Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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.

Can’t argue with the bomb point. I’ve had a bit of a stressed day so I need to have a second look at the argument for the do]inference of opinion on distances but I’d certainly stress the obvious..that it’s difficult to exactly recreate the unknown. Light, level of shadow, eye sight etc. It’s certainly not impossible for a short distance to make a big difference in what we see. A ‘shape’ seen a little closer might reveal legs etc.