Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[FrankO]

With regards to the lamp, though, the statement we have to work with is very non-specific, which makes it open to interpretation. And interpretation of this sort is very subjective. That means, each of us will interpret the sentence and so it will "mean" something to us, but that may or may not be the intended message.

Indeed, Jeff, Neil's quote is open to interpretation and could, therefore, go either way.

All I can say is that, to me, it makes little sense to reference a lamp that is clearly very distant from the crime scene (the one well east), particularly when there's a lamp in a location where it could influence the lighting conditions of the crime scene. While the statement could be phrased more specifically, in my view people don't tend to refer to "the next most relevant" very often without specifying when they do so, and in this situation the closest gas light is "the most relevant" and the further one the "next most relevant".

That doesn't mean I'm right, it only describes why I think he's referring the closest gas light. The other is just too far away to be worth a mention at all if the closest one was non-functioning (because to refer to it at all would imply the light it cast had some sort of influence on the crime scene lighting, which it wouldn't have).

My inclination to think he was referring to a lamp further east along Buck's Row doesn't only have to do with how I read Neil's statement/with linguistics, if you will, but also with the notion that gas lamps back then & there were just beacons of dim light, meaning that the light they cast might not even have reached the base of the lamppost. I base this notion on something Bob Hinton wrote back in 2013 on JtRForums (see here: Polly by Gaslight - street lighting in Bucks Row - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century) and that I already knew from Neil Bell (poster Monty). If true, than neither of the lamps would have had any influence on the crime scene, other than when someone would pass right under it. So, even if the lamp at Schneider's was the functioning one, Neil would have been in darkness again within a few yards after having passed under that lamp.

Anyway, that's my thinking. Some of it is based upon my own personal experiences, and so they may not correspond to yours, that's the subjective nature of trying to work out what unclear language means though, so hearing many opinions is good as it shows the diversity of possibilities.

I have to admit that I have no personal experience with the gas lamps they used back then, so I may very well be wrong. I agree that hearing other views than your own on a subject is a good thing and makes you think even harder about not only your own view, but also that of others.

In the end, what he meant can only be answered by him, and since he's long dead, there's no answer forthcoming for us I'm afraid.

Finally something that isn't open to interpretation!

Cheers,
Frank

[JeffHamm]

Huh, this is an odd sensation, Jeff... me not agreeing with you...

Well, you're in good company as I don't often agree with myself either!

With regards to the lamp, though, the statement we have to work with is very non-specific, which makes it open to interpretation. And interpretation of this sort is very subjective. That means, each of us will interpret the sentence and so it will "mean" something to us, but that may or may not be the intended message. All I can say is that, to me, it makes little sense to reference a lamp that is clearly very distant from the crime scene (the one well east), particularly when there's a lamp in a location where it could influence the lighting conditions of the crime scene. While the statement could be phrased more specifically, in my view people don't tend to refer to "the next most relevant" very often without specifying when they do so, and in this situation the closest gas light is "the most relevant" and the further one the "next most relevant".

That doesn't mean I'm right, it only describes why I think he's referring the closest gas light. The other is just too far away to be worth a mention at all if the closest one was non-functioning (because to refer to it at all would imply the light it cast had some sort of influence on the crime scene lighting, which it wouldn't have).

Anyway, that's my thinking. Some of it is based upon my own personal experiences, and so they may not correspond to yours, that's the subjective nature of trying to work out what unclear language means though, so hearing many opinions is good as it shows the diversity of possibilities. In the end, what he meant can only be answered by him, and since he's long dead, there's no answer forthcoming for us I'm afraid.

- Jeff

[FrankO]

Again, if that is the lamp that was working (and for reasons you outline I agree that's the most reasonable one to suggest),...

Huh, this is an odd sensation, Jeff... me not agreeing with you...

[FrankO]

I understand your confusion, but read what Neil said again, carefully,

"... it was dark at the time,*THOUGH* there was a street lamp at the end of the row."

The word "though" qualifies or puts restrictions on what was said before.

The area was dark, even though, there was a lamp near by, makes perfect sense.

The area was dark, even though, there was a lamp a long way off, makes no sense.

Hi Dusty,

The quote from Neil would be a vague way of saying what you propose he actually said, even though, what you say above makes sense.

If what you’re suggesting would be the case, then I would have expected Neil to have said something like:
“It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining that I had just passed.”

But, in that case, also the “It was dark at the time” seems a bit odd. It seems to me to mean that he was saying that, generally, the street was dark or that he had been walking in darkness for some time/stretch of street. In fact, it seems to refer to his proceeding down Buck’s Row, there not being a soul about and then noticing a figure lying in the street. Not to just the moment that he noticed her or a spot or specific area.

So, if what you’re suggesting would be the case, I’d have expected something like this:
“Though there was a street lamp shining that I had just passed, it was dark where the woman was lying.”

The only relevant lamp is the light he just passed. The lamp at end of the street bares no relation whatsoever to the murder site unless the lamp he just passed wasn't working.

This is exactly the view I’m leaning towards.

Since we know it was working, it remains the only applicable lamp to Neil's comment.

If we actually knew for a fact that the lamp at Schneider’s was working, then we wouldn’t have this discussion, Dusty.

And I don’t want to be a pain in the hindquarters, but what you write here actually very much seems to be a circular argument, however appealing and logical it may be to think that he couldn’t have referred to a lamp towards or at the Brady Street end of Buck’s Row.

All the best,
Frank

[chubbs]

I'm sure I've seen a photo of Durward Street showing an old style lamp hanging off the wall near what would have been the Wool Warehouse gates. Obviously it's a more modern photo but maybe the lamps were in the same place so they did not have to change the 'supply.'

Is this the old style street lamp you're thinking of?...



I reckon this lamp might be electric (someone will know)? If so, there'd be no 'supply' benefit from siting it where the old gas lamp was?

[JeffHamm]

I understand your confusion, but read what Neil said again, carefully,

"... it was dark at the time,*THOUGH* there was a street lamp at the end of the row."

The word "though" qualifies or puts restrictions on what was said before.

The area was dark, even though, there was a lamp near by, makes perfect sense.

The area was dark, even though, there was a lamp a long way off, makes no sense.

The only relevant lamp is the light he just passed. The lamp at end of the street bares no relation whatsoever to the murder site unless the lamp he just passed wasn't working. Since we know it was working, it remains the only applicable lamp to Neil's comment.





Personally, I'd put the lamp closer to where the arrow is, but that is a highly debated subject.

This is the sort of statement that I wish we could re-question about to get some clarification. The "... it was dark at the time,*THOUGH* there was a street lamp at the end of the row.", could even mean something like "...it was a dark night, but given the street lamp at the end of the row, it wasn't as dark where the body was". And of course it could also mean it was dark where the body was, although there was a nearby street lamp, ... and so forth.

In the diagram of the lamps, the body would be near the edge of the "not quite darkest area", but I'm not sure on which side it would fall. Based on the diagram, though, one could understand how Cross/Lechmere might have seen "a shape" at a further distance than if it had been, for example, another 20 yards to the east, where it would be in a very dark location.

But it also means, if he fled, he would pass through the lit area, but anyone east of him would just see a silhouette against the lighting, and would not be able to make out any details, something he would know from his daily walks to work and his overall familiarity with lighting at the time. Again, if that is the lamp that was working (and for reasons you outline I agree that's the most reasonable one to suggest), in my opinion it works in favour of innocent Cross/Lechmere spotting "something" from the Wool Warehouse Gate, and against a guilty Cross/Lechmere choosing not to flee.

- Jeff

[Geddy2112]

Personally, I'd put the lamp closer to where the arrow is, but that is a highly debated subject.

I'm sure I've seen a photo of Durward Street showing an old style lamp hanging off the wall near what would have been the Wool Warehouse gates. Obviously it's a more modern photo but maybe the lamps were in the same place so they did not have to change the 'supply.'

[drstrange169]

>>Coming from the man who thinks John Richardson just wasn't paying enough attention ...<<

The Lechmere theory is based on double standards.

[A P Tomlinson]

[I][B]>>>>
According to Christer, Paul should have see the silhouette of Cross in that light. I'm pretty sure that's not true, but I haven't tested it, so I wouldn't swear to it.

Coming from the man who thinks John Richardson just wasn't paying enough attention when fixing his boot, or he would have seen the body of Annie Chapman at his feet, that's taking the piss a little bit.

[drstrange169]

I understand your confusion, but read what Neil said again, carefully,

"... it was dark at the time,*THOUGH* there was a street lamp at the end of the row."

The word "though" qualifies or puts restrictions on what was said before.

The area was dark, even though, there was a lamp near by, makes perfect sense.

The area was dark, even though, there was a lamp a long way off, makes no sense.

The only relevant lamp is the light he just passed. The lamp at end of the street bares no relation whatsoever to the murder site unless the lamp he just passed wasn't working. Since we know it was working, it remains the only applicable lamp to Neil's comment.





Personally, I'd put the lamp closer to where the arrow is, but that is a highly debated subject.

[JeffHamm]

Even if it was broad daylight Cross had a 40 yard head start, so by the time Paul noticed caught up and noticed it was a body that 40 could be 50 or more and well enough to be around the School Building and away into History.

Hi Geddy,

Oh, I agree with that. I was just taking the argument as it usually gets presented (that Cross/Lechmere sticks around because Paul could see him and he feared being identified, etc) without actually agreeing that that starting premise makes any real sense (as you point out, it doesn't). When it gets pointed out that Cross/Lechmere was in the middle of the street, and not near the body, it suddenly becomes "too dark" to see the body unless he's right at it (to create the argument Cross/Lechmere lied), but that makes it odd as to how Paul was supposed to see Cross/Lechmere at 40 yards in order to make fleeing so dangerous in the first place (which, as you say, is a problematic claim in itself).

Basically, while I fully agree that Cross/Lechmere could have easily fled without any real risk of identification, I was just looking at the idea by first saying "Ok, let's give you that and start with the idea that for some reason Cross/Lechmere sticks around because Paul can see him - does everything that follows make sense?", and it doesn't, it still ends up with a bunch of self-contradicting statements.

The Cross/Lechmere arguments like to focus in on one point at a time, but fail to acknowledge that by doing so they create an impossible situation when viewed as a whole (things are visible at a distance, things are not visible at a distance; it can't have been both).

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

>>I thought Neil was referring to the light at the other end of Bucks Row<<

You are certainly not alone in that thought!

However, Neil said,

"... it was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp at the end of the row. I want across, and found ..."

Clearly, he is referring to the lamp he had just passed seconds before finding the body, not the lamp right up the other end that had no effect on the murder site.

Your nocturnal wanderings are quite interesting. Do you turn your head and look sideways? I'm told the rod cells, the ones that your eye uses for night vision, work better on the side than looking front on. Is that true?

With regards to our rods and cones (cones are day vision, and there are 3 different types, which are maximally responsive to different wavelengths of light, so often get referred to as the red, green, and blue cones; what colour we perceive is based upon the relative activity pattern over these three types of cones). Rods are not wavelength specific, which is why our colour vision decreases at night. Rods require much less light to activate, and in fact, shut down during the day (otherwise they would become so constantly active they would end up dying off due to overactivity). As it gets dark, the cones become less responsive as there is not enough light to activate them very strongly and our rods "wake up".

Our cones are concentrated more in our central vision, and at the fovea, where the cones are most dense, there is a small region where there are no rods at all. While our peripheral vision has higher proportion of rods to cones, there are still more rods near the fovea (the density of rods increase as you approach the fovea, but then drop down as the cones fill the fovea, and for a small region there are no rods - sort of like a volcano of rods if that makes sense?).

So there is some difference with regards to maximal visual sensitivity, but you don't need to turn your head sideways, just look slightly to the side of something. If you are outside at night, with clear skies, and without tonnes of light pollution, find a very faint star. If you look directly at it, that star's light will hit your fovea, where there are no rods, and it may disappear. But if you shift your gaze just a bit to the side, you will see it again as it will fall on a rod dense area.

- Jeff

[Geddy2112]

So basically, the darker one suggests it is with regards to how close Cross would have to get to see Nichols, the more and more impossible it becomes for Paul to see Cross, making the notion that Cross couldn't flee less and less tenable. And conversely, more one requires that Cross doesn't flee because Paul could see him, requiring more light to be present (say from the gas lamp), then the further from the body Cross would have to be to see it but also the more likely Paul is to have seen him move away from the body to get to the middle of the street in the first place!

Even if it was broad daylight Cross had a 40 yard head start, so by the time Paul noticed caught up and noticed it was a body that 40 could be 50 or more and well enough to be around the School Building and away into History.

[chubbs]

>>I thought Neil was referring to the light at the other end of Bucks Row<<

You are certainly not alone in that thought!

However, Neil said,

"... it was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp at the end of the row. I want across, and found ..."

Clearly, he is referring to the lamp he had just passed seconds before finding the body, not the lamp right up the other end that had no effect on the murder site.

Your nocturnal wanderings are quite interesting. Do you turn your head and look sideways? I'm told the rod cells, the ones that your eye uses for night vision, work better on the side than looking front on. Is that true?

Sorry mate, but it's anything BUT clear which lamp he's referring to.

I'm inclined to agree with FrankO on this one, because if a lamp was near enough to cast some light on the body, Cross & Paul would most likely have seen Polly's injuries.
PC Neil entered Bucks Row at the Board School end. He was walking on the right hand side. He noticed a figure lying in the street. "It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row." It seems to me that he's referring to the far end of the row of terraced houses (the Brady St end).

The problem we have, as with so many things, is that it has been left teasingly vague and either of our interpretations might be correct.

[FrankO]

"... it was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp at the end of the row. I want across, and found ..."

Clearly, he is referring to the lamp he had just passed seconds before finding the body, not the lamp right up the other end that had no effect on the murder site.

Maybe because English isn't my native language, Dusty, but that's not clear to me.

Neil is coming from the board school when he finds the body, facing Brady Street. Why then refer to something that's behind you? And why refer to it as 'the end of the row' instead of 'the beginning' or 'the entrance' of the row?

Furthermore, wasn't he also quoted as saying "It was dark, but there was a street lamp on the opposite side some distance away"? Of course, any distance could be referred to as 'some distance', but in this case it doesn't read like a distance he'd cover in only a handful of seconds. Also, wasn't the west end of Buck's Row officially Baker's Row or, at least, unofficially Thomas Street?

In short, to me it reads as if Neil's referring to the Brady Street end of Buck's Row where a street lamp was situated that was working.

Your nocturnal wanderings are quite interesting. Do you turn your head and look sideways? I'm told the rod cells, the ones that your eye uses for night vision, work better on the side than looking front on. Is that true?

For what it's worth, my experience tells me that it is. Sometimes, when it's very dark, I can see a lighter area when I'm not looking straight at it. If I look straight at it, it's harder to see it.

Cheers,
Frank