Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Lechmere]

I have reiterated it as various posters have posed the question repeatedly when there blatantly are plausible reasons for the start and end.

[Lechmere]

I would say the specific mention of the time by Watkins' watch shows the it was not common.

[Robert]

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.

[Monty]

Originally Posted by Lechmere

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

[Abby Normal]

Originally Posted by Bridewell

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.

[Garry Wroe]

Originally Posted by Lechmere

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.

[Robert]

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.

[Fisherman]

Although it would be nice to have all the times in this drama properly recorded, I don´t 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 Buck´s 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

[Bridewell]

Originally Posted by Fisherman

Although it would be nice to have all the times in this drama properly recorded, I don´t 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 Buck´s 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.

[Rubyretro]

Good try Fish -I am with you though.

A minute can be a very long time.