Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Fisherman]

A 3.00am start would be regarded, like now, as a morning shift and not as middle of the night.

Jon Guy:

"It`s not unreasonable to assume that the woman would have woke at the same time to make sure he got up on time and to make him a cup of tea whilst he put his boots on and had a slash."

Yo assume it may be unresaonable, at least to my mind. To suggest that it could have happened? Yes, of course it could - but my money would be on her sleeping it out as best as she could, not least since she had a five-month old bayby sapping her strength.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"What could be cleverer than Paul,arriving earlier(the killer would lie,you say so)turns back in the direction of Cross,becomes aware of Cross approaching,hides,then follows Cross."

Lots of things, to be honest.

"Cross and Paul were workmen on their way to work,they testified to this,and there is absolutely nothing to indicate their intentions were set on anything else."

But there is, Harry. Perhaps you donīt see it, though.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"You seem pretty confident you know the reason why he stopped."

Are you sure that you are not mistaking me for Lechmere? I have stated very clearly that I have no idea why he stopped.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Not at all, Bridewell. But I would like to know how Paul would have managed to miss that her abdomen had been opened up, when pulling her dress down.

On second thoughts, maybe it IS better to suggest that Paul did not have that anatomical knowledge ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

For what ir's worth, I suspect the average person would equate stomach/tummy with the navel area...

Best wishes

Dave

[Bridewell]

Okay

Bridewell:

"You seem pretty confident you know the reason why he stopped."

Are you sure that you are not mistaking me for Lechmere? I have stated very clearly that I have no idea why he stopped.

The best,
Fisherman

In that case I owe you an apology. Sorry.

Regards, Bridewell

[Lechmere]

Bridewell - I have given plausible reasons for Cross starting and stopping - I haven't said I am confident I know the reason why he stopped. That would be as ridiculous presumption at this remove.

Jon Guy
Why should Robert Paul be out with his time? Are you suggesting he actually wasn't late for work, but got the time wrong?
The simple fact is that by Cross's own testimony he had between 8 and 15 minutes to spare. This is corroborated by Paul.
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.
There may have been a shop with a clock outside on Whitechapel Road.
Wind up alarm clocks would not have cost that much - so perhaps they were in common use.
I doubt policemen went out with pocket watches.
We can discount the possibility that Paul or Cross - as carmen - had paid a policeman to knock them up.
Neil was supposed to patrol his beat ever half an hour and he seems to have based his timings on that. His beat would have taken about ten minutes at a brisk uninterrupted walk, so we can probably assume that his actual timings varied considerably for each round. Sometimes stopping off to chat to nightwatchmen, and sometimes checking more doors. Throughout this case we see the implication that various policemen were skiving or being less than alert. Mizen took a while to react to being told by Cross that there was an incident in Bucks Row. PC Thane dived into the slaughter house to retrieve his cape which he had sneaked off to leave there at some point. Then we have the mystery of the apron and graffiti appearing in Goulston Street and the question of whether PC Long was skiving before finding it.
In short why should Neil's timing be more accurate than Cross's or Paul's? On what basis did Paul claim to be late for work if he had no accurate way of calculating the time?

Why did Cross say what he did?
Well if he was the murderer he was being shrewd indeed.
He gave a fake name which gave him anonymity yet had a plausible rational were it to be found out.
He gave his home address yet clearly wasn't visited there but must have presented himself to a police station. Had he given a false address and had the police visited it then he would have been found out. He had to walk those streets every day to get to work. He could not afford to be 'fingered', so anything he told the police had to be secure.
Why did he give the time he gave for leaving home? Well maybe his wife knew roughly what time it was. Maybe he said he left at 3.20 (which may have been true) and corrected himself to say 3.30 - again so the reality was plausible-deniable if put to scrutiny.
If he did it, his lies would have to be based around the truth as much as possible due to his circumstances. That should be obvious.

I will come back to
The issue of whether Cross's wife is likely to have spoken to the police and dissect Paul's newspaper interview which was conducted on the evening of the murder. It is an interesting mixture of accurate recollection, suggestion from evening newspaper reports he had clearly already read, and bragaditio.

[Monty]

Watkins had a pocket watch.

It was quite common for PCs to 'obtain' one off a drunk. Thus the reference in Gilbert and Sullivans line 'if you want to know the time...'.

Monty

[Bridewell]

Bridewell - I have given plausible reasons for Cross starting and stopping - I haven't said I am confident I know the reason why he stopped. That would be as ridiculous presumption at this remove.

Post 39:
Why did he stop?
Try the death of his second step father removing the grudge against his domineering mother being in the arms of another man.
Or the death of his infant daughter.

Post 396:
He has a plausible reason to end the attacks.

Post 440:
(In reply to “I think he means the death of a daughter, if my memory serves me right” by Rubyretro):
And the death of his step father.

Post 443:
If he had a grudge due to his mother being with another man other than his father then the death of his step father may gave been a break. Similarly the death of his baby daughter may have given him pause for thought about life death and everthing.

Post 673:

For Cross my presumption would be that prior to June 1888 he was living close to and under the psychogical dominance of his mother and this inhibited him.
When he moved a mile or so away he was liberated from her immediate presence and his long standing inner resentments burst out in a series of attacks that were only sated when his step father died - together with his youngest child at roughly the same time.
At least these are potential and credible triggers for the initiation and cessation of the attacks.

Post 725:

I am a little surprised that some posters are asking why the death of Cross’s child could potentially have an affect on what he did. Clearly it would have had the potential to affect his psychological outlook and in an unpredictable manner. That the death of one of his infant children occurred at that time is a factor that should be a factor that is taken into consideration.

It may not be something you say with confidence, but it is something you reiterate, variously phrased, at regular intervals on this thread.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Allegedly

Watkins had a pocket watch.

It was quite common for PCs to 'obtain' one off a drunk. Thus the reference in Gilbert and Sullivans line 'if you want to know the time...'.

Monty

Ii was allegedly quite common, Monty. Allegedly. We do have feelings, you know!

Regards, Bridewell.

[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]

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]

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.