Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who was the first clothes-puller?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jon Guy:

    "I guess you don`t know how the gangs operated. Paul would know, and I do, from the Old Bailey transcripts."

    You may be ever so slightly underestimating me here, Jon. The point I am making is that Paul - at least according to you - was a savvy man, accustomed to rough neighbourhoods, and therefore I think it would be strange if he spent his early morning treks to job in constant fear of being robbed or beaten up.
    It would have been obvious that Lechmere was a fellow working man, I think, and that should calm Paul down. I would also submit that Buck´s Row as such was not a street riddled with violent crime. As streets went in that district, it was a fairly nice street, with well cared for and clean dwellings lining it on the southern side.

    It was also a very narrow street. So there would be no need for anybody to "block" it in order to rob or assault people. If there had been the possibility to hide in doorways there, that would make for a better robbing approach, taking the victim by surprise. Then again, from what I can tell, the doorways were very shallow, both on the southern side and in the Essex Wharf building, hardly allowing for any gangs of ruffians to squeeze into them and stay undetected.

    At any rate, making a safe call here is not possible. We will have to settle for our knowledge that Lechmere´s presence struck fear into Paul, and that the latter chose to speak of a generalized fear to get mugged or beaten up.

    The best,
    Fisherman

    Comment


    • Isn't it charming? In order to make a 'strong' case for Cross being a serial mutilator, Fishfingers now has Paul down as a 'vain busybody'. Give me strength. The man just wanted to get to work without mishap and who could blame him? If he had been the first to come upon the body, and had tapped Cross on the shoulder for a bit of moral support and assistance, I expect Fish and co would now be slagging them both off in exactly the same way, while picking on anything from Paul's past or present behaviour that could be made to look a wee bit dodgy.

      Is this really the level to which ripperology has stooped? Woe betide any poor devil who finds a body while minding their own business.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      Last edited by caz; 04-26-2012, 12:47 PM.
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • I don’t know why anyone would think I came on this forum with the preconceived intention of ‘fingering’ Lechmere (or should I say Cross) as the number one suspect.
        Too funny

        You were being ironic - right?

        But stepping aside from my mirth for a second - why not? Surely if you favour Cross as the 'number one suspect' that's your perogative Lechmere?

        Each to their own.

        Comment


        • Caz:

          "Isn't it charming? In order to make a 'strong' case for Cross being a serial mutilator, Fishfingers now has Paul down as a 'vain busybody'. Give me strength."

          You could do with some strength, Caz, if this is the level you prefer to conduct the discussion at. I do not make my calls with no substantiation at all, and I would appreciate if you recognized this.

          Have a look at the 3:rd of September interview with Paul. This is an excerpt:

          "It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead."

          Now, Caz, please notice how Paul casts himself in the star role here. HE was the one ho went and found the woman, HE was the one who examined her, HE was the one who went to get a PC, HE was the one who spoke to the PC etcetera. It is af if Lechmere never took part in the decisionmaking, the actions, the speaking to the police. And yet we KNOW that Lechmere was the part that governed things. Lechmere induced the examination and Lechmere most certainly was the man who spoke to Mizen - the latter confirms this clearly in the inquest recordings.

          So, by appearances, Paul was a vain enough busybody to feed the paper a story in which he awarded himself all the glory of examining Nichols and finding a PC, informing him what had happened. While in fact, it was the other way around!

          You may not have noticed this, Caz? For some reason? Or do you make another interpretation of Pauls stealing the star role here?

          How about asking about things the next time, before rushing to conclusions and brandishing fellow posters complete idiots and fantasists? For courtesy´s sake, if nothing else? Besides, every now and then people have reasons for what they say.

          Not all times, though, mind you ...

          The very best, Caz!
          Fisherman
          Last edited by Fisherman; 04-26-2012, 02:00 PM.

          Comment


          • Hi Fish,

            I presume that for the purposes of the interview, Paul was relating the tale from his perspective and not from Cross's, so nothing particularly vain about doing just that. Many witnesses play up their own role a bit for public consumption, without meaning or causing any harm. But you are suggesting more than vanity here; you are suggesting Paul flat out lied - which Mizen would have seen for himself if he read the interview and knew it was Cross who did all the talking.

            Fair enough if you want to go down that road, but what you can't do is to brand Paul a liar concerning anything that happened before the pair found Mizen, because that would mean relying solely on your lying murderer's word for the precise order of events and who did what. Not very sensible.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Caz:

              "Many witnesses play up their own role a bit for public consumption"

              I know - it is called vanity.

              "But you are suggesting more than vanity here; you are suggesting Paul flat out lied - which Mizen would have seen for himself if he read the interview and knew it was Cross who did all the talking."

              Paul may well have said a little something - but Lechmere was the one who Mizen said spoke to him. But there is a lot more to this affair than hat is visible on the surface, Caz ...

              "what you can't do is to brand Paul a liar concerning anything that happened before the pair found Mizen, because that would mean relying solely on your lying murderer's word for the precise order of events and who did what."

              Thre are more sources than just the one, Caz. The discrepancy between what Paul says at the inquest and the paper interview is quite enough to tell that both versions can´t be true. And please don´t tell me what I can do or not, at least until you have the sources and information sorted out.

              The best,
              Fisherman

              Comment


              • Ben, Fish, Lech, etc.

                I am glad to hear that Fish and Lech are different people. I hoped as much, and didn't personally suspect they were one and the same until I saw Fish being called 'Lechmere' which prompted me to ask my question. If they WERE one and the same, I was going to suggest that he stick with the Lechmere persona, because in my opinion, Lechmere is the more rational, constructive, and less confrontational of the two. Fish is good peeps, but when he gets a new idea in his head, he bites in and hangs on like a pit bull. There's no getting through to him. I know that from our Berner Street exchanges. I'm beginning to think Ben is a bigger glutton for punishment than I am!

                Yours truly,

                Tom Wescott

                Comment


                • Tom:

                  "Fish is good peeps, but when he gets a new idea in his head, he bites in and hangs on like a pit bull."

                  Wow - that must hurt...?

                  The best,
                  Fisherman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    "Fish is good peeps, but when he gets a new idea in his head, he bites in and hangs on like a pit bull."
                    Or like a bonito? Lol Fisherman.
                    Best regards,
                    Maria

                    Comment


                    • Maria:

                      "Or like a bonito?"

                      I could buy that! Or a barracuda, perhaps? But apart from me, they are not around here in the Swedish waters. Bonitos are, though!

                      The best,
                      Fisherman

                      Comment


                      • Hi Fisherman,

                        Have a look at the 3:rd of September interview with Paul. This is an excerpt:

                        "It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead."

                        Now, Caz, please notice how Paul casts himself in the star role here. HE was the one ho went and found the woman, HE was the one who examined her, HE was the one who went to get a PC, HE was the one who spoke to the PC etcetera. It is af if Lechmere never took part in the decisionmaking, the actions, the speaking to the police. And yet we KNOW that Lechmere was the part that governed things. Lechmere induced the examination and Lechmere most certainly was the man who spoke to Mizen - the latter confirms this clearly in the inquest recordings.

                        So, by appearances, Paul was a vain enough busybody to feed the paper a story in which he awarded himself all the glory of examining Nichols and finding a PC, informing him what had happened. While in fact, it was the other way around!
                        This was a newspaper interview, was it not? Perhaps Paul exaggerated his part in the proceedings, or perhaps the journalist made his witness out to have played a more significant part than he actually did. Either is possible - vain witness or vain journalist.

                        Regards, Bridewell
                        "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                        Comment


                        • Hi Christer,

                          Personally, having gone into all this in a Rip article, I still find it odd that whereas Paul originally stated that he alone went off in search of a policeman, Cross testified that they went together.

                          Two weeks later Paul testified that "The man [Cross] walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman."

                          "The discrepancy between what Paul says at the inquest and the paper interview is quite enough to tell that both versions can't be true."

                          Exactly so. My feeling is that Paul's newspaper account of 2nd September was true.

                          Lloyds Weekly News, 30th September 1888—

                          "Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, which appeared in Lloyd's, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing."

                          I would suggest that during the night of 31st August and on the following day somebody read Robert Paul's fortune to him.

                          Regards,

                          Simon
                          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                            Hi Christer,

                            Personally, having gone into all this in a Rip article, I still find it odd that whereas Paul originally stated that he alone went off in search of a policeman, Cross testified that they went together.

                            Two weeks later Paul testified that "The man [Cross] walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman."

                            "The discrepancy between what Paul says at the inquest and the paper interview is quite enough to tell that both versions can't be true."

                            Exactly so. My feeling is that Paul's newspaper account of 2nd September was true.

                            Lloyds Weekly News, 30th September 1888—

                            "Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, which appeared in Lloyd's, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing."

                            I would suggest that during the night of 31st August and on the following day somebody read Robert Paul's fortune to him.

                            Regards,

                            Simon
                            I do better with the full picture, all spelled out for me, please.

                            Comment


                            • Hi Curious,

                              And so do we all.

                              But until then it's still worth thinking about.

                              Regards,

                              Simon
                              Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X