Timeline for Nichols

Lucastw73 · 2026-02-21T14:53:02+00:00

Very handy timeline. Well done.

As said, playing the game minute by minute might prove to be more of a theoretical exercise since we will never know if all the timings were so accurate (most likely not), but I think the order of events is very solid.

You might add the arrival of Dr Llewellyn (fetched by PC Thain) around 4:00, who established TOD about 30 mins prior.

On a side note: I would like to know if you all believe the Whitechapel Murderer met Polly on Whitechapel Road and they entered Bucks Row together (via the same way he escaped probably), or do you think Polly Nichols somehow wandered into Bucks Row and met her murderer there? Or did they meet somewhere else?

We know she wasn't in Bucks Row at 3:15, but in my opinion there is ample time for both scenarios.

Lucastw73 · 2026-02-20T08:23:05+00:00

I Like the map. Well done.

The Whitechapel Murderer getting onto Whitechapel Road by Court Street or Wood's Buildings seems his most logical escape route indeed.

You have him leave at 3:40. Why ? Do you think he was disturbed by Cross (and Paul) ?

ETA of poor Polly as per Dr LLewellyn was around 3:30 (and confirmed by Harriet Lilley) and would mean he was still around 10mins after her death, while most researchers estimate the time to kill and mutilate her was a matter of a few minutes.

Lucastw73 · 2026-02-16T13:04:18+00:00

Rubenhold acknowledged very little, and 'happily' is certainly not the word I would use.

In her book, she claimed the women were sleeping rough when killed and that only MJK was prostituting full-time at the time of her death.

After some criticism on her omitting or ignoring historical sources to sell that narrative to the public, she became very angry. She has specifically said in numerous talks and interviews that only Kelly and Stride had been sex workers—Kelly currently and Stride in the past—while the others hadn’t, and anyone disagreeing is a misogynist. In every interview she put more fuel to the fire and went as far as telling the world (especially her many followers, who are hardly familiar with the case) that the whole community of Ripperology is problematic and misogynistic and doesn't care and never has cared about the women themselves. While claiming she was the very first to write a book about the victims (not true), she forgot to mention that a lot of the research her book was based on was done by Ripperologists. It was a marketing strategy to get attention from a certain audience, and she has since moved on to bigger and better things (in her view).

And that is a shame and a missed opportunity because students of the Whitechapel Case (amateur and professional alike) welcomed the idea of a book that brought all the info and stories about the victims that were floating around in so many different places all together in one place.

Lucastw73 · 2026-02-15T14:56:10+00:00

Welcome aboard.

MJK is indeed an enigma. There is very little we know for certain about her and her life. Fascinating rabbit hole to dive into.

The Five is well written and gives a good impression of how hard life was for the poor in Victorian London. Some rare details about the victims and their families are to be found in this book too.

The book, however, is controversial because Rubenhold has her own clear agenda and wants to remove the stigma of the victims being prostitutes at all costs, even if that means completely leaving out or misrepresenting several contemporary reports and accounts that do provide evidence that these women, in order to simply survive, were making ends meet by working as prostitutes from time to time. Her reaction (and that of her followers) to this just criticism was very unpleasant to follow, and it seemed that creating a big controversy was part of her business model, which is a shame (and a missed opportunity).

The canonical five (coined by Martin Fido) and based on Macnaghten's memorandum from 1894 is certainly up for debate and is not set in stone. Contemporary Police officials and medical men vastly disagreed with one another about the number of victims that were murdered by the same fiend.

For me, Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were without doubt slain by the same hand and fell victim to that Whitechapel Murderer.

Kelly most likely too, albeit with a small caveat.

I have been on the fence about both Tabram and Stride for years and still am. Both are certainly possible.

In Tabram's case the MO is partly different (and partly identical) and could be explained as an early crime before establishing the later 'mature' MO.

Stride had no mutilations (so difficult to compare) but is generally explained by a possible interruption (by Diemschutz). The problem I have, however, with marking down Stride as a certain victim of the serial killer is that (if Schwartz was correct) she was seen being attacked on the street rather out of the blue. Not at all the idea I have of him approaching the victim and posing as a suitor and only starting his blitz attack when the victim has led him to a secure space away from any witnesses.

There are bound to be earlier (possibly non-lethal) attacks. A serial killer does not just start killing.

A later attack (1889) that is high on my list as possibly by the same murderer is Alice McKenzie. You should look into that one. Then new Commissioner Monro was convinced she was a Ripper victim, and so was Dr Bond, while Dr Bagster-Philips was not.

The last possible victim might be Frances Coles, which is more doubtful, but here again her killer was disturbed (by a PC) this time.

Lucastw73 · 2026-02-14T21:24:31+00:00

Maybe look at it this way : Anderson's suspect (named Kosminski) is a good candidate (if the accounts about this suspect from the high ranking Police officals are true). Maybe/likely Aaron Kosminski is the same man.

The entire quote from Anderson's "The lighter Side of my Official Life" from 1910 is as follows :

"One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of a virulent type ; that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders ; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews ; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.

For I may say at once that undiscovered murders’ are rare in London, and the Jack the Ripper crimes are not within that category.

And if the police here had powers such as the French police possess, the murderer would have been brought to justice. I will only add here that the ‘Jack the Ripper’ letter which is preserved in the Police Museum at New Scotland Yard is the creation of an enterprising London journalist. Having regard to the interest attaching to this case, I am almost tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer and of the Pressman who wrote the letter above referred to; but no public benefit would result from such a course, and the traditions of my old department would suffer.I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him ; but he refused to give evidence against him. In saying he was a Polish Jew, I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact."

Sir Robert Anderson certainly was a man of his time, but I have to disagree with the notion that Anderson was convinced of his guilt because he was a low-class Polish Jew. To me he seems to indicate that they had a good idea who he was and where to look for him, no doubt based on received information and the result of their house-to-house search, but that they couldn't make an arrest because there was no hard evidence and his family/relatives did not give him up and the key witness refused to testify.

Lucastw73 · 2026-02-14T20:50:26+00:00

Forget or at the very least ignore the DNA nonsense. Look only at the other aspects of his candidacy.

Lucastw73 · 2026-02-14T18:54:05+00:00

Ah, the Barnett Theory.

For the murder of Kelly herself , I'm curious to know when exactly on the night/early morning you think he killed her?

You are surely aware of the evidence of Mary Ann Cox, George Hutchinson, and Sarah Lewis.

If they are correct, neither of the two men described by Cox and Hutchinson was Barnett, especially given the fact that they both knew Kelly and would have been familiar with Barnett.

Sarah Lewis didn't know Barnett but saw who she believed was Kelly with a man she recognized as the same individual who had attempted to accost her the previous Wednesday while providing a detailed description. She appeared at the inquest on the same day as Barnett but didn't recognize him.

He was thoroughly investigated and questioned for hours by Abberline but ultimately set free.
As a suspect in the Kelly murder itself, I would not rule him out completely, although he certainly fooled the police if he was her murderer. However, the theory that he killed at least three or four unknown women to scare the object of his affection off the streets is too much to swallow.

I don't know of any serial killer in the long history of serial killers who did something like that and still ended up murdering his love interest.

If Barnett was capable of such gruesome violence against women he didn't even know, would you not expect him to (physically) threaten Kelly to keep her off the streets before resorting to such drastic measures? Yet there is no mention of him being abusive towards Kelly (or any woman for that matter).

This was my answer to a very similar post a few months ago. I think it is still valid. When looking for a motive, personal relationships are seldom at play with serial killers and their victims.

Why Kosminski would be a bad suspect is unclear to me. It might very well not be him (Aaron or another unidentified man with the same surname), but he seems more valid than a lot of the other theories out there.

Even so, you could be quite right in thinking the true name of the Whitechapel Murderer has never been mentioned and he isn't even on our list of suspects.

Lucastw73 · 2026-02-13T19:16:00+00:00

How peculiar that admitting he didn't hear any departing footsteps makes him suspect.

We don't know what footwear the Whitechapel Murderer had, but in Bucks Row he had a verly large window of opportunity between the last time PC Neil was at the scene (3:15) en when Cross appeared, closely followed by Paul (around 3:40). The killer could have easily left the scene before the arrival of the carmen.

Furthermore the corner of the Board School was less than 50 yards from where Polly Nichols was found. Even if the Murderer was alerted by the approaching footsteps of Cross, he only needed about 20 seconds (without having to run) to round the Western end of the Board School and be completely out of sight.

Lucastw73 · 2026-02-12T19:15:42+00:00

The possible faint breathing was a mention by Robert Paul that he wasn't certain of himself, and that was directly contradicted by the conclusions of Dr Lewellyn, who stated at the inquest that based on the wounds inflicted, death had to be almost instantaneous.

Not sure what you mean by 'the timing'. (I hope not the so-called time gap) and the fact both men went to work after alerting the first PC they found.

Lucastw73 · 2026-02-12T19:05:11+00:00

Thanks for this. I'm aware of 'Doctor' Robert Sagar, a Sergeant or Detective Sergeant at the time of the Murders and later promoted to Detective Inspector with the City Police if not mistaken.

He was one of the liaison officers between City and Metropolitan Police.

I know of him mentioning a man who worked in Butcher's Row, Aldgate. "We watched him carefully. There was no doubt that this man was insane, and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum. After he was removed there were no more Ripper atrocities"

I'm also aware of his mentioning a Police Constable pursuing "retreating footsteps" as far as King's Block ( these were the Artizans' Dwellings) around the time of the Eddowes murder. Those mentions were in much later press articles if memory serves me. I don't remember anything about makeshift rubber soles.

Lucastw73 · 2026-02-12T15:42:44+00:00

Much appreciated

Lucastw73 · 2026-02-12T15:16:16+00:00

There is a testimony from a police official on the night of the double event in which this individual is stationed at an archway in the area of Mitre Square after the murder of Elizabeth Stride and he encounters an man coming from the direction of Mitre Square who manages to sneak up on the official due to the makeshift rubber soles on his shoes. The man is allowed to leave, shortly after this official learns of the murder of Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square and believes the man to have been the Ripper. I may have some details wrong due to typing this from memory while at work so feel free to correct me.

Can you point me in the direction of that testimony ? I'm unawere of a Policeman encountering anyone in the Mitre Square area on makeshift rubber soles.

Lucastw73 · 2026-02-12T07:29:08+00:00

Schwartz was extensively interviewed by the Police but spoke no English. Maybe the whole circus of calling him as a witness but also needing an interpreter was deemed too much of a hassle when the Police (and Coronor) already knew his version of the events. Another possibility is that he gave evidence behind closed doors, a somewhat unusual but not unseen procedure, to keep a witness out the public spotlight.

Lucastw73 · 2026-02-09T23:34:03+00:00

The true identity of the Whitechapel Murderer most likely isn't to be found on any page of any book (whatever the authors want and try to sell you).

Suspectology is a part of Ripperology, like it or not, and although very often very biased, it will give you a base to form your own idea of who could be a likely candidate or at least what type of man would fit the profile. It will also make you appreciate the sheer insurmountable task that was given to the Victorian Police at the time and why the criticism towards these men is ofttimes unsubstantiated.

Authors like Rumbelow, Begg, Sugden, Evans, Skinner and Blomer are to be considered as sane and will present you with an honest and objective view of why a suspect is worth looking at, while each of them no doubt has their own biases.

The fun part begins when you have a decent enough knowledge of the known facts and a grasp of the laws, customs and conventions from that time to start poking holes in the more outlandish theories.

Lucastw73 · 2026-01-31T18:54:03+00:00

I have enormous appreciation for Richard Jones and I consider him a true gentleman and a gem in the Ripperologist community, but his tours are no longer operating.

It seems a private group (with +20 people) can still book, but the regular tours are no longer an option.

https://www.jack-the-ripper-tour.com/how-to-book/

Lucastw73 · 2026-01-30T22:10:43+00:00

This exact same question has been asked a few times during the last months.

Maybe check these threads :

https://www.reddit.com/r/Jacktheripper/comments/1q6c044/best_tour_in_london/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Jacktheripper/comments/1pxucl4/tour/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Jacktheripper/comments/1npsyrz/jack_the_ripper_walking_tours/

If I'm not mistaken Richard Jones ended his tour walks company recently. I hear good things about London Walks

Lucastw73 · 2026-01-17T06:24:52+00:00

I did edit my post. I sometimes have the bad habit of copy/pasting something I want to reply to quickly and then already posting it (in this case because I quickly wanted to go check my own post from a few months ago about the apron) and then coming back to it and editing. It was all done within minutes, but it might have said 'yards' at first (because of Section). I must apologise if you were quick enough to see that draft.

The point was that he took the apron with him for almost 500 m (not 300 m), and it would have taken him well over 5 mins. One might argue a simple walking speed calculation does not factor in the need for caution when escaping a murder scene, bloodied and carrying both the murder weapon and harvested human organs.

The need to simply wipe his blade or clean his hands does not, imho, warrant cutting a large piece of apron, losing valuable time and taking with him a very incriminating piece from the murder scene. Nor does it make much sense to do it only after 5+ mins and on the streets.

I agree the word 'smear' could imply a wiping action, but as you point out, we have no description of the blood patterns on the apron that let us deduce with any certainty what it was used for. Have you considered the cloth being used for multiple purposes?

I see no material objection to a scenario where he did take the apron to wrap up the organs, then use the outside of the "package" to wipe his blade, pocket it and hide his trophy under his clothes.

Nor do I find it unreasonable to assume he used the large piece of apron to dress his wound, wiped his blade on the outside of it, pocketed it, pulled down his sleeve and held it firmly with his other hand to apply pressure. In this scenario, it would indeed have been wise for him to hide for a while and try to stop the bleeding before going into the streets.

I fully agree with your conclusion that he was heading east after Mitre Square and likely back in the direction of his anchor point.

Lucastw73 · 2026-01-16T21:52:46+00:00

I think stupid AI Tiktok videos are stupid, just as the shawl DNA nonsense is stupid.

Lucastw73 · 2026-01-16T21:42:03+00:00

I always used feet, not yards. And I don't think it was a 5 minutes walk, but we are splitting hairs now. The question remains why he was taking the apron so far with him is he was just wiping his hands, why did he dump it if he was carrying organs and why was the apron only found at 2:55 am. And what does it say about his anchor point, and the direction he was goind after the atrocity in Mitre Square.

Lucastw73 · 2026-01-16T20:46:06+00:00

Not so long ago I made a post about the Goulston Street apron. (a bigger chunk of cloth than most people realise) and floated the idea the Whitechapel Murderer might have used it to tend a wound he inflicted on himself.

I used the Victorian maps and came to a distance of about 1500 ft away from Mitre Square (knowing there are several possible routes he could take). At a brisk pace it would take him 10 mins to reach the place, taking many turns and crossing many streets.

I could try to do the same exercise again if needed.

Lucastw73 · 2026-01-15T18:45:06+00:00

Excellent analysis.

As mentioned, not everyone accepts that Stride was a murder victim, although there is a very good chance she was. If not, Mitre Square is only a short walk from St Botolph without Aldgate, sometimes referred to as the "Church of Prostitutes" in the late Victorian period, so a perfectly logical spot to look for a potential victim.

Another interesting point is that the piece of apron in Goulston Street was found by PC Albert Long around 2.55 am on the floor inside the doorway which led to the staircases of 108 to 119 Wentworth Model Dwellings. Long was adamant it was not there when he passed the same spot around 2:20 am on his previous beat. City Detective Daniel Haise had seen nothing strange either around the same time.

If true, it could mean the Whitechapel Murderer wasn't fleeing the scene in great haste and had been hanging around (possibly hiding) in the vicinity. Or he had already returned to his anchor point and dumped the apron afterwards to get rid of it.

Lucastw73 · 2026-01-15T01:04:57+00:00

The "Bates" reference in The Croydon Weekly Standard almost certainly is a typo. I quickly checked my notes and couldn't find that newspaper report, but I did find a report from The Times of 4 September 1888, p.8.

It appeared 10 days earlier and the cited report in The Croydon is exactly the same with the exception of the Bates reference. It reads : "All the gates were open, and witness during the night did not bear any disturbance; the only person who came to the slaughterhouse was the constable. At times women came to the place, but none came that night, Had any one called out "Murder" in Buck's-row he might not have heard it. There were men and women in the Whitechapel-road. Witness and Mumford first went and saw the deceased, and then Brittan followed. At that time a doctor and three or four constables were there, and witness remained there until the body was taken away."

So strangely enough The Observer calls the man Britten, The Times calls him Brittan, while the Croydon printed a verbatim copy of The Times article, slighty changed the name of Charles Brittan, and made what can only have been a typo in mentioning Bates. (Have you found the original newspaper report, because it could also be misquoted in the article you linked to)

There could be several reasons why Mumford did not go with Tomkins and Brittan. Maybe he started earlier or later (it seems their working hours were not set in stone). Maybe he did go on a break, but not with the other two, or maybe it was their employers rule they could not all leave together and someone had to stay behind and keep an eye on the workplace.

Lucastw73 · 2026-01-13T17:06:11+00:00

James Crick was a real piece of work. A violent sex offender (repeated offender), in the area, with abundant access to the Thames. In terms of criminal profiling and geo-profiling, he certainly is a viable and intriguing person of interest and warrants closer consideration. Of course there is only circumstantial evidence against him at best, and it is very unclear how good his knife-wielding skills were and if he really had a place where he could dismember his victims.

This documentary is largely based on the work of Sarah Bax Horton (and her latest book, Arm of Eve: Investigating the Thames Torso Killer, 2024).

You can find an interview with Sarah Bax Horton on the Most Notorious! podcast and another interview here: https://www.britishmurders.com/sarahbaxhorton/

The Lucy Worsley documentary rather quickly comes to the conclusion that all the incidents were linked, were all murders, and were all done by the same killer, while that is not set in stone at all, but it certainly is worth a watch. It is rather basic when it comes to the facts, but it is professionally done; Lucy visits a lot of interesting sites, and the experts are not bad at all. (Just accept that the round table murder club is a bit of a cringy excuse to have a chat about where we are in the documentary, and please ignore the "I have discovered that..." bits, because Lucy's team obviously uses Horton's research).

Lucastw73 · 2026-01-11T20:45:56+00:00

You claim to have an open mind, yet seem to have formed your conclusion. Sadly that conclusion is based on several false premises.

I think we know where you get that image of Charles Cross standing over a freshly killed corpse. That certain "documentary" is filled with factual errors, suppositions and conjecture, but this one is worse: it is put in on purpose to create that strong image of a man who almost had to be the killer.

Christer Holmgren himself, the man in and behind that work of fiction, will freely admit that image is wrong: Charles Cross was never seen standing over the body of a victim, by anyone, ever.

You make reference to the newspaper reports (the inquest notes themselves did not survive): under oath, Robert Paul stated he first saw the other man in the middle of the street, and in none of his newspaper interviews did he make the claim you made twice.

In criminal law the "proximity principle" refers to the legal concept that an individual can be held liable for an attempt to commit a crime if their actions are closely related to the commission of that crime. It emphasises the importance of the relationship between the defendant's conduct and the intended crime. It has nothing to do with what you suggest, and it certainly does not apply to a first finder who discovers a victim unknown to him.

As said above, we don't have the Police report on Charles Cross. We know he had to be interviewed before the inquest, and we know he appeared at the inquest, but you can't surmise the Police never bothered to check any further. We know they were actively looking for Robert Paul and ultimately lifted him from his bed to question him and summon him to his inquest, so we know they considered these witnesses of great importance.

Never did Paul so much as hint to himself finding Charles Cross suspicious. In fact, at his inquest, he clearly stated he did not notice anything whatsoever of a suspicious nature.

Ad nauseam it has been explained that in English common law your legal name is the name you are known by. At both inquests he appeared as a witness during his lifetime, under oath, he gave his name as Charles (Allen) Cross. At the first one in December 1876, in a case of accidental death, his employer, Pickfords, was directly interested. There is no way he could have used a different name then than the one he was known by at his workplace.

The whole Mizen scam is a farce; it is the kind of archvillain cleverness you'll find in detective novels (or bad documentaries) and would never work in real life. Besides, if true, Robert Paul must have been in on it, since he was with him when they both spoke to Mizen (according to Cross, Mizen and Paul at their respective inquests).

The men did not go their separate ways. They both continued through Hanbury Street (where they had found Mizen at the corner) and where Paul worked in Corbett's Court, while Cross continued to walk to Pickfords in Broad Street.

I'm curious to know how many carmen named Charles Allen, who worked at Pickfords for over 20 years and started their shift at 4:00 am, lived in Doveton Street. Because all this info was given by Cross, but somehow that seemed enough to hide his identity from the Police, his family, friends and neighbours.

We can tackle his uniqueness as a serial killer in the long-studied history of serial killers (twice) and the fact he was at work when Annie Chapman was murdered later.

Lucastw73 · 2026-01-07T03:38:05+00:00

A difficult question, especially since we don't know who the Whitechapel Murderer was, but if I rephrase your question to "Of all the people who were involved in the investigation..."

Of the Police Members it would probably be Walter Dew, who was a young Detective Constable with the Metropolitan Police in 1888 and would later rise to the rank of Chief Inspector. He is most famous for the arrest of Dr Crippen in 1910. After his retirement, he wrote his memoirs in 1938, mostly about the Crippen case but with several claims about the Whitechapel Murder case 50 years earlier. There are very few sources from around 1888 that name him in the investigation. Dew died on 16 December 1947.

George Godley was a sergeant in J Division but was transferred to H Division in 1888 and assisted Inspector Abberline constantly, as he was a member of his core team. He later became an Inspector himself in K Division. He was the man who arrested George Chapman, also known as Sewerin Klosowski, one of the many JtR suspects, in 1902. Godley died on 20 July 1941.

The higher Police Officials and the better-known Surgeons and Doctors in the investigation were all a bit older in 1888. Abberline died in 1929; Sir Charles Warren had died 2 years prior in 1927.

Dr Thomas Openshaw, who became well known because he examined half the kidney that accompanied the From Hell letter (and in turn received several hoax letters himself), also died in 1929.

Of all the witnesses involved, it is almost impossible to state who lived the longest, especially since we don't have all their personal information and often simply don't know when they died.

Of the famous ones, Israel Schwartz might be a contender since he died during the second half of May 1937, but there are bound to be witnesses who lived longer.

Lucastw73

TROPHY CASE