Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Mark J D]

Perhaps I am missing the evidence that you are using for your theory.

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."

Remember, now?

Bests,

Mark D.

[Geddy2112]

We know it was dark enough that neither man noticed the 2" wide cut to her throat, even when Paul crouched down to try to hear if she was breathing.

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.

[chubbs]

We know it was dark enough that neither man noticed the 2" wide cut to her throat, even when Paul crouched down to try to hear if she was breathing.

At 3.45am on August 31st in London, it's dark. When you're surrounded by buildings, it's darker. Twilight doesn't start for at least half an hour after that, probably longer.

Additionally, we don't know how the head was laying/tilted at the moment when Cross & Paul investigated, do we? - cut wide open and obvious, or cut hidden by the turn of the head?

[Geddy2112]

Perhaps I am missing the evidence that you are using for your theory.

Can you show us where it is stated that Cross was on the eastern edge of the entrance to the wool warehouse rather than just in the vicinity, or even on the western edge.

He stated the gateway, "I got to Buck's Row, by the gateway of the wool warehouse" The Echo 3^rd of Sept 1888

Surely if he meant the West side he would have said 'passed' the gateway. Even if he meant the middle of the gateway it still at least 55 feet diagonally to the body.

Can you present the evidence that Cross, on sighting a shape, walked directly towards that shape rather than continuing on the pavement until approximately opposite the shape.

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.'

Can you show where it states that Cross walked back (30 feet?) to his original sighting point to confront Paul.

He won't have walked back to his original starting point but along the shortest distance to Paul, shown in diagram. (Obviously Paul was encroaching whilst Cross was encroaching on Paul so in reality the line would be slightly more vertical but since I'm not 100% of both men's walking speeds I can't accurately plot the exact path...)

Are you assuming that while Cross didn't hear Paul walking behind him for about 60 metres, he was able to accurately estimate the distance away when he first heard Paul by the sound of his foot falls.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm following what was said in the testimonies. Cross said he heard Paul at the instant he got to the middle of the road from 40 yards away.

"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, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from."

[chubbs]

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.

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?

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Geddy,

Perhaps I am missing the evidence that you are using for your theory.

Can you show us where it is stated that Cross was on the eastern edge of the entrance to the wool warehouse rather than just in the vicinity, or even on the western edge.

Can you present the evidence that Cross, on sighting a shape, walked directly towards that shape rather than continuing on the pavement until approximately opposite the shape.

Can you show where it states that Cross walked back (30 feet?) to his original sighting point to confront Paul.

Are you assuming that while Cross didn't hear Paul walking behind him for about 60 metres, he was able to accurately estimate the distance away when he first heard Paul by the sound of his foot falls.

Theories are all very well but can be based on speculation or, even worse, perceived "common sense".

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

But we can’t know the lighting surely? How can we know what he could or couldn’t have seen?

We know it was dark enough that neither man noticed the 2" wide cut to her throat, even when Paul crouched down to try to hear if she was breathing.

[Fiver]

The shift in emphasis/stress from laVENder to LAVender is easily explicable, given that the word "lavender" was already available and widely used.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But we can’t know the lighting surely? How can we know what he could or couldn’t have seen?

[GBinOz]

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.

Abby is right. WADR, your 30 feet theory is pure conjecture. I have done a re-enactment and there is NO way that Cross could have determined that the shape he was seeing was the body of a woman from 30 feet away.

[Geddy2112]

whats all this nonsense about lech and paul "cofounding" the body? lech discovered the body and paul discovered lech standing near the body. dont accuse the lechmerians of over egging the pudding ( i have too- and they do) but then do the same.

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.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam, I've seen this mentioned before in 'retaliation' of Fiver's point. However do you know who decided this 'anglicisation' or are we just guessing that is what he did? Thanks.

It's a well-established phenomenon, so I'm not exactly guessing In fact, it might not be a case of Lawende himself chooosing to change his name; he may have merely gone with the flow, given that the the English people he encountered may have naturally defaulted to the more familiar and common English word/name Lavender.

[Sam Flynn]

I have always heard Lavender pronounced as LAV-en-dur. From what I can find online, Lawende appears to be pronounced la-Ven-dah. There are distinct differences in which syllable is emphasized and in the pronunciation of the final syllable.

The shift in emphasis/stress from laVENder to LAVender is easily explicable, given that the word "lavender" was already available and widely used.

[Fiver]

Oh good lord he's a Fascist. I did not see that coming.

Fictional serial killers are bold, clever, witty, powerful, dangerous, and in control - all the things fascists like to pretend they are. So it doesn't surprise me that a fascist would take pleasure in his girlfriend being related to a serial killer.

[Kunochan]

His real name is BNP politician Eddy Butler.

Oh good lord he's a Fascist. I did not see that coming.