Who was the first clothes-puller?

[Robert]

Could be, Jon. And a certain impishness about the watchman one - a watchman having to be told of a crime (not that he was in a position to spot it, but it was very close by).

[Wickerman]

Could be, Jon. And a certain impishness about the watchman one - a watchman having to be told of a crime (not that he was in a position to spot it, but it was very close by).

If so, then we see the very same impish approach to Mrs Paumier, the chestnut seller.
We must not forget, "Old man" as a term of endearment was very common.

Considering Mulshaw was approached while Nichols' body was being investigated could mean this stranger had been hovering around, likewise can be said in the case of Paumier. We read this is a known trait with some killers.

Regards, Jon S.

[curious]

His Lechmere name had a degree of cachet attached to it - he was descended from the gentry. It would not be usual for a child to resent a step father.
In all likelihood he never called himself Cross and only did it in 1888 out of mockery.

Perhaps he was protecting the family name. . .

Lechmere is so much more uncommon than Cross, perhaps he did not want any touch of scandal on his family name.

[curious]

Sally I think it was remarkable for a 32 year old widow with two kids in tow to marry a 23 year old policeman - bigimously as in fact she had not divorced her first husband. Particularly in the East End where second marriages are relatively rare -and third marriages even rarer.

Yes unusual!!!

Hi, Lechmere,

I suspect this is out of sequence from what i understand of your earlier post.

She married the policeman bigamously, then when the policeman died, she was a widow, who again married bigamously. This is because her first husband was still alive at the time of her two later marriages.

Right?

When did the first husband die? do you know?

Thanks,

[Lechmere]

He first husband died in the late 1870s from memory - after her two later marriages

[curious]

He first husband died in the late 1870s from memory - after her two later marriages

Thanks, Lechmere,

My hat's off to her. The girl had guts.

Interesting research. I'm not convinced, but it's great looking at it all and considering the different possibilities.

[curious]

You have a good memory Robert, in fact I gathered a few quotes on that very subject some months ago on the, Who did Sarah see? thread.


On Nov. 9th, Mrs Paumier said, "a man, dressed like a gentleman, came to her, and said, "I suppose you have heard about the murder in Dorset-street."

Then there's Mulshaw, the nightwatchman round the corner from Bucks Row, a stranger came past him and said:
"Watchman, old man, I believe somebody is murdered down the street."

Remember what the stranger said to Packer?
"...I say, old man, how do you sell your grapes."

Do we hear the same voice?

Regards, Jon S.

But never any description (I notice the "dressed like a gentleman") or anyone to put a name with, right?

[Wickerman]

But never any description (I notice the "dressed like a gentleman") or anyone to put a name with, right?

Correct, a handful of nothing... nothing but "what ifs".

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"Well Fish, he's very changeable, isn't he? First he hangs around waiting for Paul, engaging him in conversation etc. Then he suddenly wants to get away."

THAT can be discussed separately - but the thing we WERE discussing was the advantage involved in leaving Buckīs Row!

Now, as for the new discussion you are suggesting, maybe we should not regard Cross/Lechmere as "hanging around" in wait for Paul. Maybe he did not notice him until undetected escape was impossible - after all, he would have had other things on his mind IF he was the killer, engaged in trying to get at Nicholsīinside.

The engaging in conversation would of course be the best thing to do if you wanted to look innocent. What other choice was there? Standing about silently?

... but after this was all taken care of, then yes, for reasons outlined in my earlier posts, Cross/Lechmere would prefer to leave Buckīs Row behind.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"I know, Fish. They had gone to look for a constable / help.
Just like Bowyer, Davis, Reeves and Diemshitz did."

Bowyer - victim very clearly dead.
Davis - victim very clearly dead.
Reeves - victim very clearly dead.
Diemschitz - victim not so clearly dead - left in the care of others.

Cross/Paul - victim in uncertain condition, perhaps in dire need of help. Left unattended.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Jon -
The 'unknown man' walking down Bucks Row clearly looked like just another man on his way to work. His voice must have sounded like that of any other workman too (i.e. not cultured like a 'Gentleman').

Mizen would have mentioned it if the man who he saw passing was out of the ordinary, and Mulcher would surely have commented on the fact.

'old man' was probably a very common expression.

[Fisherman]

Imagine a society in which an axe murderer is on the loose. Further imagine that the police one day stops a man in the street, only to find out that he is hiding an axe underneath his coat.

Such a thing would seem incriminating, right?

But letīs consider the alternative explanations, all totally harmless, to his carrying an axe with him:

Maybe he had for the longest time nurtured a wish to become a lumberjack.
An axe can be a very practical tool to have in many situations.
It could have been a gift.
Maybe he suffered from scholiosis, and carried the axe as a counterweight to his disformation.
He could have been afraid of the axman on the loose, and so decided to arm himself.

The nameswop is what I am speaking of here, the Cross/Lechmere thing. It has attracted a plethora of more or less useful "natural" explanations. That, I suppose, is as it should be.
But in the end, it still remains that our carman was christianed Lechmere, married as Lechmere, signed all official documents as Lechmere - but told the police, on leaving a murder spot after having been alone with the victim, that his name was Cross.

Finding a hidden axe on a person when there is an axman on the loose, is a very useful pointer to guilt. Just saying ...

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

David:

"I know, Fish. They had gone to look for a constable / help.
Just like Bowyer, Davis, Reeves and Diemshitz did."

Bowyer - victim very clearly dead.
Davis - victim very clearly dead.
Reeves - victim very clearly dead.
Diemschitz - victim not so clearly dead - left in the care of others.

Cross/Paul - victim in uncertain condition, perhaps in dire need of help. Left unattended.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish. What else could they do ?
Certainly, one of them could have waited in Buck's Row, while the other would have gone to look for a constable.
But they didn't know each other, they couldn't trust each other, so who would have been stupid enough to stay alone with the corpse , taking the risk to be found near to a dead (and perhaps murdered) woman, in case the other would have never come back ?
So they chose to stay together and that I can understand.
As for their worrying to be behind time, this also I understand, they had to feed their family and that was a daily struggle.

[Fisherman]

David:

"Hi Fish. What else could they do ?
Certainly, one of them could have waited in Buck's Row, while the other would have gone to look for a constable."

... and there we go, David. Spot on!

The discussion of getting implicated in the murder is not a very viable one. Maybe a seasoned criminal would have prioritized getting out of there, but if all members of society did so, it would be a cold world! People normally do what they can to help others - your friend Hutchinson being one of them. He could have stayed away from implicating that he was alone at a murder site at the approximate murder time - at least he believed he had been - but he instead went to the police to tell them about it. He would have known very well that no evidence against him could ever exist. And I think you will find that whenever two people stumble upon somebody in great need of help, normally one of them will run for help and the other will stay and do what can be done, waiting for that help.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

One more thing, David - by the looks of things, Paul was the one who first said that he was late for work, and suggested the search for a policeman. Here is the relevant passage from his Sep 3:rd interview in the papers:

"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. "

You will notice that he leaves Cross out of it totally here, as if he had left him. And maybe he did, only to find out that Cross had tagged along, as implicated by next text passage. This is what Paul said at the inquest:

"The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman."

So Cross walked with him. Joined him, sort of.

Does Cross gainsay this?

Cross, from the inquest:

"Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark. He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness (Mizen), whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row."

They both left, thus. But there is more:

"Coroner: Did the other man tell you who he was?
Witness: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself."

Aha - so Paul WAS the one who set out to leave, and Cross followed suit. Therefore, it can be reasoned that Cross morally ought to have been the one who should have stayed behind to help Polly. But this he would be extremely reluctant to do if he was the killer - placing himself next to Polly, waiting for a PC to come along, a PC who would inevitably notice the cut throat, would not be a healthy thing to do, least of all if it transpired, courtesy to Paul, that Cross had been alone with the victim from the outset. The knife, you see, David, would have been a serious drawback.

So Cross had every reason to get the hell out of there, but how overcome the moral obligation to help out? Of course - if Paul entered lateness as a useful cause to get going, then Cross could do the exact same thing! Problem solved!

If he WAS late for work is another question altogether. Apparently he was no later than to choose the slow Hanbury Street route over the quick Old Montague Street route. Peculiar, is it not? If another lost minute or two did not matter THERE, then why did it matter in Buckīs Row?

The best,
Fisherman