Mysteries Within The Mystery : Discussion

[How Brown]

We might have a thread for discussing the following already...but in any event:

Lets come up with aspects of the Case which are mysteries within the bigger mystery of the Whitechapel Murders.

For starters.....what are your views as to the most likely reason Mrs. Nichols was not mutilated as were Chapman or Eddowes ?

Interrupted ? Not planned ?

Feel free to use an aspect or idea of your liking if the one I started the thread off with isn't one you would care to speculate on.

Thank you.

[Adam Went]

Just throwing my 2 cents in, being somebody who thinks Martha Tabram was actually the first Ripper victim, I believe it's simply a progression in the amount of brutality carried out on each victim. With the exception of Liz Stride, from Tabram through to Kelly, each murder gradually become more gruesome, probably an indication of the growing confidence and self-assuredness of the killer the more he got away with it.

He might also have been the sort who relished the attention, and so he realised that the more horrific the crime, the more coverage he would get....hard to say without knowing exactly what his personality was like.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jon Simons]

I`ll go along with progression, too. The Ripper had done all the hard work, securing a victim and opening the abdomen, and there is nothing to suggest the killer was interrupted, and the body could have been lying there five or so minutes before Lechmere discovered her.

The wounds to Nichols abdomen, a number of random slashes, although deep and jagged, don`t appear to have been made with the same purposefulness as the abdominal injuries suffered by Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.

[How Brown]

Thanks for the posts and comments,gents.

Jon...in light of what you mentioned, is there a possibility that Nichols wasn't killed by the same man who killed Chapman ?

Adam....what would be the contributing factors as to why some/many dismiss Tabram as a Ripper victim ?

[Jon Simons]

Jon...in light of what you mentioned, is there a possibility that Nichols wasn't killed by the same man who killed Chapman ?

Hi How

Absolutely no doubt the same killer as Chapman. The throat cut down to the vertebrae confirms as much.

The throat cut is always the same but the process of opening of the abdomen seems to change depending on time and visibility.

In the case of Nichols, her stays may also have been a factor.

[Colin Roberts]

Lechmere

:kiss:

We can wallow in our own complacency, as well as the stagnation of the most 'recent' edition of the "A - Z"; or we can allow ourselves to be enlightened, so as to be able to progress.

The man's name was 'Lechmere'; and that is plainly and simply all there is to it!

[Jon Simons]

I`ll own up, Colin, I did have to go back in to change it from Cross.

[Adam Went]

Hey all,

How:

A good question, and I think probably the simplest answer is that Martha was stabbed rather than cut. There seems to be this pre-conceived notion among some researchers that JTR was some kind of robot who would do exactly the same thing murder after murder, and that same thesis is used to discount Liz Stride as a victim at times as well. The fact is that there are numerous examples throughout history of killers changing their M.O., for a variety of reasons, and, as with anything else, we've no reason to believe that JTR was any different.

The murder of Tabram, while not as brutal as the canonicals, was still very savage....stabbed 39 times, after all. Although it has been good to see that a lot more researchers have stood up for her as a Ripper victim in recent times....

Colin/Jon:

Please pardon the dumbness, but I just want to ask about this Lechmere thing.....am I right in saying that Lechmere and Cross are one and the same person, just that Cross was a false name? Just checking....

Cheers,
Adam.

[How Brown]

AW:

Lechmere was his true surname. He used Cross ( his stepfather's surname, a policeman named Thomas Cross ) at the Inquest and may have in other circumstances as well.

[How Brown]

"There seems to be this pre-conceived notion among some researchers that JTR was some kind of robot who would do exactly the same thing murder after murder, and that same thesis is used to discount Liz Stride as a victim at times as well."

Its even more complicated than that Adam, although I know exactly what you are referring to here. The possibility that the Ripper himself mimicked someone else exists to further exacerbate the problem of who really was a victim. Thats why I asked J.G. at the outset whether he thought Nichols may have been killed by someone else. Maybe something about the Emma Smith murder took that long to eventually manifest itself in wanton destruction inside the mind of the killer months later in the Nichols ( or,if you will, the Tabram murder ) crime. We don't know for certain..

On one hand, the "finished product"...a murdered woman... by any means necessary or available...might have been "enough" for the killer.
On the other hand, definite "differences" at murder sites... (in Dutfield's Yard ,a witness, who sees a man jostling a future victim of murder for one thing and the one thing that stands out maybe just a little ahead of other factors such as the absence of mutilation and this issue about a different knife being used ) and in Millers Court ( killed indoors, for one thing) are factors that cannot be easily eliminated or discarded.

[Adam Went]

Hey How,

Thanks for letting me know about Lechmere. I'd heard about it a while back but just wanted to double check.....

As for Jack's M.O., you've got some good points. The thing is that in the many recorded cases of serial killer history, a lot of them change their M.O. slightly from murder to murder - some of them have even been known to deliberately change their MO in order to throw the police off the scent and lead them to believe it's another killer, and those out there who believe Jack was also responsible for the torso murders would probably buy into that theory. But there's no reason at all to think that Jack was some sort of superhuman being who couldn't, or shouldn't also have slight changes....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Colin Roberts]

Lechmere was his true surname. He used Cross ( his stepfather's surname, a policeman named Thomas Cross ) at the Inquest and may have in other circumstances as well.

"may have"

-or-

'may not have'

Herein lies one of the "Mysteries Within The Mystery", Howard: Why did Lechmere identify himself, during the course of the Nichols inquest, by the name of his mother's second husband, who was himself, deceased, by 1871*; when, apparently, he never chose to do so, in any other set of circumstances?

* By 1881, his mother had married yet again; and was therefore, herself, no longer a 'Cross'; rather, a 'Forsdike'.

The fact that he appeared as 'Cross', in the records of the Census of England & Wales, 1861, is irrelevant. In light of the fact that he was merely eleven years of age; it can be rightfully assumed that the choice of surname, in that particular instance, was not his.

- He was married in 1870, as 'Lechmere'
- He, his wife, and all of his ten children (where applicable), appear as 'Lechmere', in the records of the Census of England & Wales, 1871, 1881, 1891, and 1901
- Those of his ten children, that were baptized (9), were done so, as 'Lechmere'
- Those of his ten children, that were married (7), were done so, as 'Lechmere'
- He appears in a 1902 trade directory, as 'Lechmere', "Grocer"
- He died in 1920, as 'Lechmere'

I will be posting documentation of all of the above, over the course of the next couple of weeks, in the "Charles Who?" thread:

We can wallow in our own complacency, as well as the stagnation of the most 'recent' edition of the "A - Z"; or we can allow ourselves to be enlightened, so as to be able to progress.

The man's name was 'Lechmere'; and that is plainly and simply all there is to it!

It has been suggested, that perhaps Mr. Lechmere wished to establish a 'buffer', between the investigation into the death of Polly Nichols, and the rest of his very large family.

That is certainly understandable; but, we must remember that when he first identified himself as 'Cross', there was no 'Whitechapel Murderer' / 'Jack the Ripper' sensation, at hand. There was simply an investigation into the circumstances, surrounding the death of a seemingly vagrant, unidentified woman. Big Deal! - relatively speaking

But, above all else:

The uncovering of the true identity, of the discoverer of Polly Nichols's body, should be given the praise and recognition that it deserves. It should not be swept aside, in favor of complacent adherence to the stagnation of the most 'recent' edition of the "A - Z", or other similar publications. Lest we go through all of this again, in about five years, when someone other than Derek Osborne, Michael Connor, or Chris Scott, comes along, and 'discovers' that 'Charles Cross, of 22 Doveton Street, Bethnal Green', was really 'Charles Lechmere, of 22 Doveton Street, Mile End Old Town'.

[How Brown]

Good point Colin about the "may have " or "may not have". I honestly don't know whether Lechmere did use it in another circumstance...so I suggested "may have".

"It has been suggested, that perhaps Mr. Lechmere wished to establish a 'buffer', between the investigation into the death of Polly Nichols, and the rest of his very large family.

That is certainly understandable; but, we must remember that when he first identified himself as 'Cross', there was no 'Whitechapel Murderer' / 'Jack the Ripper' sensation, at hand. There was simply an investigation into the circumstances, surrounding the death of a seemingly vagrant, unidentified woman.

However,Colin, some of the newspapers had linked the Smith-Tabram-Nichols murders together. True, the name "JTR" wasn't in circulation.

I suppose the question I have ( being too lazy at present to do my own work...) would be if the concept of those three murders being linked appeared at the same time Nichols' inquest was conducted.

Maybe it doesn't matter..I don't know....but I do understand your points,old bean.

[Donald Souden]

Howard,

However, Colin, some of the newspapers had linked the Smith-Tabram-Nichols murders together.

I suppose that Michael Connor's theory could have validity--that he was Jack--and Cross/Lechmere was simply trying to muddy the waters. Not an endorsement, by any means, but stranger theories have been suggested.

Don.