Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Goulston Street Graffito: GSG/DB/SJ.. all mean nothing? - by spyglass 5 minutes ago.
Bury, W.H.: So what did Parr know? - by Penhalion 20 minutes ago.
Bury, W.H.: So what did Parr know? - by arealdwarf 3 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Charles Lechmere interesting link - by caz 3 hours ago.
General Discussion: PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron - by Monty 3 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: GSG/DB/SJ.. all mean nothing? - by Monty 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Discussion: PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron - (19 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Poll: Organs/body parts removed or not? - (6 posts)
Goulston Street Graffito: GSG/DB/SJ.. all mean nothing? - (4 posts)
Notable Persons: Chris Scott - (4 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: So would he have run? - (3 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Mar 6, 2014, 11:56 pm
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm
Donald Swanson
Edit: Chris
Dec 9, 2012, 3:40 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.
Mike Covell: A Study in Red – The Secret Journal of Jack the Ripper
March 3, 2014, 3:42 am.
Mike Covell: Almost there….
January 24, 2014, 4:05 am.
Mike Covell: Jack the Ripper - Year in Review 2013
December 28, 2013, 7:31 am.
Mike Covell: Jack the Ripper At Last? - Review
December 9, 2013, 2:08 am.
Mike Covell: From Whitechapel to Whitefriargate
November 27, 2013, 4:15 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Mary Ann Nichols

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #761  
Old 04-09-2012, 02:21 PM
Lechmere Lechmere is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,930
Default

I have reiterated it as various posters have posed the question repeatedly when there blatantly are plausible reasons for the start and end.
Quick reply to this message
  #762  
Old 04-09-2012, 02:34 PM
Lechmere Lechmere is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,930
Default

I would say the specific mention of the time by Watkins' watch shows the it was not common.
Quick reply to this message
  #763  
Old 04-09-2012, 04:35 PM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,278
Default

Surely we cannot expect to obtain satisfying times for details of any of these murders. There are timing problems with all of them. All part and parcel, I suppose, of an era when not many poor people had watches, and had to rely on public clocks which weren't necessarily all correct.
Quick reply to this message
  #764  
Old 04-09-2012, 04:45 PM
Monty Monty is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 4,238
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lechmere View Post
I would say the specific mention of the time by Watkins' watch shows the it was not common.
True however it was not forebidden.

The fact there is no precise time made at inquest, nor reference to a timepiece, indicates Neil had no watch.

That must be said.

Monty
__________________
It begins

Quick reply to this message
  #765  
Old 04-09-2012, 05:54 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is online now
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,727
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell View Post
If we're going to treat Cross's (entirely plausible) account as suspicious, let's, instead, study the relevant part of Paul's testimony and see what that tells us.

'He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning, and as he was passing up Bucks-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness approached him he walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him. He then touched witness on the shoulder, and said, "Come and look at this woman here". Witness went with him and say a woman lying right across the gateway.'

he saw a man standing in the middle of the road

so we see that, when Paul first catches sight of Cross, he is emphatically not "virtually standing over a body", as has been previously alleged. He is (at least) several yards away from it , on any sensible interpretation. He is not reacting to Paul's presence, but looking out for someone to come to his aid.

As witness (Paul) approached him he (Cross) walked towards the pavement

Paul is making his way to work and is waylaid by Cross

and witness stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him.

so Paul, quite clearly, hasn't seen a body and is actively trying to get past Cross and avoid being delayed on his journey.

He (Cross) then touched witness (Paul) on the shoulder, and said, "Come and look at this woman here"

Cross will not allow Paul to pass, taps him on the shoulder, and has to explain his reason for doing so, in order to prevent Paul from doing what he wants to do , which is to walk on up Bucks Row towards Spitalfields.

Witness went with him and saw a woman lying right across the gateway.


Cross is actually having to point out the body, which Paul, quite clearly hasn't seen and was never going to see unless, and until, Cross pointed it out.

Emergency reaction? In danger of being caught? Has to come up with a cover story? Not credible because, even when Cross is flagging him down, even when Cross steps onto the pavement, Paul side-steps into the roadway in order to get past. He's then touched on the shoulder so that he has to interrupt his walk to work and accompany Cross to where the body is. Paul's account exonerates Cross, so they're either both lying, or Cross is innocent.

You can hit me with as many "Yes buts" as you like on this. It's game over for me as far as Cross being a suspect is concerned.

Regards, Bridewell.
Hi Bridewell
Thanks for the details from the inquest and breaking it down. I totally agree and also have been saying the exact same thing (although not as well)-basically, lech's actions is consistant with someone who is innocent and is proactively trying to find some help upon discovering a body.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe
Quick reply to this message
  #766  
Old 04-09-2012, 05:55 PM
Garry Wroe Garry Wroe is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lechmere View Post
The question of timings goes back to the old problem of how anyone at that time knew what the time was to any degree of accuracy ... There were church clocks but there were no churches in the immediate area bewteen Doveton Street, Bucks Row and that part of Whitechapel Road.
You appear to be under the misapprehension that people needed to see the local clocks in order to determine the time, Lechmere. They didn't. More often than not guesstimates were made based upon quarterly chimes, the sound of which carried for miles. Such clocks were relatively plentiful. Local churches, breweries, factories, town halls and suchlike all had clocks. It is also a matter of record that many neighbourhood dockers used the workhouse bell as an alarm clock. These people weren't as helpless and hopeless as you seem to imagine.
Quick reply to this message
  #767  
Old 04-09-2012, 06:39 PM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,278
Default

I imagine it must have been quite a cacophany, and that people might have failed to notice, say, the first couple of chimes before noticing the third.

How many of us have had the experience of being in a room, deep in thought, when the room clock has struck the quarter or whatever, and the chime isn't noticed until it's finished and the last vibrations have died away? I have had that sort of thing - I'm sure that something just happened, I can hear the chimes in my head, I look up and the clock says 31 minutes past the hour.
Quick reply to this message
  #768  
Old 04-09-2012, 09:15 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,372
Default

Although it would be nice to have all the times in this drama properly recorded, I donīt think it is all that important. We know the order in which things happened, and that is what really matters here. The carmen examined the body - they left for Hanbury street, not meeting Neil, meaning that he came to Buckīs Row AFTER the carmen had left it - Mizen arrived at the murder spot and found Neil alone, meaning that the latter had already dispatched Thain for the doctor, etcetera.
In my house, the different clocks do not all show the same time. There are differences of about three or four minutes inbetween them, and such a thing could easily have applied back then too. Moreover, the fact that Paul, Mizen, Neil and Thain all speak of 3.45 does not have to be all that strange, since most people give the time in five minute intervals. Thus 3.44 may be given as 3.45, as may 3.46. and in the small area we are talking about, a two minute discrepancy makes a lot of difference.

The best,
Fisherman
Quick reply to this message
  #769  
Old 04-09-2012, 11:04 PM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 2,764
Default Indeed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Although it would be nice to have all the times in this drama properly recorded, I donīt think it is all that important. We know the order in which things happened, and that is what really matters here. The carmen examined the body - they left for Hanbury street, not meeting Neil, meaning that he came to Buckīs Row AFTER the carmen had left it - Mizen arrived at the murder spot and found Neil alone, meaning that the latter had already dispatched Thain for the doctor, etcetera.
In my house, the different clocks do not all show the same time. There are differences of about three or four minutes inbetween them, and such a thing could easily have applied back then too. Moreover, the fact that Paul, Mizen, Neil and Thain all speak of 3.45 does not have to be all that strange, since most people give the time in five minute intervals. Thus 3.44 may be given as 3.45, as may 3.46. and in the small area we are talking about, a two minute discrepancy makes a lot of difference.

The best,
Fisherman
Hi Fisherman,

Just so. All timings have to be treated as approximate unless there is good reason to do otherwise - such as perhaps Mrs Long who was confident of the time because the brewary clock had just struck the half hour.

Regards, Bridewell.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message
  #770  
Old 04-10-2012, 06:09 PM
Rubyretro Rubyretro is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sussex, England
Posts: 1,911
Default

Good try Fish -I am with you though.

A minute can be a very long time.
__________________
http://youtu.be/GcBr3rosvNQ
Quick reply to this message
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.