Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[chubbs]

Hi Frank,

I don't remember if this was discussed before, but there are websites where one can track the location of the moon for any given date/time/location. The one I used is from theskylive.com

It shows roughly a quarter moon at an altitude of 39 degrees, east by southeast at 3.40 a.m.

Walking west on Buck's Row, the moon would have been behind Lechmere and a little to the south, so it makes sense that the northside of the street would have better visibility. The cloud coverage that night was around 50%

We still have a lot of unknowns, but it tends to confirm your observation.

Thanks for that. I've tried to adjust for moonlight in this image, which is an impression of the moment Robert Paul becomes aware of a person in the middle of the road, in the distance, ahead of him.

Screen brightness adjustment might be needed again.

[Fiver]

Would the moon have been low enough to backlight Cross as he was walking west along Bucks-row?

On consideration, this is probably less important than PC Neil noting the street lamp at the east end of Buck's-row. Anyone walking west would have been backlit.

[Mark J D]

... And it's often the case that someone might be able to see you but you can't see them...

Indeed so! In other words, Lechmere -- or, as he preferred to be called, Lechmere -- was not in any sense being stupid or unintelligent in not running away. Quite the opposite. He needed urgently to know how well and how much this approaching stranger had been able to see. Had the man seen him clearly enough to be able to describe or recognise him later, a fleeing Lechmere would have been headed straight for the gallows.

M.

[Geddy2112]

Would the moon have been low enough to backlight Cross as he was walking west along Bucks-row?

Only if it could be used as a sign of guilt...

[Fiver]

Hi Frank,

I don't remember if this was discussed before, but there are websites where one can track the location of the moon for any given date/time/location. The one I used is from theskylive.com

It shows roughly a quarter moon at an altitude of 39 degrees, east by southeast at 3.40 a.m.

Walking west on Buck's Row, the moon would have been behind Lechmere and a little to the south, so it makes sense that the northside of the street would have better visibility. The cloud coverage that night was around 50%

We still have a lot of unknowns, but it tends to confirm your observation.

Would the moon have been low enough to backlight Cross as he was walking west along Bucks-row?

[chubbs]

Many thanks, well using that, the distance down the road from the body, the mentioned Wool Warehouse, the 40 yards etc I've now come up with this. I've used a midway meeting point for Paul and Cross as from the evidence it's impossible to know 'exactly' where this happened, Cross could have been walking faster than Paul etc. I know this is assuming Cross walked to the middle of the road on the diagonal, I think most of us would. Many thanks.

Yep - that's precisely how I envisage it too.

[rjpalmer]

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).

Hi Frank,

I don't remember if this was discussed before, but there are websites where one can track the location of the moon for any given date/time/location. The one I used is from theskylive.com

It shows roughly a quarter moon at an altitude of 39 degrees, east by southeast at 3.40 a.m.

Walking west on Buck's Row, the moon would have been behind Lechmere and a little to the south, so it makes sense that the northside of the street would have better visibility. The cloud coverage that night was around 50%

We still have a lot of unknowns, but it tends to confirm your observation.

[Geddy2112]

Yes - the 3D rendering of the architecture and the space had already been created very accurately (apart from the height of the gate and the parapet above the gate, behind the body, which are quite a bit higher/taller than I think they should be). It's a far better 3D than that highly inaccurate & misleading image earlier in the thread, attributed to Jeff Leahy and someone else (you know, the one with the red lines and people in the wrong places). That image has Bucks Row looking like a narrow, one-cart-width passageway, when it was actually much wider than that.

Many thanks, well using that, the distance down the road from the body, the mentioned Wool Warehouse, the 40 yards etc I've now come up with this. I've used a midway meeting point for Paul and Cross as from the evidence it's impossible to know 'exactly' where this happened, Cross could have been walking faster than Paul etc. I know this is assuming Cross walked to the middle of the road on the diagonal, I think most of us would. Many thanks.

[chubbs]

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

Yes - the 3D rendering of the architecture and the space had already been created very accurately (apart from the height of the gate and the parapet above the gate, behind the body, which are quite a bit higher/taller than I think they should be). It's a far better 3D than that highly inaccurate & misleading image earlier in the thread, attributed to Jeff Leahy and someone else (you know, the one with the red lines and people in the wrong places). That image has Bucks Row looking like a narrow, one-cart-width passageway, when it was actually much wider than that.

All I've done to the 3D architecture is add 3 people (Paul, Cross & Nichols) at the moment when (in my estimation) Cross would probably have realised he was looking at a person, not a tarp, plus some brick & cobblestone textures and a few other minor details and suggestions to 'bring it alive' a bit, hopefully without having a negative effect on the scene's authenticity. Additionally, I've 'burned' a few areas, to create a more realistic sense of the darkness that probably engulfed the people in that space at that time.

My only regret is that I think I may have positioned the single gas street lamp too far down Bucks Row. After I'd posted the image I saw the OS map that shows the solitary illuminated lamp as being a bit further away from the Brady St junction. It won't have improved the visibility of poor Mrs Nichols' body.

[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

[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.”

[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?

[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]

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...

[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