Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[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?

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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?")

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.