Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[FrankO]

When Cross initially approached Paul he said something like "come and look, there is a woman lying here". About three years ago I wondered how close Cross would have had to be to what he thought was a tarpaulin to determine that it was actually a woman. I did a re-enactment, and posted the result ( Page 360, Post #5395) here:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/lechmere-cross-charles/762057-evidence-of-innocence/page360#post779536

As a consequence of my practical experiment, I cannot be persuaded that Cross could determine that the shape that he saw in the dark was a woman from a distance of 10 Yards.

Hi George,

With your re-enactment, have you taken into consideration the quote below from the Sunderland Daily Echo of 1 September?

"The watchman at the wool factory, whose doorway is a few feet below the gateway where the woman was found, and on the other side of the street, says that at exactly three o’clock he spoke to two men who stopped just outside his gate, and they moved on without any trouble. He says that there was no body lying in the stable gateway at the time, and no one in the street. Moreover, he heard no noise from that time forth, and he was wide awake all the time until the police in the street attracted his attention."

All the best,
Frank

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

With your re-enactment, have you taken into consideration the quote below from the Sunderland Daily Echo of 1 September?

"The watchman at the wool factory, whose doorway is a few feet below the gateway where the woman was found, and on the other side of the street, says that at exactly three o’clock he spoke to two men who stopped just outside his gate, and they moved on without any trouble. He says that there was no body lying in the stable gateway at the time, and no one in the street. Moreover, he heard no noise from that time forth, and he was wide awake all the time until the police in the street attracted his attention."

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

The aim of my re-enactment was not related to when the murder may have occurred, but an endeavour to find out how close Cross would have needed to be to the shape that he saw in the dark to discern that it was that of a woman.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that we have to be wary about suggesting what someone might or might not have seen or heard no matter how restrained and measured we are. Cross gave no measurements but said that he saw that it was a woman, rather than his initial impression of a tarpaulin, from the middle of the road. If Cross was simply a witness (and he was) then he wouldn’t have been thinking of ‘appearing’ innocent. It wouldn’t have mattered to him how close he’d got before noticing that it was a woman. So he had no reason for lying. Even if he was guilty (and he wasn’t) what difference would a very few feet have made in terms of appearances. No matter to him or anyone if he’d said that he’d been six feet away. Cross had no reason to lie.

We also have to be wary of language. The ‘middle’ of the road might not have been that actual middle.

When we look at how far away Paul was when Cross first saw him we have no way of pinpointing this because Cross only estimated that:

“He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away,”.

So how long after hearing him did he see him? How accurate could an estimation based on hearing actually have been? In that moment he’d have had to have first heard Paul’s footsteps, noted approximately how many steps he heard before Paul came into view and roughly calculated the distance that he’d walked. And he had to have done that over 80 hours after the event and possibly after he hadn’t given that particular matter a second thought. How could we hope for an accurate estimation?

No one can be certain so I’m certainly not claiming it but, given that it was an empty street and there would have been little or no background noise to mask sounds, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if, in reality, Cross first heard Paul and a few seconds later he came into view around 40 yards away. It’s more usual to make an estimate of distance from a visual rather than from something heard. The alternative would be that Paul somehow managed, unintentionally, to almost sneak up on Cross. In a quiet street, with no background noise, wearing boots, on a hard surface.

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

The aim of my re-enactment was not related to when the murder may have occurred, but an endeavour to find out how close Cross would have needed to be to the shape that he saw in the dark to discern that it was that of a woman.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

The point of my post had nothing to do with the timing of the murder, but everything with the fact that, according to the article, the night watchman had been able to see from the gate of the wool factory that there was no body lying in the stable gateway.

If true, then we might be able to think Lechmere would be able to discern it was the body of a woman from, say, halfway between the gate of the wool factory and where the body lay.

Cheers,
Frank

[Geddy2112]

Hi George,

The point of my post had nothing to do with the timing of the murder, but everything with the fact that, according to the article, the night watchman had been able to see from the gate of the wool factory that there was no body lying in the stable gateway.

If true, then we might be able to think Lechmere would be able to discern it was the body of a woman from, say, halfway between the gate of the wool factory and where the body lay.

Although the night watchman is talking after the event so he knows the 'subject' is a dead woman. I think FrankO is trying to say when did Lechmere become aware of the bundle being a woman and not a tarpaulin. The night watchman has basically said 'nothing was there' as he does not need to distinguish between a body or a tarpaulin as he knows it's a body they are talking about. Hope that makes sense... eeek.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

The point of my post had nothing to do with the timing of the murder, but everything with the fact that, according to the article, the night watchman had been able to see from the gate of the wool factory that there was no body lying in the stable gateway.

If true, then we might be able to think Lechmere would be able to discern it was the body of a woman from, say, halfway between the gate of the wool factory and where the body lay.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

The watchman would have only become aware that the body of a woman had been found after the fact was reported by police. At the time he didn't see anything where the body was later found. I am having difficulty following the reasoning that because the watchman saw nothing, that Cross would be able to deduce that when he saw something that it was the body of a woman. Cross initially thought that the shape he saw was a tarpaulin, but when he spoke to Paul he said not only was it a body, but specifically the body of a woman. According to Paul, the area was known for attacks, so how did Cross know that it wasn't a man who had been mugged? My re-enactment convinced me that he must have been within 4 metres to have discerned that the shape on the ground was human, and a woman, if he crossed directly from the other side of the street, and closer if he approached directly from where he spotted the shape. Had it been me I think I would have chosen to stay on the footpath opposite until I was close enough to get a better idea of what I was looking at, but YMMV.

Best regards, George

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

The watchman would have only become aware that the body of a woman had been found after the fact was reported by police. At the time he didn't see anything where the body was later found. I am having difficulty following the reasoning that because the watchman saw nothing, that Cross would be able to deduce that when he saw something that it was the body of a woman. Cross initially thought that the shape he saw was a tarpaulin, but when he spoke to Paul he said not only was it a body, but specifically the body of a woman. According to Paul, the area was known for attacks, so how did Cross know that it wasn't a man who had been mugged? My re-enactment convinced me that he must have been within 4 metres to have discerned that the shape on the ground was human, and a woman, if he crossed directly from the other side of the street, and closer if he approached directly from where he spotted the shape. Had it been me I think I would have chosen to stay on the footpath opposite until I was close enough to get a better idea of what I was looking at, but YMMV.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

I see I still haven't succeeded in getting my point across.

My point is that someone who was there on the night of the murder and who, therefore, knew the lighting conditions of the very place on that night, implied that he would have been able to see a body, had there been one when he looked. This would have been at a distance of about 20 meters. Of course, it doesn't follow that, at that distance, he would have been able to actually discern it would have been a woman's body, but your contention that he/anybody must have been within 4 metres to have discerned that the shape on the ground was human, and a woman, seems a bit too tight to me.

The best,
Frank

[Doctored Whatsit]

The night watchman's evidence is a little confusing as the murder actually took place where the body was found, and yet despite being awake he heard and saw nothing! Possibly, when he talked about seeing the spot where the body was found, he meant that he got up to talk to the men passing by, and therefore temporarily had a different vantage point. But with regard to hearing nothing, he was so close that Harriet Lilley's story of sounds being muffled by the passing train appears to be the only sensible possibility. Of course, he might have fallen asleep, and was reluctant to admit it!

[FrankO]

The night watchman's evidence is a little confusing as the murder actually took place where the body was found, and yet despite being awake he heard and saw nothing! Possibly, when he talked about seeing the spot where the body was found, he meant that he got up to talk to the men passing by, and therefore temporarily had a different vantage point. But with regard to hearing nothing, he was so close that Harriet Lilley's story of sounds being muffled by the passing train appears to be the only sensible possibility. Of course, he might have fallen asleep, and was reluctant to admit it!

The way I read it, DW, is that he wasn't necessarily at the gate all the time, but that he went there to speak to the two men, at which point he had opportunity to look in the direction of the murder spot. I imagine that his responsibility as a night watchman included the whole area at the rear of Brown & Eagle's, too, so, he may very well not have been at the gate the whole time, that way not listening for or hearing any sounds in Buck's Row.

Cheers,
Frank

[rjpalmer]

Hi George,

I see I still haven't succeeded in getting my point across.

My point is that someone who was there on the night of the murder and who, therefore, knew the lighting conditions of the very place on that night, implied that he would have been able to see a body, had there been one when he looked. This would have been at a distance of about 20 meters. Of course, it doesn't follow that, at that distance, he would have been able to actually discern it would have been a woman's body, but your contention that he/anybody must have been within 4 metres to have discerned that the shape on the ground was human, and a woman, seems a bit too tight to me.

The best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Imagine being the constable assigned to walking the Buck's Row beat the following night, or the following week (whether it was PC Neil or someone else).

Wouldn't human nature dictate that they would be keenly aware of the lighting every time they walked opposite the gate, and stared over at the spot?

I would think that if Lechmere's story of seeing the woman was wildly improbable, someone familiar with the street at 3-4 a.m. would have picked up on it.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I see I still haven't succeeded in getting my point across.

My point is that someone who was there on the night of the murder and who, therefore, knew the lighting conditions of the very place on that night, implied that he would have been able to see a body, had there been one when he looked. This would have been at a distance of about 20 meters. Of course, it doesn't follow that, at that distance, he would have been able to actually discern it would have been a woman's body, but your contention that he/anybody must have been within 4 metres to have discerned that the shape on the ground was human, and a woman, seems a bit too tight to me.

The best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

It was these points that Jeff and I were discussing in the thread I linked. Jeff's post was #5268 on page 352. While it is not possible to know, or re-create, the exact lighting conditions in Buck's Row on that night, Dusty postulated that the lighting description that I described for my re-enactment would, if anything, have been brighter than the Buck's row light. There was the issue of street lights. Dusty showed that there were drawings showing gas lights in the vicinity across the road, but Neil stated that the only (working?) lamp was at the end of the row without designating which end. It should be noted that when Paul knelt over the body it was sufficiently dark as to not allow him to see the blood or the throat wound.

While I appreciate that the watchman felt that he would have seen the body at 20 metres if it had been there, his notion was only an assumption as the body wasn't there. I was unable to see a shape of any description at 18 metres, and a replica body was there. My preconceived notions at the time, which were similar to yours, were all shown to be incorrect by my observations, so I am confident that cognitive dissonance was not a factor.

I conducted the re-enactment under the closest conditions that I could achieve under the circumstances, and presented my observations for consideration. Theoretical notions can be presented to challenge my practical experiment, but a better result may come from another member conducting a similar re-enactment using their perceived lighting conditions.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

Hi Frank,

Imagine being the constable assigned to walking the Buck's Row beat the following night, or the following week (whether it was PC Neil or someone else).

Wouldn't human nature dictate that they would be keenly aware of the lighting every time they walked opposite the gate, and stared over at the spot?

I would think that if Lechmere's story of seeing the woman was wildly improbable, someone familiar with the street at 3-4 a.m. would have picked up on it.

Hi RJ,

I recall reading an article from the press at the time that reporters did pick up on the lighting in Buck's Row a couple of days after the event, and found that it was brighter than expected. However, it was also suggested that the police, who were responsible for reporting gas lamps that were not working, had arranged for repairs to several lamps which were apparently not working on the night in question. Neil testified that there was only one lamp at the end of the row.

Cheers, George

[Paddy Goose]

I’m going to try and avoid any talk of Cross from now on.

An excellent idea, Hurley. I'll take the pledge along with you.

Here's to the New Year

Paddy

[GBinOz]

No one can be certain so I’m certainly not claiming it but, given that it was an empty street and there would have been little or no background noise to mask sounds, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if, in reality, Cross first heard Paul and a few seconds later he came into view around 40 yards away. It’s more usual to make an estimate of distance from a visual rather than from something heard. The alternative would be that Paul somehow managed, unintentionally, to almost sneak up on Cross. In a quiet street, with no background noise, wearing boots, on a hard surface.

Hi Herlock,

Neil heard Thain in Brady St 110 yards away, but Neil had just discovered a body and his senses would have been heightened to what was happening around him. If Cross and Paul were walking, say, 50 yards apart, they walked 60 yards down Buck's Row without being aware of each other. Was this because they were so used to hearing other walkers on their morning journeys that other footfalls became white noise? The other alternative is that Cross wasn't walking when Paul turned into Buck's Row.

As far as Cross seeing Paul in the dark at a distance of 40 metres, the result of my experiments would not allow me to support that notion. If you can find a contained street, go there on a dark night and see what you can see. I dare say that, like myself, you might be surprised at what you can't see.

Cheers, George

[paul g]

No need to post anything that “ gets Letchmere off the hook and establishes his innocence.
There is a book a documentary and a Q.C that’s already done that to a high standard.