Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Geddy2112]

I really don’t get the importance of the distance. We know what happened. Cross saw a shape - moved to somewhere near to the middle of the road where Paul saw him. He saw that it was a body.

That's all that we need to know. That…and the fact that Cross was completely innocent.

Well distance is important if a bomb goes off. I get your point though, in the bigger picture it's not important I just wanted to try and make sense of the 'scene' so to speak. To get a picture in my head of the 'geography' in the street that morning. I was trying to see if the theory was even more ridiculous than them using phrases like 'standing over a freshly killed victim' etc. But yes your points are correct.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I really don’t get the importance of the distance. We know what happened. Cross saw a shape - moved to somewhere near to the middle of the road where Paul saw him. He saw that it was a body.

Thats all that we need to know. That…and the fact that Cross was completely innocent.

[Geddy2112]

George, old bean, surely you aren't forgetting the fascinating reported statements of Robert Paul...?

"It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman wasn't. He came a little towards me [...] and said, "Let's go and look at that woman, all the way over there, 60 feet away."

Ah sarcasm font. It's a funny trait that Team Lechmere seem to have, they have to a) resort to petty insults or b) Demand who someone's else's suspect is.

You do realise 'where the woman was' was more than likely a quantifier of how far away Cross was from Paul. An approximation of distance, not a nailed on certainty he was right next to the body because when that little thought popped into his head how did he know it was a woman lying there, he was too far away. It's akin to saying Cross was in the middle of the road level with the lamp post.

I've shown with basic maths and the fact Cross said he was at the Wool Warehouse that one of the options of distance was 60 feet, another is 55 for the middle of the gateway and 45 feet West of the gateway, the later two I consider not to be the case or he would have said 'at' the gateway or 'past' the gateway. I'm not sure why all the sarcasm is needed as it's in the evidence and really simple maths.

[Geddy2112]

GB isn't one of those claiming that Cross was 'leaning over the body.'

And he has a point. Cutting diagonally cross the street is slightly shorter, but there are reasons to mostly stay on the pavement - the pavement is better footing, probably cleaner, and definitely safer. Cross knew that going into the street was dangerous, in 1876 he'd accidentally run down a child who darted in front of his van. Obviously, there weren't any vehicles nearby at that time, but habits become ingrained.

I'd still expect Cross to take a diagonal, but it's quite possible he only started that after continuing on the pavement for a little while.

"by the gateway of the wool warehouse" is ambiguous. It could include slightly before, at any point next to, or even slightly past the gate. That gives us vague approximation, not a precise position.

I know GB is not. I used that to explain I'm trying to say he was anything but. Your reasons for not going diagonally are correct, however I'd suspect most folk in the same situation would take the diagonal route and I think that is important, as basic maths will tell you a Greek chap explained the diagonal of a right angled triangle is the longer distance.
Cross said 'by' the gate of the Wool Warehouse, I think that is slightly before, as 'at' the gateway would have meant directly in front of it and 'just past' of course what it says. Even though just past is still not as close as TL would like it.



I know people are laughing at me for suggesting these distances but for me they are accurate. Just because we do not think we can see something from 30 feet, 27.5 feet or now 22.5 feet that does not mean Cross could not. His eyes will have been used to the lighting and adapted to suit. Plus I consider some confirmation bias in what the witnesses said, a bit like Mizen assuming Cross meant a PC because there was a PC there when he arrived. Cross may have said he noticed it was a body because when he eventually got to touching distance it was a body. Maybe this is what is at play here.

“It has been claimed Charles Lechmere was found by Paul standing over - or even worse, leaning over - the body, but the available evidence shows he was in fact nearly 100 feet away from the body when Paul caught up with him. Paul told the Lloyds Weekly reporter: ‘I saw a man standing where the body was.’ Under oath he was more specific, saying: ‘I saw a man standing in the middle of the road.’ Lechmere confirms the later version. He told the inquest it was ‘as I got to Buck's Row, by the gateway of the wool warehouse.’”

From the Ripperologist 142, I'm sure they did not get the scrutiny I am and they were going from 100 feet away. I know this is when Cross and Paul meet up with both men walking towards each other. However it certainly does not rule out any of the distances I'm stating.



The picture Dusty used kind of puts it all into perspective I think.

[Geddy2112]

yes it is nonsense.lech saw it was the body of a woman first and then noticed paul who was some forty yards away. paul then saw lech there and as paul approached, lech even came over to paul as he neared and told him there was a woman lying there and directed him to come look at her. then they went over and examined her more closely.

they did not "cofound" the body. lech found her first.

We will have to agree to disagree on our interpretations of the evidence. Like I said I'm trying to differentiate between the noticing and the finding. Remember Team Lechmere state Paul 'found' Lechmere leaning over the body, which continually moves from leaning over to standing next to a freshly killed victim and eventually back to the middle of the road.
I'm using what Cross said and basic maths to show he was probably not as close as a lot of people think when he noticed Polly. That is all. Not trying to start WWIII over it all.

[Sam Flynn]

I understand the why of the shift to a similar name, but the two names are pronounced differently - LAV-en-dur as opposed to la-VEN-dah.

It's a simple matter of emphasis/stress shifting from one syllable to another... like how "controversy" shifts between CONtroversy and contROVersy. It's a very, very well-established phenomenon, reinforced - in Lawende's case - by the fact that "lavender" is and was an existing, commonly-used word. Indeed, "lavender" was particularly widely used in the Victorian era, as the flower was widely sold and used to freshen the smell of one's clothing.

BTW "lavendur" and "lavendah" are pronounced in EXACTLY the same way as "lavender" in non-rhotic English, as spoken in most parts of England where they don't sound their R's.

[GBinOz]

I cannot see anything in your pic.

There are limitations to any re-enactment. How do you reproduce the exact levels of lighting that there were in 1888? You need to factor in time of day, day of the year, and local cloud cover. Additionally, do we know where the lamp posts were, whether they were working, and how well that they were working? There's also the question of how good the re-enactor's night vision is compared to Charles Cross' night vision.

Hi Fiver,

Firstly, I agree with all your points in your post #672.

I quite agree that re-creations are limited by the unknowns and the difficulties in duplication. I posted my attempt here (post 5395), if you are interested:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/lechmere-cross-charles/762057-evidence-of-innocence/page360#post779536

There is quite a difference between when I could identify the body as a woman and Geddy's 30 feet, more than is explainable by conditions, I think.

In the previous picture there was a man slightly left of centre. Here it is before cropping:



He is now on the left, I would estimate about 8-10 feet away. Once you see him, you can't not see him.
Could a body lying on the ground 30 feet away and aligned with the walker be identified as a woman? It would be different had Cross asked Paul to just come and look at this shape on the pavement.

Cheers, George

[Fiver]

Hi Herlock,

The issue that I see is Geddy's proposal that Cross could discern that the shape was, specifically, the body of a woman from a distance of thirty feet. There is some conjecture as to whether when Cross saw the shape he would immediately make a beeline towards the shape or continue on the northern pavement until he got closer. From my re-enactment I am convinced that if it was the beeline, by the time he got close enough to determine that the shape was a woman he would no longer be in the middle of the road. Identification of the shape as a woman could be achieved from the middle of the road if approaching from opposite. The purpose of my re-enactment was to determine which proposals fell into the area of practical possibility in an area described as very dark.




Cheers, George

I cannot see anything in your pic.

There are limitations to any re-enactment. How do you reproduce the exact levels of lighting that there were in 1888? You need to factor in time of day, day of the year, and local cloud cover. Additionally, do we know where the lamp posts were, whether they were working, and how well that they were working? There's also the question of how good the re-enactor's night vision is compared to Charles Cross' night vision.

[Fiver]

To be honest there is none. However how likely is that? Why would he continue up the north side then wait till he was directly opposite to cross the road? The fastest route is along the diagonal which if we are now talking 55 feet is 27.5 feet away which by no stretch of the imagination is 'leaning over the body.'

GB isn't one of those claiming that Cross was 'leaning over the body.'

And he has a point. Cutting diagonally cross the street is slightly shorter, but there are reasons to mostly stay on the pavement - the pavement is better footing, probably cleaner, and definitely safer. Cross knew that going into the street was dangerous, in 1876 he'd accidentally run down a child who darted in front of his van. Obviously, there weren't any vehicles nearby at that time, but habits become ingrained.

I'd still expect Cross to take a diagonal, but it's quite possible he only started that after continuing on the pavement for a little while.

"by the gateway of the wool warehouse" is ambiguous. It could include slightly before, at any point next to, or even slightly past the gate. That gives us vague approximation, not a precise position.

[GBinOz]

At this juncture in time was the throat cut? Was Jacky Boy hiding around the corner and came back to finish the job when Cross and Paul left? Is that the reason there was apparently little blood? Who knows... certainly a few things in the Ripper Murders that does not make sense, this is one of them I think.

Hi Geddy,

I share your opinion on this possibility, be we are not in the majority in this regard.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

I don’t see where the issue lies to be honest.

Hi Herlock,

The issue that I see is Geddy's proposal that Cross could discern that the shape was, specifically, the body of a woman from a distance of thirty feet. There is some conjecture as to whether when Cross saw the shape he would immediately make a beeline towards the shape or continue on the northern pavement until he got closer. From my re-enactment I am convinced that if it was the beeline, by the time he got close enough to determine that the shape was a woman he would no longer be in the middle of the road. Identification of the shape as a woman could be achieved from the middle of the road if approaching from opposite. The purpose of my re-enactment was to determine which proposals fell into the area of practical possibility in an area described as very dark.




Cheers, George

[chubbs]

I don’t see where the issue lies to be honest.

“He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row,”

Cross saw a shape, moved closer to enable him to see better, when he got to the middle of the road he saw that it was a woman, at that point he hears someone approach and decides to wait until that person got there before approaching the body. It’s difficult to see how anything could be clearer.

He said the same in The Times report. Paul said:

“He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning, and as he was passing up Buck’s-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road.”

Confirming that he was standing in the middle of the road. Everything that happened in Bucks Row happened exactly as these two entirely innocent men said that it did.

Exactly.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t see where the issue lies to be honest.

“He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row,”

Cross saw a shape, moved closer to enable him to see better, when he got to the middle of the road he saw that it was a woman, at that point he hears someone approach and decides to wait until that person got there before approaching the body. It’s difficult to see how anything could be clearer.

He said the same in The Times report. Paul said:

“He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning, and as he was passing up Buck’s-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road.”

Confirming that he was standing in the middle of the road. Everything that happened in Bucks Row happened exactly as these two entirely innocent men said that it did.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby, it's not nonsense. Cross was never closer than 30 feet from the body alone in the middle of the road, as soon as he was at this point he heard Paul so turned around to attract his attention, only at this point did they go to the body together.



I'm simply following the evidence. For me there is a huge difference that needs separating here because as you say Team Lechmere over egg the pudding so it's required to separate the two actions, noticing and finding. Or more to the point noticing and approaching. If you class finding the body as noticing it from the middle of the road then Cross did 'find' the body, however if you considering getting right up to the body within touching distance as finding the body then Cross co-found the body with Paul. Cross was never at the body alone. Apologies if you think it is incorrect but it's my way of distinguishing the story TL put out there and what the evidence tells us happened.

yes it is nonsense.lech saw it was the body of a woman first and then noticed paul who was some forty yards away. paul then saw lech there and as paul approached, lech even came over to paul as he neared and told him there was a woman lying there and directed him to come look at her. then they went over and examined her more closely.

they did not "cofound" the body. lech found her first.

[C. F. Leon]

Surely this is splitting hairs? The two pronunciations are so similar that they could be the same word spoken in two different regional accents, aren't they?

Correct, especially with the mundane tendency to slur the last syllable. The poster is saying how THEY would pronounce the words as they are written, not how they would be spoken by someone else.

To paraphrase George Carlin: "Your name can be spelled L-A-V-E-N-D-E-R, but you might pronounce it 'Kosminski'." ("What?! They're ALL silent?")