Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

...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."?

[chubbs]

RESULTS OF THE WALKING EXPERIMENT
8pm and I've just got back from my night-time countryside walk. Tonight I did an experiment. I hung back about 40 yards from my wife & son, then followed on. I COULD NOT SEE THEM AND I COULD NOT HEAR THEM. I have 20/20 vision (told this by the optician at Specsavers 2 days ago!) and my hearing is good. We were all wearing heavy walking boots and the surface was concrete.

There is absolutely no reason , neither visual nor auditory, for Robert Paul to have been aware of Charles Cross if both were walking along Bucks Row, 40+ yards apart. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself.

So all those people who have invented the theory that Paul would have been aware of Cross can pipe down now, can't they?

[Mark J D]

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.

George, old bean: if the stable yard was closed down when Polly was murdered, how was the boy Green working there?

Bests,

Mark D.

[drstrange169]

>> I COULD NOT SEE THEM AND I COULD NOT HEAR THEM<<

Christer contends that the two men were wearing hob nail boots which would have "sounded like hammers on the cobblestones". Like most of his theories this is self defeating.

A. There is no evidence that they were wearing hobnail boots. Quite the contrary, the evidence available suggests they weren't. Nobody who lived in the street who claimed to either have been awake or light sleeper heard the "sound of hammers". Neither did Paul.

B. If they did wear hob nailed boots, an innocent Cross didn't walk on the cobblestones. He and Paul both walked on the pavement towards Mrs Nichols.
A Guilty Cross would have had to walk on the cobblestones to distance himself from Mrs Nichols, ergo Paul should have heard him according to Christers claim.

C. Just to really things up, Mrs Nichols had steel tips on her boots and still nobody heard her!

The other claim Christer has made is more interesting.
We know the street light, more or less opposite the board school, was working as Neil mentions it in his testimony. According to Christer, Paul should have see the silhouette of Cross in that light. I'm pretty sure that's not true, but I haven't tested it, so I wouldn't swear to it.

[drstrange169]

>>The business did not appear in the 1888 Post Office Directory<<

The business premises were across the road in Essex Wharf. The stable was just that, a stable for across the road.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, but it was A Man’s World in those days Dusty.

(sorry, couldn’t resist it. I’ve been waiting years to do a James Brown joke)

[drstrange169]

No explanation necessary, I got it!

[chubbs]

>> I COULD NOT SEE THEM AND I COULD NOT HEAR THEM<<
The other claim Christer has made is more interesting.
We know the street light, more or less opposite the board school, was working as Neil mentions it in his testimony. According to Christer, Paul should have see the silhouette of Cross in that light. I'm pretty sure that's not true, but I haven't tested it, so I wouldn't swear to it.

Really?
I thought Neil was referring to the light at the other end of Bucks Row, not the Board School end? The Brady Street end, yeah? Or am I misinformed?

[JeffHamm]

RESULTS OF THE WALKING EXPERIMENT
8pm and I've just got back from my night-time countryside walk. Tonight I did an experiment. I hung back about 40 yards from my wife & son, then followed on. I COULD NOT SEE THEM AND I COULD NOT HEAR THEM. I have 20/20 vision (told this by the optician at Specsavers 2 days ago!) and my hearing is good. We were all wearing heavy walking boots and the surface was concrete.

There is absolutely no reason , neither visual nor auditory, for Robert Paul to have been aware of Charles Cross if both were walking along Bucks Row, 40+ yards apart. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself.

So all those people who have invented the theory that Paul would have been aware of Cross can pipe down now, can't they?

Honestly, while my instinct as an experimental researcher (my day job) is to raise points like "but you don't know the conditions of the event, if your conditions were worse ... etc", but at the same time I cringe against such complaints. Sure, we don't know, but deep down it is clearly better to make attempts, to gather data, to put together the "results" from a number of independent attempts to actually test things. Some will be done well, some will not, but knowing what people did, what they observed, is surely better than everyone guessing the answer that best fits their theory?

Or do I not understand what better means?

- Jeff

[chubbs]

>> I COULD NOT SEE THEM AND I COULD NOT HEAR THEM<<

Christer contends that the two men were wearing hob nail boots which would have "sounded like hammers on the cobblestones". Like most of his theories this is self defeating.

A. There is no evidence that they were wearing hobnail boots. Quite the contrary, the evidence available suggests they weren't. Nobody who lived in the street who claimed to either have been awake or light sleeper heard the "sound of hammers". Neither did Paul.

B. If they did wear hob nailed boots, an innocent Cross didn't walk on the cobblestones. He and Paul both walked on the pavement towards Mrs Nichols.
A Guilty Cross would have had to walk on the cobblestones to distance himself from Mrs Nichols, ergo Paul should have heard him according to Christers claim.

C. Just to really things up, Mrs Nichols had steel tips on her boots and still nobody heard her!

The other claim Christer has made is more interesting.
We know the street light, more or less opposite the board school, was working as Neil mentions it in his testimony. According to Christer, Paul should have see the silhouette of Cross in that light. I'm pretty sure that's not true, but I haven't tested it, so I wouldn't swear to it.

Ah, Mr Holmgren. I seem to have read and listened to him quite a lot.

I mentioned a few days ago that I am a mountain walking leader.
Years ago, when I did my initial training, to it was essential to learn 'micro-navigation'. When you're in clouds (or even when you're not) in the most bleak, subtly-featured mountain terrain wilderness, your only navigation aids are a compass and an OS Map. Good micro-navigation skills can save your life and a lack of them can lead you towards peril.
Put simply, Micro navigation involves looking really closely, really carefully and really accurately at your map and compass, and connecting your findings to any known feature or features in front of you, to identify where you are and to plot the next point you need to get to.
There have been occasions in the bleak terrain where I have been convinced that I was heading slowly and carefully in the correct direction, taking a new decision every 100m, having analysed my position really carefully, only to find myself in completely the wrong place, due to the tiniest of mistakes 20 minutes previously. Sometimes I've suddenly found myself, quite unexpectedly, on the edge of a sheer drop! What do you do at this point? You admit you got it wrong, you carefully retrace your steps and you start again, hopefully getting it right this time.

Investigating the Ripper murders can involve a great deal of micro navigation - and quite rightly, Christer uses it all the time.
My problem with following his very calm and confident lead is that, although his guidance is often perfect, he occasionally seems to misread his Rippermap just very slightly and he takes you off in very slightly the wrong direction. Then he compounds the issue (he's very good at convincing people that he's right) by leading you further down his slightly incorrect path, further away from the correct direction, until eventually, totally lost, you're left standing at the edge of a sheer drop, where he has erected a signpost - and his sign says, 'Lechmere Did It - Please Walk This Way, if You Wish'. Lots of people seem to have thought, "Yes, I'll do that.", and dropped into the Lechmere Abyss.

That said, I have an immense amount of sympathy for him. He has tried really hard over the years and we're all human.

[chubbs]

Honestly, while my instinct as an experimental researcher (my day job) is to raise points like "but you don't know the conditions of the event, if your conditions were worse ... etc", but at the same time I cringe against such complaints. Sure, we don't know, but deep down it is clearly better to make attempts, to gather data, to put together the "results" from a number of independent attempts to actually test things. Some will be done well, some will not, but knowing what people did, what they observed, is surely better than everyone guessing the answer that best fits their theory?

Or do I not understand what better means?

- Jeff

Yes, you're absolutely right. I need to repeat the experiment under various conditions.
Ideally I'd need to find a place where the conditions are as close to Bucks Row, August 1888 as possible (a 24ft-wide roadway with paths and brick buildings on both sides and a crescent moon in the SE at 39 degrees, with 30-50% cloud cover), but I think I'd have to be a bit more of an obsessive to do that.