Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Fisherman]

Hi all!

The Victorians were a prudent breed. We can tell that from how the people who found the victims pulled their dresses down to hide their bodies from sight.

The most interesting victim in this respect is Polly Nichols. We know that Robert Paul pulled her clothing down to her knees, for decency´s sake.

The problem is, when he started pulling, "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach", as deposed by Paul himself. So, almost to the stomach, but not fully that long.

But Nichols had suffered a cut that went from the breastbone all the way down, as we can tell from the reports. So it would seem that somebody had already pulled the clothes down before Paul got to try his hand on it. And the first puller apparently did enough pulling to cover the gaping wound in Nichols abdomen. If "almost up to her stomach" meant below the stomach, then reasonably the body would only have been exposed from the genital area down.

We know from the reports that the clothes had not been cut through, so evidently somebody lifted her clothes and cut her abdomen open. After that, it would seem that somebody pulled the clothes over the wound.

Who would that somebody be? The killer? And if so - why?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Addy]

Hi Fisherman,

Perhaps he only lifted her clothes up to mutilate her and when he let go they fell down again, leaving only the lower part of the body uncovered. Women tended to wear more than we do nowadays, with skirts and underskirts and aprons, so the clothing was heavy. I can imagine some of it would slide down again, unless it was put almost over the face.

Greetings,

Addy

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby!

But if she was on the ground as he cut - and we must accept that she was - then why would the clothes slide down her body? It would defy gravity, would it not?
The other victims´clothes certainly stayed pulled up once they were there. No sliding down there. So why here?

And yes, the cloth was normally heavy - but that would ensure it´s staying where you put it, to my mind.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Hi Fish

If the killer was interrupted, he might have given the clothes a quick tug to hide the worst of what he'd done, and then made his escape.

[lynn cates]

dissociated

Hello Christer. I assume the killer did it. I think that Polly and Annie's killer was completely dissociated and scarcely knew what he was doing. No deep motive involved, possibly just acting on the exact same impulse that drove Paul.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"If the killer was interrupted, he might have given the clothes a quick tug to hide the worst of what he'd done, and then made his escape."

This is the solution I tend to favour myself. But who would have provided the interruption? Suggestions?

Lynn:

" I assume the killer did it. I think that Polly and Annie's killer was completely dissociated and scarcely knew what he was doing. No deep motive involved, possibly just acting on the exact same impulse that drove Paul."

Issenschmidt, that is, yes? Then he would have been very lucky indeed to walk both in and away unnoticed, one has to say. And it would have been only the shortest of times before she was discovered, judging by the warmth in the body and the possible little twitch Paul felt in her.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Hi Fish

OK I'll put my head in the noose for the checkmate and make the obvious move : the interrupter was Cross.

[Fisherman]

And Swoooshhh! goes the noose!

Nah, Robert, just kidding; that may of course well be. But none of the PC:s and watchmen hanging round the site mentions anybody walking into the scene or leaving it, and just like I said, the schedule we deal with is very tight by the looks of things.

Do you remember Robert Pauls initital reaction to Cross? He felt frightened by him, and stated as much later. He later put it down to his knowledge that many foul figures frequented the area, but maybe there was something in Cross´apparition that caused the fear...?

It has always been said that it was a complete mystery how the killer could emerge and disappear without a sound, leaving the PC:s and watchmen none the wiser. But we do actually have a man recorded that entered the area, who was at the spot where Nichols died, and who left the same area afterwards without being checked by anybody for a weapon and/or blood: Cross.
He offers a very simple explanation to the riddle. He was very close to Nichols body when Paul noticed him, after having walked down Buck´s Row for, say, eighty yards or so, leaving him with another approximate forty yards before he was at the spot. Plenty of time for Cross - if he did it - to notice Paul by the sound of his shoes against the streetstones, to hide his knife, pull the clothes down, not knowing how much Paul had noticed, and get out in the middle of the street with the possible need to kill Paul too on his mind - thus the fright he gave Paul.
Once he realized that Paul had seen nothing, the charade was on.

Could this have been it? I know that Cross has been suggested before, and I have been opposed to it. But the detail of the clothing fascinates me. I had not given it much thought before, and Cross is a very convenient solution in a sense, having noticed that somebody was approaching. Maybe Paul was the interruptor, thus...?


The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

Well, let me ask this. Her clothing was not cut. But was it unbuttoned? Front buttons were the norm in not upper class clothing. If he opened the bottom buttons, say waist to breast, but left breast to neck fastened, the dress would naturally pull back to a closed position. He would have had to hold the dress open, and when he left it would pull closed.

[Fisherman]

Errata!

She wore an ulster with brass buttons (seven of then, I think) over a linsey frock. I have never heard it suggested that the buttons were undone. I think we must accept that the clothes were lifted up over her as he cut. The frock would still be in the way even if he did unbutton the ulster.

The best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

Let us not forget that, after telling his story to Lloyd's Weekly, Robert Paul was "fetched up in the middle of the night by the police", and afterwards at the inquest his story changed dramatically.

These are the facts.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Simon:

"Let us not forget that, after telling his story to Lloyd's Weekly, Robert Paul was "fetched up in the middle of the night by the police", and afterwards at the inquest his story changed dramatically."

What impact, Simon, would that - to your mind - have on the possibility of Cross being Nichols´killer?

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

And Swoooshhh! goes the noose!

Nah, Robert, just kidding; that may of course well be. But none of the PC:s and watchmen hanging round the site mentions anybody walking into the scene or leaving it, and just like I said, the schedule we deal with is very tight by the looks of things.

Do you remember Robert Pauls initital reaction to Cross? He felt frightened by him, and stated as much later. He later put it down to his knowledge that many foul figures frequented the area, but maybe there was something in Cross´apparition that caused the fear...?

It has always been said that it was a complete mystery how the killer could emerge and disappear without a sound, leaving the PC:s and watchmen none the wiser. But we do actually have a man recorded that entered the area, who was at the spot where Nichols died, and who left the same area afterwards without being checked by anybody for a weapon and/or blood: Cross.
He offers a very simple explanation to the riddle. He was very close to Nichols body when Paul noticed him, after having walked down Buck´s Row for, say, eighty yards or so, leaving him with another approximate forty yards before he was at the spot. Plenty of time for Cross - if he did it - to notice Paul by the sound of his shoes against the streetstones, to hide his knife, pull the clothes down, not knowing how much Paul had noticed, and get out in the middle of the street with the possible need to kill Paul too on his mind - thus the fright he gave Paul.
Once he realized that Paul had seen nothing, the charade was on.

Could this have been it? I know that Cross has been suggested before, and I have been opposed to it. But the detail of the clothing fascinates me. I had not given it much thought before, and Cross is a very convenient solution in a sense, having noticed that somebody was approaching. Maybe Paul was the interruptor, thus...?


The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
I thought that Cross/Lechmere was a possibility for the ripper, with his "look what i just found, Guvna" trick as he quickly slips his knife back in the pocket.

However, he was on his way to work. I think the ripper was cunning and planned his murders (to the extent he picked which nights he went out hunting) so i find it highly unlikely JtR would kill on the way to work with all the problems that would entail: i.e. restrained by time, having his knife still with him (let alone internal organs), bloodstains etc.

He would want and need to have plenty of free time after the murder to clean up and play with his goodies.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

To be perfectly honest, I don't know.

But there was definitely a move afoot to reconcile the many and various inconsistencies surrounding the murder of Polly Nichols.

Regards,

Simon

[Robert]

Hi Fish

Like Abby, I think it would have been a strange thing for Cross to do on his way to work. I'm not convinced that the Ripper was a planner, or even in his right mind half the time, but the more disorganized he was, the more apparent it would be to his work colleagues, yet we don't hear of any strange behaviour on the part of Cross. Paul at any rate doesn't seem to have noticed anything odd about him. In other words, if Jack was in control of himself when he killed Polly, why kill her on his way to work? If he wasn't in control of himself, then he recovered his composure remarkably quickly.