Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[chubbs]

...and why did he not silence Paul and finish her off. The more you look into the Lechmere Theory the more you see it's a huge pile of horse muck.

Maybe it's because he was just a poor carman on his way to work, who was left thinking, "Bugger, I wish it had been a tarpaulin."?

[Geddy2112]

Right...

Charles Cross told the inquest on Polly Nichols that Robert Paul had said, "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Robert Paul also told the inquest this, when he gave testimony.

So, if he was the murderer, why on earth would Charles Cross find a policeman within 4 minutes and tell him to get down there? He wouldn't, because a living victim could be very dangerous to the murderer. That's yet another reason why he wasn't the murderer.

...and why did he not silence Paul and finish her off. The more you look into the Lechmere Theory the more you see it's a huge pile of horse muck.

[chubbs]

Right...

Charles Cross told the inquest on Polly Nichols that Robert Paul had said, "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Robert Paul also told the inquest this, when he gave testimony.

So, if he was the murderer, why on earth would Charles Cross find a policeman within 4 minutes and tell him to get down there? He wouldn't, because a living victim could be very dangerous to the murderer. That's yet another reason why he wasn't the murderer.

[chubbs]

Hi Chubbs,

The question is not where the gas lamps were placed, but which ones were working on the night. In that regard we have only the sworn testimony of PC Neil, who stated that there was only one gas light working, and that it was at the end of the row some distance away. He was there, so who can argue against him?

Cheers, George

Thanks. That's what I thought.

[drstrange169]

And I just checked, was the Times ad you are referring to the one I posted a few years ago? If so, that wasn't for Brown's Yard.

[drstrange169]

>> ... un-necessary for Neil to check on the security..<<

Sorry, but I'm going to be very contrary this morning.

If the place was abandoned it would have been even more important that Neil checked that it was locked. Certainly the locals like Purkiss and Greene would have known and most of all, the killer would have committed the crime inside the yard if it was empty and unlocked.


>> ... the sworn testimony of PC Neil, who stated that there was only one gas light working ...<<

Maybe I'm having a brain freeze, but I can't recall Neil ever claiming one light wasn't working. He passed one light at the end of Bucks Row which he mentioned, exactly where is disputed, either close to Essex Wharf or near the hat factory. The other light was way up near Brady Street and I don't recall him claiming that was not working.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On reflection I do regret putting the word ‘almost’ in the title of this thread.

[Geddy2112]

Can someone help me with a question about 'lighting' in Buck's Row, please?

I know there was a gas lamp at the Brady Street end of Buck's Row and I've heard that there was another light somewhere at the other end. Does anyone know precisely where it was? Are there any other lighting details that I'm unaware of?

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/scene-of-the-crimes/829584-location-of-lamps-etc

[Herlock Sholmes]

To John and Herlock,

This theory has nothing to do with Cross as a perpetrator. Quite the opposite.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Fair point.

[GBinOz]

Can someone help me with a question about 'lighting' in Buck's Row, please?

I know there was a gas lamp at the Brady Street end of Buck's Row and I've heard that there was another light somewhere at the other end. Does anyone know precisely where it was? Are there any other lighting details that I'm unaware of?

Hi Chubbs,

The question is not where the gas lamps were placed, but which ones were working on the night. In that regard we have only the sworn testimony of PC Neil, who stated that there was only one gas light working, and that it was at the end of the row some distance away. He was there, so who can argue against him?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

To John and Herlock,

This theory has nothing to do with Cross as a perpetrator. Quite the opposite.

Cheers, George

[chubbs]

Can someone help me with a question about 'lighting' in Buck's Row, please?

I know there was a gas lamp at the Brady Street end of Buck's Row and I've heard that there was another light somewhere at the other end. Does anyone know precisely where it was? Are there any other lighting details that I'm unaware of?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem for me with the suggestion is that I can’t see an issue with being heard running or walking away? He’d have been gone. I don’t think for a minute that the killer would have remained and there was no way that Paul could have sneaked up on Cross.

[John Wheat]

Cross was innocent because there is no evidence to suggest he murdered anyone.

[GBinOz]

"... there was access to Winthrop Street through the Stores Room that was at the back of the stable yard."

I believe the Store room in Winthrop St was a separate building to Brown's Yard with no access from one to the other.

" There is opinion that Polly may have been expecting the stable door to be unlocked when she took clients there ..."

Part of PC Neil's job was to check business premises, yards and buildings were locked.

Never say never, particularly in the jtr case, but I think it unlikely these were viable options.

Hi Dusty,

The address for Brown's Stable Yard was 46 Winthrop Street, so I would think there was a good chance that there was access between the two. The stable site was sold at the end of 1888 and comprehensively demolished, resulting in an advertisement in The Times in January for sale of stables, coach houses etc. The business did not appear in the 1888 Post Office Directory, so it would appear that the business could have been defunct at the time of Polly's murder. So it's possible that there was little left on either site other than the gate on Buck's Row, making it un-necessary for Neil to check on the security of a no longer existing business premises. But I agree, there are always the conflicting uncertainties with anything to do with JtR.




Cheers, George