Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[FrankO]

This is that no native English speaker would say 'Come and look at this woman' unless (i) she was close by, and (ii) he had been even closer to her.

The idea that Lechmere would say 'Come and look at this woman' when all he'd previously done is peer at her from 60-odd feet away is, as Euclid would say, absurd.

I don’t know who claims that Cross said ‘Come and look at this woman’ when all he’d previously done was peer from 60-odd feet away, but I have two remarks, Mark.

It was Paul who said that Cross said ‘Come and look at this woman’, while Cross himself said ‘Come and look over here. There's a woman.’

Secondly, according to the statements of both Paul & Cross, the latter had, in fact, been closer to Nichols when he said to Paul what he said. They both said that. Cross started in the middle of the road, and then, as Paul got closer, Cross walked back towards the pavement and then Paul stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him.

And it was at that point Cross said 'Come and look over here. There's a woman.' So, you're completely right. Except for suggesting that what Cross said according to Paul would suggest guilt/lying on Cross's part - if that was what you were trying to suggest, of course.

Cheers,
Frank

[Geddy2112]

The idea that Lechmere would say 'Come and look at this woman' when all he'd previously done is peer at her from 60-odd feet away is, as Euclid would say, absurd.

However if you are referring to 'my 60 feet' then your problem is with Cross not me or any member of the forum. He said he was 'by' the gateway to the Wool Warehouse. That corner is 61 feet diagonally from the body. Unless someone moved the Warehouse and or body. However he only mentions a body after advancing to the middle of the of the road. If and I'm sure he would have advanced along the diagonal that means he was 30 feet away, then and only then did he notice it was a woman. So again as a true Cross supporter you are misrepresenting the evidence and twisting what folks say.

In my last few posts on this 'distance' thing I've been laughed at and scorned because people think there is no way in the world you can see a woman in the dark from 30 feet away so they assume the 30 feet is wrong. That 30 feet shortens to 27 feet if going across from the middle of the gateway or 22 feet if West of the gateway (I discount the two shorter versions due to Cross saying 'by' the gateway, surely he would have said 'middle' or 'past' for the other two to be correct.) I'm sorry but I'm not wrong going off the evidence of what we DO KNOW. We can't assume the lighting conditions or how good or bad Cross' eyesight was. If he was used to walking those streets in near darkness his night vision would be better than normal. He may of even have lit a match, who knows. We also do not know if he used confirmation bias a bit like Mizen who assumed Cross meant a PC wanted him because when he got to Bucks Row a PC was in situ.

My point has never been IF Cross could see it was woman from 30, 27 or 22 feet because I simply CAN'T SUGGEST that because two many variables are in place but what I can state, according to Cross' words is where he was when he did so. Not that it really makes much difference because he never approached the body alone and that is in corroborated evidence by Cross and Paul.

[Herlock Sholmes]

However if you are referring to 'my 60 feet' then your problem is with Cross not me or any member of the forum. He said he was 'by' the gateway to the Wool Warehouse. That corner is 61 feet diagonally from the body. Unless someone moved the Warehouse and or body. However he only mentions a body after advancing to the middle of the of the road. If and I'm sure he would have advanced along the diagonal that means he was 30 feet away, then and only then did he notice it was a woman. So again as a true Cross supporter you are misrepresenting the evidence and twisting what folks say.

In my last few posts on this 'distance' thing I've been laughed at and scorned because people think there is no way in the world you can see a woman in the dark from 30 feet away so they assume the 30 feet is wrong. That 30 feet shortens to 27 feet if going across from the middle of the gateway or 22 feet if West of the gateway (I discount the two shorter versions due to Cross saying 'by' the gateway, surely he would have said 'middle' or 'past' for the other two to be correct.) I'm sorry but I'm not wrong going off the evidence of what we DO KNOW. We can't assume the lighting conditions or how good or bad Cross' eyesight was. If he was used to walking those streets in near darkness his night vision would be better than normal. He may of even have lit a match, who knows. We also do not know if he used confirmation bias a bit like Mizen who assumed Cross meant a PC wanted him because when he got to Bucks Row a PC was in situ.

My point has never been IF Cross could see it was woman from 30, 27 or 22 feet because I simply CAN'T SUGGEST that because two many variables are in place but what I can state, according to Cross' words is where he was when he did so. Not that it really makes much difference because he never approached the body alone and that is in corroborated evidence by Cross and Paul.

As far as I can see Geddy you’ve accurately set out the distances that morning based on the two ‘knowns’ - the location of the Wool Warehouse and the location of the body. Obviously we can’t be certain of Cross’s exact position when he first realised that the random shape was actually a woman but I’d have thought 30 feet a reasonable estimation (with a bit of a + or - to account for it being an estimation) I’d suggest that we would be on a sticky wicket when trying to assess what someone might or might not have been able to see at that time and in whatever light was available at a certain distance.

Nothing in the statements of either men leads us to suspect that Cross wasn’t being truthful and of course we have to consider the potential consequences of the huge risk that he would have been taking by being less than honest. If Cross had been the killer, and had been next to the body and then walked back to the middle of the road on hearing Paul approach, then the risk was obvious. Paul might well have observed him walking back to the middle of the road but Cross would have had no way of knowing if Paul had seen him doing this or not. Cross then tells the police that he hadn’t been near the corpse on his own then Paul tells them he saw him walking back from it. Why would Cross have been this stupid?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have to feel sorry for Cross. If he’d have been seen next to the body they would have shouted “guilty.” He was actually seen in the middle of the road and they still shout “guilty.” It begs the question where could Cross have been and what could he have said or done not to have looked guilty in the eyes of some. Perhaps if he’d run toward Paul squealing “murder, help, help?!” Or perhaps if Paul had found him sitting on the pavement bawling his eyes out saying “oh the poor woman. Woe is me!” As it stands, it appears that if Cross was found to have been Cornwall on the evening of the Double Event someone would suggest the fact as proof of his guilt.

These are the issues of course that arise if you begin from a point that a certain suspect ‘must’ have been guilty. From such a starting point it can be surprising what you can find that appears to point toward guilt or suspicion. This is why we get an innocuous fact, like the fact that Cross wore his working clothes to the inquest, being suggested as being somehow indicative of guilt. Now, Sherlock Holmes could almost certainly have deduced something from Cross’s clothing at the inquest but surely us mere mortals should desist.

[Geddy2112]

These are the issues of course that arise if you begin from a point that a certain suspect ‘must’ have been guilty.

Do you consider Cross is unique in that situation or have other researchers done the 'starting with a suspect' and working backwards to find evidence to suit?

For me it's not just the evidence to suit it's the sheer cherry picking of evidence to suit.

Paul's exactly 3:45 am, yeah we can use that to produce a gap... we will have it.
Paul going to Mizen alone... nah we can't have that, we need Paul and Cross together (but apart) for the Scam.
Let's not believe Mizen with his 3:45 timing, but let's believe him about the wanted by a PC in Bucks Row.

It's an absolute shambles of a way to do proper research.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you consider Cross is unique in that situation or have other researchers done the 'starting with a suspect' and working backwards to find evidence to suit?

For me it's not just the evidence to suit it's the sheer cherry picking of evidence to suit.

Paul's exactly 3:45 am, yeah we can use that to produce a gap... we will have it.
Paul going to Mizen alone... nah we can't have that, we need Paul and Cross together (but apart) for the Scam.
Let's not believe Mizen with his 3:45 timing, but let's believe him about the wanted by a PC in Bucks Row.

It's an absolute shambles of a way to do proper research.

The way that Cross seems unique to me is the point that you make in your second sentence. It’s the lengths that people have gone to. I think that people saw Cross mentioned, and thought ‘yes, it’s obvious, the killer has been under our noses all the time.’ Then followed an epidemic of tunnel vision. Everything pointed to his guilt, even things that clearly pointed to his innocence.

This is why we see cherrypicking, the editing of evidence, bizarre suggestions, weird interpretations of language and other nonsense that wouldn’t be required with a valid suspect. Then, staggeringly, we get a Cross supporter calling those that don’t see him as a suspect as ‘Deniers.’ As if his guilt is known and we are wilfully denying a truth.

[Geddy2112]

Then, staggeringly, we get a Cross supporter calling those that don’t see him as a suspect as ‘Deniers.’ As if his guilt is known and we are wilfully denying a truth.

Yes had the 'deniers' thrown at me numerous times. Like is it supposed to hurt or something, do I get a badge and a monthly magazine? They called me a 'denier' so sorry I believe now. Is that how it works, call someone petty names and they will change their mind because that is all that matters? Christ on a bike...

[Fiver]

You have to feel sorry for Cross. If he’d have been seen next to the body they would have shouted “guilty.” He was actually seen in the middle of the road and they still shout “guilty.” It begs the question where could Cross have been and what could he have said or done not to have looked guilty in the eyes of some. Perhaps if he’d run toward Paul squealing “murder, help, help?!” Or perhaps if Paul had found him sitting on the pavement bawling his eyes out saying “oh the poor woman. Woe is me!” As it stands, it appears that if Cross was found to have been Cornwall on the evening of the Double Event someone would suggest the fact as proof of his guilt.

If he'd run towards Paul shouting "murder, help, help!"; Lechmereians would say that proved his guilt, since an innocent man couldn't have seen the wounds from that distance.

If Paul had found him sitting on the pavement, bawling his eyes out, saying "Oh the poor woman. Woe is me!"; Lechmerians would say it was a confession of guilt - feigned contrition for having killed the woman followed by self-pity that he's going to hang for it.

Remember these are people who say a carman wearing a carman's uniform was an attempt at deception and thus proof of his guilt.

[Geddy2112]

Remember these are people who say a carman wearing a carman's uniform was an attempt at deception and thus proof of his guilt.

I see your carman's uniform and I'll raise you 'giving your legal name, home and work address in court' as a sign of guilt. I think it was the fact it was a Friday morning that proves beyond any doubt it was Cross...

[Herlock Sholmes]

If he'd run towards Paul shouting "murder, help, help!"; Lechmereians would say that proved his guilt, since an innocent man couldn't have seen the wounds from that distance.

If Paul had found him sitting on the pavement, bawling his eyes out, saying "Oh the poor woman. Woe is me!"; Lechmerians would say it was a confession of guilt - feigned contrition for having killed the woman followed by self-pity that he's going to hang for it.

Remember these are people who say a carman wearing a carman's uniform was an attempt at deception and thus proof of his guilt.

He was there though Fiver

[Geddy2112]

He was there though Fiver

It was not the fact he was there, it's the fact someone else saw him there. Yes reader's Robert Paul witnessing the 'there' makes him guilty. Shame Louis' horse could not talk, but then there was a talking horse called Mr Ed, and Ed appears in the HoL... oh it's all coming together now...

[chubbs]

BUCKS ROW, 3:45am ^^^
Please adjust the brightness of your screen, until the picture I've made (above) shows the body of Polly Nichols with the amount of clarity that you think would have been afforded to Charles Cross and Robert Paul.
(based on a screen grab from the excellent 3D animation by ˜Whitechapel Recreations 1888)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GfTOLs4lVc

I am going to have a think about three small, but significant aspects of Charles Cross's account of his experience in Bucks Row, concentrating on the visibility in Bucks Row, Mr Paul™s 'surprise' arrival on the scene and the actions of the two men.


MY BACKGROUND/EXPERIENCE
My wife, son and I go for a walk in the local countryside 3 or 4 times a week. We always take the same route, which is approximately 3 miles there & back, much of which is along a man-made lane, with a good-size (10ft) mature hedge on one side. The man-made surface of the lane is mainly laid with concrete, with mud, potholes and clumps of weeds, the occasional mound of horse muck and puddles when it rains. Although not an identical surface to a Victorian London backstreet, it has similarities and can provide a comparison. (Also, because I know some individuals on these forums place great importance on professional qualifications, I am a qualified Mountain Walking Leader lol. Yes, I know walking!!!)


VISIBILITY
Our countryside walk, which takes about an hour, takes place anytime between 4pm and 6.30pm. This means that during the Winter months we often walk in darkness. We don™t use a torch, there are no houses, nor street lamps.
The only occasional light we have is from the moon (which can cast quite a good shadow on a clear night) or from twilight, descending into dusk, then night. Bear with me - I a™m getting there, gradually

So, I know, from regular, recent, personal experience, what you can - and cannot -“ see and hear under various night-time conditions. A regular, familiar walk, conducted at night is what I do, just as Charles Cross did on that fateful night.

Charles Cross's description of walking along Bucks Row, seeing something across the road which he initially mistook for a tarpaulin, then getting closer and realising it was in fact a woman, has an absolute ring of truth about it. In the dark, you DO sometimes wonder what youre seeing (even shapes that are quite near to you and in familiar locations). Your eyes/brain CAN mislead you.
Some nights are very dark, cloudy and misty. On these nights you cannot see much at all, just the larger shapes - I regularly stumble on an unseen pothole and my son and I have both trodden in unseen horses muck. Had it been one of those very dark, misty nights it may have been possible for Cross not to see Polly Nichols body across the road at all. His gradual ˜discovery of the body has an absolute ring of truth about it.


ROBERT PAULs ARRIVAL
From time to time, on our night-time walks, my wife, son and I have encountered a person walking towards us. You actually don™t hear them first - and if it's a gloomy night you a™re not aware of them visually until they are very close to you. It can be quite a surprise.

Also, even on clear nights, there have been people walking 100yds behind us that we've been totally unaware of until we reach the top of the slope and look back. Its quite possible for Charles Cross to have been unaware of Robert Pauls presence until he had slowed down, approached the body, stopped, thought about it and looked around. Then he may well have seen Robert Pauls silhouette.

When Cross realised he was looking at a prostrate woman his mind will not have been listening for footsteps.

I think my picture, which I believe to be an accurate rendition of the 3D space and the peoples locations within that space, shows how Pauls presence may easily have been unknown to Charles Cross until after he had realised he had stumbled upon a prostrate person, especially as Robert Paul had only recently started his walk down Bucks Row.

THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE TWO MEN
They crouched down and saw Polly close-up, but they had no light, so they could not see the throat wounds (was her chin tucked down?). Neither man mentions that her eyes were open, which is a bit weird. They saw that her dress was pulled up, so they tried to make her look decent by pulling it over her legs. They thought she was dead, or unconscious through drink. Under those lighting conditions it was the best assumption they could make. Neither man wanted to be late for work (life was very cheap in that part of town in the 1880™s and unemployment was to be avoided at all costs.). Neither man actually really cared whether Polly was dead or alive, as much as they cared about getting to work. If she was dead it could have been for any number of reasons. Murder was not uppermost in their minds, getting to work was.

Cross may also not have wanted to get involved, given the fact that he had accidentally run over a child with his cart, 12 years previously and knew that it might lead to having to take time off work. Additionally, both men knew that Bucks Row was a bad, unsafe area, especially in the dark and they did not want to hang around for a moment longer than they had to. Carrying on to work and telling a policeman was absolutely the natural thing to do. At best they will have thought €'bugger her, we'll tell a copper she's there.' - and at worst their minds will have been telling them to get out of that dark, dangerous backstreet. Probably a bit of both.
I get the feeling that their investigation of the body was very quick & cursory - they did not need the hassle and they DID need to get to work.




TLDR: If you dont want to read all that, I'm just saying that the account given by Charles Cross stands up to scrutiny. His statements have the ring of truth. They are believable.

Apologies for the lack of apostrophes. The text went mental when posted, so I have removed them.

[Geddy2112]

[B][ATTACH=JSON]
TLDR: If you dont want to read all that, I'm just saying that the account given by Charles Cross stands up to scrutiny. His statements have the ring of truth. They are believable.

Hehe, I read it twice. Very good. Did you say the pictures from the video were accurate as in where the buildings were etc?

[Herlock Sholmes]

TLDR: If you dont want to read all that, I'm just saying that the account given by Charles Cross stands up to scrutiny. His statements have the ring of truth. They are believable.

Apologies for the lack of apostrophes. The text went mental when posted, so I have removed them.

Good post Chubbs,

Light and shadows, as you’ve illustrated, aren’t easy (almost impossible) to work with over a distance of time because of their deceptive nature. None of us can give an entirely accurate description of the levels of light in Bucks Row on August 31st 1888. They could in fact have differed from the light conditions in Bucks Row on August 30th 1888. All it takes is a bit of mist or cloud covering and it’s ‘all change’. And it’s often the case that someone might be able to see you but you can’t see them. There is also the fact that it’s extremely difficult to judge distance by hearing alone.

I think that it’s also worth mentioning what made Cross realise that it was a woman. After all he wasn’t seeing her face or noticing her hair style. I’d suggest that all that happened as he got closer was that he could make out legs and what appeared to be a bunched up skirt. Which clearly differed from what he’d have noticed if the body had been that of a man. So, although we don’t know exactly how close he got, it may not have needed to have been very close because he wasn’t noticing details just legs and skirt which clearly indicated that it was a woman. I just had a quick look but see no mention of the positioning of the legs so maybe one was bent, with the knee raised off the ground making it stand out more (only a suggestion)

Finally when you used the phrase ‘ring of truth’ which I totally agree with, it reminded me of another part of the evidence which, for me, has always had a ring of truth about it. It’s from the inquest when the coroner asks Cross if he’d told Mizen that he was wanted by a PC. in Bucks Row. Cross replied:

“No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.”

[FrankO]

Light and shadows, as you’ve illustrated, aren’t easy (almost impossible) to work with over a distance of time because of their deceptive nature. None of us can give an entirely accurate description of the levels of light in Bucks Row on August 31st 1888. They could in fact have differed from the light conditions in Bucks Row on August 30th 1888. All it takes is a bit of mist or cloud covering and it’s ‘all change’. And it’s often the case that someone might be able to see you but you can’t see them. There is also the fact that it’s extremely difficult to judge distance by hearing alone.

Hi Mike,

I agree. Judging from the evidence, it seems as if it was easier to make out things from the north side of Buck's row (statements of Cross, the night watchman at the wool warehouse & Purkiss), than from the south side where Nichols lay (Cross, Paul, Emma Green, Neil). I say 'seems' because it's extremely difficult to get a good idea of the lighting conditions of Buck's Row on the night in question.

Cheers,
Frank