outrageous, and graphic, the better. Who cares about what was essentially a mere stabbing death when there was actual evisceration and dreadful mutilation going on at the same time? Had Catherine Eddowes merely been strangled and left in a dark corner of Mitre Square, we would today be hearing and discussing less of her than Polly Nichols.

[How Brown]

As per Stan Reid's comment, because I have been dying to ask this for a while. but you know how it is with time.....and this question is for everyone to answer....thanks to Stan for shaking it loose from my noggin.

"If it was Jack's first murder, then I think you'd have to say it is the most important. It is where he decided to cross over."

Over the next 8 days, from the Nichols murder to the Chapman murder, do you feel ( of course, none of us have any proof and this is all speculation) that the partial mutilation on Nichols didn't satiate the killer ? Or do you think otherwise?

Because...if we accept for a just a minute or so...that Chapman DID 'show the way" to the back of 29 Hanbury Street...that had she not theoretically done so...she may have been killed on the street as well.

Nichols is killed on the street. Chapman could have been killed on the street, if the decision was not made to enter the backyard. Stride is killed a yard or so from the street. Eddowes is killed in a thoroughfare which led to several streets...and is basically killed on a street or out in the open. In short, ALL of these victims could have been killed on the street or damned close to one with the obvious exception of Chapman and the backyard to # 29.

Now I know we all recognize the above and its nothing original. But if we remove the decision to enter Hanbury Street, are any of the murders fundamentally different, and if not, then is the possible last second decision to enter Hanbury Street a counteridea to the theory of the Ripper accelerating in his methodology and/or tactics ?

Did he,The Ripper, actually decide to crossover or was it Chapman who "made that decision" here? I'm starting to think it was Chapman who was more instrumental in how WE view this assumed acceleration in method or tactic.

Anyone else? Yeah,I know its a little off the road here, but I wanted to mention this before I forgot it.

In short: Is the theory of acceleration or escalation of violence found within the murders based solely on the "opportunity" available ? Is it possible that there was no intention on the part of the Ripper to deviate from the primary idea of murdering the woman he was with at the time and that he took advantage on the spot of each unique opportunity and "ran with it"....running with it to the point that WE believe he had some sort of premeditated "goal" ? From a partial mutilation of Nichols, to the increased violence found on Chapman, and to the assumed escalation or actual escalation found on Eddowes ?

Is the escalation of violence found the victims actually an indication of intent of escalation in the mind of the killer?

Thanks....and also big thanks to Tim for his excellent observations.

[Big Jon]

When you ask hy is she discussed less, are we talking in terms of her murder, or in terms of discussing her (including her murder)?

[How Brown]

Big Jon:

Actually a combination of both. As Stan mentioned, she was not seen with a man prior to her death, which eliminates the whole "witness/suspect/time of death argument right there.... and which gives me an excuse for bringing this up. Thanks Big Man.

I think it is just as possible that she did not come into contact with any client that night as it is that she did.

We know she intended to go out and obtain doss money. Thats a given. But its not a given that she encountered anyone...any client, period.

I think its an outside chance that she tried to sleep in front of the gate....although we know that P.C.Neil & Kirby didn't see her 30 minutes or so before she was found dead. A real outside chance, but one nevertheless. Stranger things have occurred. A lot can happen in 15 minutes...and in 30 minutes.

I also think that its possible that she was assaulted and killed without any premeditated sexual implications on the part of her killer...hence, she could have been assaulted,killed and mutilated without the standard pick up approach.

One thing I'd like to check on is whether there was a lock on the gate at the murder site...and the position of the lock ( outside or inside ). Here's why:

If the killer had intentions of killing her with even a minimum degree of sanctuary or cover from outside eyes....and saw that the gate was locked from the outside, as in the lock ( if there even was one as I cannot for the life of me find what I thought I had in reference to this point I am trying to make:banghead::banghead::banghead: ) was visible to him without him having to rattle the door or shake the lock in an attempt to open it...then something is a little unusual here.

If he had planned on and desired cover and this "minor setback" which could have been amended by the two simply moving on to a place where he could have cover.... then why did he completely flip the proverbial script and go the other way and kill her out on the street? From a rational and sensible approach to killing her to one which undoubtedly he had not planned at all?

One reason may be that he had NO intention of utilizing the locked gate. I still think its entirely possible that he had NO plans prior to killing Nichols behind that gate and even Chapman in that backyard at the outset. Even Eddowes is not a cinch that she was murdered by the man in the Lawende sighting and uncertainty still exists towards whether it WAS Eddowes that he saw. Eddowes could have been taking a breather,urinating,or whatever before she was "bum rushed" by her killer.

I know Neil Bell came around a while back and thankfully reminded one and all of the gate which was present at the kill site....but I got thrown off and didn't respond to him back then in the way I have here.

So,yeah,Big Jon....there's still some meat on the proverbial bone with Mrs. Nichols to discuss.

Does anyone eles have any ideas or suggestions to contribute here?

Thank you.

[Big Jon]

I just conducted a little experiment where I spent 2 minutes writing down what I can recall offhand about Polly Nichols and then doing the same with Annie Chapman. I actually found that I know more about Polly's life than Annie's. Bit of a devils advocate there (though it may just be my memory!) We know a lot about her life, and we know about her death.

But maybe thats it. Maybe its because theres little mystery about her life and death. The only mystery is where she went between last being seen and being murdered.

With Annie Chapman we have questions: Why did he remove an organ? Why take the rings?

Elizabeth Stride: Was she pretending to be that womans sister? Was she even a victim of Jack's? Why no mutilations?

Catharine Eddowes: Was she murdered there? How did he do it so quickly? Why take the kidney? Why attack her face?

Mary Kelly: Too many mysteries to even go into!

There's even mystery with Tabram as to whether she was one of Jack's and why so many stab wounds.

Perhaps we as Ripperologists love mystery, and something as plain cut as Polly's death doesn't get discussed as much as Kelly's.

But there still is discussion. People theorise in books and articles as to whether she entertained clients after last being seen, about whether the bonnet was a present from the Ripper (a promise for later even), where she went between last being seen and being found, even if the layout of the murder site meant there had to be some witnesses. So I don't think it's totally fair to say that we don't discuss her, but it's just there is less to discuss without simpy reciting the cold hard facts.

Anyone else agree or have any different views?



Is the escalation of violence found the victims actually an indication of intent of escalation in the mind of the killer?



Well the situation clearly had an effect on him, as we can see from the huge increase between Eddowes and Kelly. He had more of an oppurtunity to mutilate, so he did so. But we cannot say for certain whether he would have gone as far if she was his first, or even second victim. I see it as being both increased oppurtunity, and increased rage/need for release.

[Mags]

I think the accelerations were inevitable.

He wasn't a ritual murderer who had to do everything exactly the same way each time, so it seems likely that he would go a little further, try something new, in each case. Maybe he spent the time between killings thinking of how he could improve the thrill or fantasizing about what he could have done last time if only

[How Brown]

What does anyone think of the way she was found by Cross, Paul, Neil, and Thain?

She wasn't "displayed" as Chapman and Eddowes were...since no one knew she was mutilated until that was discovered at the mortuary.

Could this "difference" mean anything to you?

[Robert Linford]

I think he was interrupted and pulled the dress down to give himself a few extra seconds of escape time.

[How Brown]

Bob:

May I ask what the action of him pulling the dress down... down at least to the point where neither Cross or Paul...or the police,could see her torso and the mutilation would do in terms of the escape or flight of the killer?

The reason I ask is that Mags has mentioned the "escalation theory" in regard to his progression , not necessarily that significant between Chapman & Eddowes, but nonetheless , considered in the main as a progression.

And since its been mentioned, do you ever get the impression that he may have been "finished" by his act of pulling the dress down...because frankly, and I think you'll agree...anyone who would commit such a mutilation on a person wouldn't appear to have any concern for what the victim appeared like after the mutilation. I recognize that you have explained your current view on the reason behind the dress being pulled down,but:

I am not quite following you on why the act of pulling the dress down could enable his departure if he was NOT finished, nor do I think that had he been "finished" and had no interruptions that he would have cared what she looked like.

The reason I am getting longwinded here is that:

A. If he's not finished and was possibly interrupted, why worry that the dress is "up" and at least covering the wounds on her torso? He had to know that at some point the mutilation would be discovered,obviously, since thats what he wanted those who found her to see.

B. If he was finished, then the act of him pulling the dress down, to me, doesn't follow with what he had just performed on her. You would think that he had zero concern for her to mutilate her...but then for him to become "Victorian" enough or mindful of her femininity to pull the dress down covering that crime? I dunno,Bob.

Unless...

He possibly pulled the dress down over her mutilated torso in order to avoid blood from the wounds and to possibly "work' on her, a la Eddowes, a little bit further. Obviously, I cannot explain why Chapman's face was spared, but I have thought that he might have wanted to severe Nichols' head after the mutilation and needed to pull the dress down a little, not necessarily out of "concern" for the way she appeared but for concern over his appearance.

I always forget to mention this "point" in the study of the Nichols crimes whenever I see someone discussing the discovery of her body..and I'm grateful that you mentioned what you did Bob.

So...what do you think about them apples?

[Robert Linford]

How, there are two possibilities. Either he worked it out, or it was instinctive.
He may have thought, as he started work on Polly, "If anyone comes along I'll pull the dress down and disappear." Likewise in Hanbury St he may have thought, "If anyone comes through the back door I go over the fence."

He was working in the open street. He dodn't know if he would be seen or had been seen. Well, suppose he had been seen. Wouldn't Cross have given chase, if he saw a mutilated abdomen? As it was, with the dress down, Cross and Paul couldn't even tell she'd been attacked.

But it would also have been an instinctive thing, when he heard someone coming, to pull the dress down.

Take Miller's Court. Why did he pull the door to instead of leaving it ajar? he may have consciously reasoned that pulling it to would prevent anyone looking in on Mary while he was still within chaseable distance. Or it might just have been an instinctive action.

[Pilgrim]

[But the reason why] our research was necessary became more clear to me when I learned how the police officers were trying to make sense of Babb (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gary.sturt/crime/applied%20profiling.htm) and his crimes.

'You see what puzzles me, Adrian, is that all I've seen of you you're prepared to be a perfectly pleasant intelligent man, that's the impression you've given me and I'm quite keen to know what changes a perfectly pleasant, decent man into the sort of man who can do these things that you've done ?'
(Pause)
'I honestly don't know.'

Of course he didn't know. if he had he would possibly not have continued doing it. By his own admission he stopped in the middle of some assaults and ran away because 'I thought no, forget it. Shouldn't be doing this, then I just ran off... it's sort of like your brain sort of like saying shouldn't have done it, shouldn't have done it, sort of like wipe it from your mind.'

(David Canter, Criminal Shadows, p.145)

[How Brown]

Thanks very much Pilgrim. Nice addition to the thread:high5:

Bob...and all:

One other consideration that I had back around 5 years ago was that...and this might be offensive to some people...

When the first slash to the abdomen occurred, it released an odor from the victim. No need to explain or elaborate, but just a fact.

I once felt that the Ripper pulled down the dress to block the emanating odor of Mrs. Nichols and would like to hear anyone else's take on this.

One more concern in all this is Charles Cross. All day I had this guy on my mind.

He's walking to work in the dark. He had time, according to Michael Connor in Ripperologist # 72 and # 78 to kill her and make it to work. That doesn't make him a suspect nor suspicious....but lets get into this area of the murder,shall we?

For a man who is on his way to work...and undoubtedly either saw or at least heard of people sleeping in the street in London, he does what most people I think would not do in his trip to work "curiosity" wise. He's interested in something that looks like a tarpaulin on the pavement. Which side of the pavement?

He approaches the "tarpaulin". He sees its a body. Instead of letting 'sleeping dogs lie', he investigates the situation. Good samaritan style.

For what purpose does he probe beyond knowing that it is a person? Whats he intending to do ? Wake the person up and offer it shelter?

Its funny that the Nichols murder has that situation where the dress is drawn down,isn't it? Could the dress have been pulled down somewhat already before it was pulled down completely?

What about this Cross,gang? If I get a chance tonight,I will start up a thread on the man...not a suspect in the sense Kosminski was,...but nonetheless someone who requires further examination.

I'll pull bits from the old Rip's which contained Michael Connor's work ( I had asked Supe to see if he would engage in conversation over here a while back,but...) and place that up on the boards as well.

What do you folks think of Cross and/or other aspects of the Nichols murder?

If Big Jon sees this, it would be nice for him to repost the material he had where he mentioned his reasons why Nichols gets less attention than other victims for those who may have missed his ideas.

He's

[Big Jon]

If Big Jon sees this, it would be nice for him to repost the material he had where he mentioned his reasons why Nichols gets less attention than other victims for those who may have missed his ideas.




Unless I said something then which I now can't recall, my hypothesizing why she doesn't merit as much discussion is all still here.


She wasn't "displayed" as Chapman and Eddowes were...since no one knew she was mutilated until that was discovered at the mortuary.

Could this "difference" mean anything to you?


Could just be something as simple as first murder nerves. Or at that point he hadn't thought of the extra sensation the added poseing would cause.

[Robert Linford]

How, I think Chris Scott did some important work on Cross. It was virtually at the precise moment of the Casebook crash, but I've a feeling it was recovered.

[How Brown]

Thanks Robert.. I just checked it out. Typical Chris,ain't it?

Nice job on the part of Derek Osborne, Michael Connor and Chris overall in determining the Lachmere name as being applicable to Cross.

And you are correct Bigness...your post was there.