|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Mrs. Paumier
Casebook Message Boards: Witnesses: Specific Witnesses:
Mrs. Paumier
Author: Difranco27
Saturday, 13 March 1999 - 02:46 am |        | This is probably a repeat of a question asked a thousand times, but alas, I am just a fledgling. Why is Mrs. Paumier,(the chestnut seller) not listed on the page of suspects in the Casebook?? Was she at some point proven unreliable. I just descovered her statment and it started me on a string of research, of course, but I can find nothing else about her. Also Sarah Roney, what about her. I know that they did not see this man with any of the victims, but they WERE approached: She said that about 12 o'clock this morning a man dressed like a gentleman came
to her and said, "I suppose you have heard about the murder in Dorset-street." She replied that she had, whereupon the man grinned and
said "I know more about it than you." He then tared into her face and went down Sandys Row,, another narrow thoroughfare which cuts
across Widcoate-street. When he had got some way off he looked back, as if to see whether she was watching him, and then vanished. Mrs.
Paumier said the man had a black moustache, was about 5ft. 6in. in height, and wore a black silk hat, black coat, and speckled trousers. He
carried a black bag about 1ft. in depth and 1 1/2 ft. in length. Sarah Roney, a girl about 20 years of age, states that she was with two other
girls last night in Brushfield-street, which is near Dorset-street, when a man wearing a tall hat and a black coat, and carrying a black bag,
came up to her, and said, "Will you come with me?" She told him she would not, and asked him what he had in the bag, and he said,
"Something the ladies don't like. He then walked away.
As I said, I am new. Only a year at this frustrating and endless thing and already I am close to losing hope (see posting under Liz Stride!) Any thoughts? |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Tuesday, 16 March 1999 - 06:56 pm | | Hi all,
I'll have a go at this one.
Welcome to the Casebook Difranco27. The apparent source of both the Mrs. Paumier and Sarah Roney stories are a press report that appeared in the Times of Nov 10 1888.
I'm not much past the fledgling stage in the Ripperology world either, Difranco27, but I have learned that newspaper reports that cannot be seperately corroborated by another source such as a police file or coroner's report must be treated with extreme caution. According to the copy of the Kelly inquest testimony I have, neither Mrs. Paumier nor Sarah Roney appeared to testify, an indication that the police did not think their stories relevant or important, assuming the events took place at all.
So, in my decidely inexpert opinion, I think the Mrs. Paumier and Sarah Roney stories fall squarely into the catagory of unsubstantiated newspaper reports, and that's why they're not on the Casebook's Witness page.
Cheers all,
Jim |
Author: Julian
Tuesday, 16 March 1999 - 09:08 pm | | G'day Jim and Difranco27,
I think we all have to be careful as regarding the information provided by any witnesses of the time because as reported in many papers of the time, people were seeing JtR under every lamppost, in every bar in every alley etc. It has also been mentioned that people volunarily offered information to the police in the hope that they would gain their 15 minutes of fame. I believe this to be the case with the women who claimed to see Mary kelly after she was murdered. I reckon that they got their days mixed up but because they were already in the spotlight, they couldn't suddenly admit their mistake and resume a normal life, they HAD to stick with their story.
I know that very little credibility should be shown to the media but although their stories were over-embelished they did provide information to the discerning reader and can still do so today.
The point I'm trying to make is that almost everyone was on the lookout for someone suspicious and witnesses to these people were a dime a dozen.
Hope that hasn't confused things.
Oh, by the way Difranco27, welcome.
Jules |
Author: Difranco27
Wednesday, 17 March 1999 - 12:34 am | | Thank you, Jules and Jim, for the information and the warm welcome! I must tell you how refreshing most of the people who post on these boards are (due to your wonderful manners and friendliness!) As you probably know, Americans are not known for their politness. :-)
I did have those ideas in the back of my head, but I still have far to go in the Casebook alone. If those and other "witnesses" were shooting for their 15 minutes, they were very creative!
I know it is probably a mistake to think that I have come to a conclusion after only a year or so on the case, but it feels right. I won't say anything just yet, I would like to spend a few more weeks tying up some loose ends. And NO, I'm not writing a book! :-)
Thanks again!
Sunshine |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 17 March 1999 - 06:26 am | | Hello All, and welcome Difranco27.
I think Jim Di Palma is pretty well spot-on here with his observations about the non-appearance of Mrs. Paumier at the inquest, and about the reporting of alleged witnesses in the newspapers. For similar comments about another witness, check out the Maurice Lewis discussion on this board.
A couple of comments I would add here though. This story also appeared in the Manchester Guardian of 10th November, so either the witness spoke to more than one reporter or else both papers secured the story from a common, third-party source. I believe, Difranco, that you have seen the Guardian story, since it printed the location as Widcoate Street, which you repeat. The correct name was Widegate Street, which appeared in The Times. Widegate Street is a spur running off Middlesex Street to the intersection with Sandy's Row. From the wording of the reports, I assume that Mrs. Paumier's stall was at the Sandy's Row end, next to the King's Stores public house.
Incidently, the pub has an oral tradition that JTR was last seen in there. Unfortunately it appears to be groundless. When I quizzed the staff on the matter, all were aware of the story but none knew of any evidence for it. I suspect that the incident you describe gave rise to the myth. Even if there were any truth in the story, Jack would have visited an earlier incarnation of the pub, since the outside bears the legend 'Rebuilt 1902'.
Regards, V. |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Wednesday, 17 March 1999 - 08:17 am | | Apart from all the very good observations made above in relation to Mrs Paumier I think the most significant reason why greater importance has not been placed on her account is that she has not been witness to anything the police would consider important. She's had an encounter with a man in the street. There was no need for her to appear at the inquest because she had nothing to offer. It is impossible to say that she met the Ripper (despite the obvious suggestions the paper was trying to make) - she merely met a man in the vicinity some 6-12 hours after the murder who made an interesting comment. Personally I place significance on her account, mostly because it is information which we have today when so much information has gone missing (therefore you should treat everything as worthwhile when looking for clues), but I wouldn't go so far as to say that she is a witness who you could rely upon to contribute anything positive in 1888 unless similar sightings, etc we made. If Hutchinson had walked into the police station before the inquest concluded Mrs Paumier may have become a star witness.
Dela |
Author: Caroline
Thursday, 18 March 1999 - 04:40 am | | Does anyone know if Paumier is a common French surname, for instance, is it the equivalent of say, Mrs Palmer or something?
Just wondered.
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Sunday, 30 September 2001 - 10:05 am | | Hello all,
It recently occurred to me that Mrs Paumier,Sarah Roney and nightwatchman Patrick Mulshaw may have encountered the same man.
The more I thought about the type of comment made on each occasion,the more likely it seemed that it was the same person making them.
The "Watchman old man","I know more than you" and the "Something the ladys don't like"comments seem to have a similar flavour to them.
Of course this is all pure speculation and even if we are talking about the same man in each case,he may not have been Jack the Ripper. He may easily have been just a harmless prankster getting his kicks frightening women.
Your comments would be most welcome.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: DMR
Sunday, 30 September 2001 - 01:30 pm | | I often have wondered if these weren't the sort of compulsive "braggings" many serial killers engage in. One thing that struck me is this, if he were just someone wanting attention it is more likely that he himself would have told reporters these things, or maybe, in an extreme case, a policeman. The credibility of the people he chose would, sadly, be hard pressed when set forth against a "gentleman". Therefore he may have felt safe confessing to true knowledge with the witnesses. What do all of you think?
M |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Sunday, 30 September 2001 - 05:23 pm | | Hello DMR,
You make some interesting points and yes it does sound like the man in question felt the need to bragg or at least say something to somebody.
On both occasions(The Mulshaw and Paumier encounter),I just have the impression of this chap leaving the scene of the crime or his hiding place,in a bit of a hurry.Once he felt he was "Home and dry" he probably,in his own twisted sort of way, felt a great sense of acheivement and a need to boast to someone.
Just some thoughts.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
|
|
|
|
