Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[JeffHamm]

Yes, you're absolutely right. I need to repeat the experiment under various conditions.
Ideally I'd need to find a place where the conditions are as close to Bucks Row, August 1888 as possible (a 24ft-wide roadway with paths and brick buildings on both sides and a crescent moon in the SE at 39 degrees, with 30-50% cloud cover), but I think I'd have to be a bit more of an obsessive to do that.

And have gas lamps in the same locations (which we're not sure of), and get used to a world where artificial light is less intense, and also be familiar with what is supposed to "be there", and other things I'm overlooking I'm sure!

Also, you need to vary each of those things separately, and then in every combination, etc. And after all that work, you know what? I suspect you would find some combinations show things could have happened, while other combinations show things could not have. And if so, which would you choose? (and if you would choose, why bother doing all that work in the first place?) Such is the world of JtR.

- Jeff

[chubbs]

And have gas lamps in the same locations (which we're not sure of), and get used to a world where artificial light is less intense, and also be familiar with what is supposed to "be there", and other things I'm overlooking I'm sure!

Also, you need to vary each of those things separately, and then in every combination, etc. And after all that work, you know what? I suspect you would find some combinations show things could have happened, while other combinations show things could not have. And if so, which would you choose? (and if you would choose, why bother doing all that work in the first place?) Such is the world of JtR.

- Jeff

Yes you are - it needs to be dark

[chubbs]

And have gas lamps in the same locations (which we're not sure of), and get used to a world where artificial light is less intense, and also be familiar with what is supposed to "be there", and other things I'm overlooking I'm sure!

Also, you need to vary each of those things separately, and then in every combination, etc. And after all that work, you know what? I suspect you would find some combinations show things could have happened, while other combinations show things could not have. And if so, which would you choose? (and if you would choose, why bother doing all that work in the first place?) Such is the world of JtR.

- Jeff

Did another test again tonight, Jeff. It was even darker than last night. 30% cloud cover. No moon. Couldn't see my light coloured dog 20 yards away.

[JeffHamm]

Did another test again tonight, Jeff. It was even darker than last night. 30% cloud cover. No moon. Couldn't see my light coloured dog 20 yards away.

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!

In my opinion, the Cross/Lechmere theory tends to be filled with arguments that result in these sorts of self-contradictions.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>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?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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

The Lechmere theory is based on double standards.

[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.'

[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