Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[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?

[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

[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...

[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]

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

[Geddy2112]

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?

Bugger... yes that was the picture and yes it certainly looks electric. A gas lamp would have to be more upside down as I guess flames don't burn down over. Might have been in the same place though, who knows. Thanks.

[drstrange169]

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

Under police regulations, Neil was duty bound to report broken street lamps. Also, the Evening News sent a reporter to Bucks Row who confirmed the lights in the street were working.

I think we can be as sure as it's possible to be, that the light was working.

[JeffHamm]

...

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.


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.

...

Hi Frank,

That's an interesting thread, and indeed, adds another unknown to mix (as if we didn't have enough of those!). I also have very little personal experience with gas lamps, but even if there were one around where I could check it out, a city is very different today than it was in 1888 with regards to light. If we go with Bob Hinton's description, and I have nothing to suggest he's wrong, then someone walking at night, from lamp to lamp type thing, is going to have their vision night adapt, which in turn means their vision will be better than our own personal experience when we go outside and into a dark area to test what it would be like.

In a very dark environment, even the addition of very little light will greatly help our vision. I suppose that could be demonstrated by going into a windowless room, with no light source, and being in the pitch black. Light a candle, and one can see things at quite a distance, albeit not extremely well, but the distance at which one can discern that "something is there" is probably greater than most presume.

I do find it a bit difficult to accept the lamps were as completely ineffective as Bob suggests, though. We see comments about "poor lighting" in some areas, such as Mitre Square, where one lamp is described as not functioning well (although apparently fixed by the time of the inquest - I think that comes from the Eddowes' case, but which case doesn't really matter for current purposes). It strikes me that if the lamps barely made a difference in their immediate vicinity at the best of times, then it would not be something worth noting if one happened to be a bit worse than the norm (as in, even if it had been functioning properly, it still wouldn't have made any difference).

On the other hand, I do think we have to keep in mind that gas lamps of the era were not modern street lighting, and that the lighting in general was very poor by today's standards. Also, the amount of ambient light from the city in general was nothing like what we experience today. Of course, countering the lack of light is the fact that people of the time would be more dark adapted than we are in similar conditions, so our experience of what it is like to enter a dark street from a modern one is very different from someone who is in a poorly lit environment the whole time.

Anyway, none of that will settle the question of which gas lamp Neil's referring to, of course, but given nobody bats an eye at Cross/Lechmere's claim that he could see "something" from the Wool Warehouse gates does suggest that his statement didn't raise any red flags to anybody. And to be able to see something from there would require some light, and I can't see that coming from the lamp to the east, even if it was operating at double the brightness described by Bob Hinton!

Again, these are just my thoughts, and nobody else need take them up as their own.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

Belief it or not, there are still working gaslights in various parts of London.



A single flame, with a gas mantle, gave off about 50 watts. I'm guessing the ones in Bucks Row didn't have gas mantles so I'm guessing about 25 watts.

[A P Tomlinson]

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

Under police regulations, Neil was duty bound to report broken street lamps. Also, the Evening News sent a reporter to Bucks Row who confirmed the lights in the street were working.

I think we can be as sure as it's possible to be, that the light was working.

I suppose it depends on "broken" vs "barely working" when it comes to reporting them. Technically if there's a flame its "working" but with dirt on the outside and carbon build up on the inside, it's probably the case that a lot of functional street lamps in that neck of the woods weren't "working" in terms of providing any meaningful source of light other than as a faint beacon.
I've had several colleagues over the years who were technically functional but were rarely found to be "working".

[Geddy2112]

A single flame, with a gas mantle, gave off about 50 watts. I'm guessing the ones in Bucks Row didn't have gas mantles so I'm guessing about 25 watts.

Awesome, watts is power so I wonder what the lumens value was. For an old fashioned electric bulb at 25 watts it could be 200 lumens, wonder what it was was gas.

[Geddy2112]

Surely any 'main' street like Bucks Row could not have been completely pitch black or people would not be able to walk to work along there, they would be tripping up all over the place.

[rjpalmer]

Awesome, watts is power so I wonder what the lumens value was. For an old fashioned electric bulb at 25 watts it could be 200 lumens, wonder what it was was gas.

The Baker Street website lists them at between 120-180 lumens.

There were both single flame lamps and multiple flame lamps in the 1880s, so they wouldn’t all have the same candlepower.

[chubbs]

The Baker Street website lists them at between 120-180 lumens.

There were both single flame lamps and multiple flame lamps in the 1880s, so they wouldn’t all have the same candlepower.

I've just read that the current UK standard for street lamps is 5000 lumens, which suggests to me that a gas lamp which produced up to 200 lumens will have been pretty useless, won't it?

[rjpalmer]

I've just read that the current UK standard for street lamps is 5000 lumens, which suggests to me that a gas lamp which produced up to 200 lumens will have been pretty useless, won't it?

The East London Observer for 20 November 1886 discusses the installation of additional streetlamps on Commerical Road and Whitechapel High Street. The contract demanded that the lamps burn "at a minimum light equal to sixteen candles." 16 candlepower is the equivalent of 202 lumens, so these lamps evidently had multiple flames.

To save money, these additional lamps would only burn between sundown and midnight, according to the article.