Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Geddy2112]

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. Far from it. 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.

He preferred Cross, he said so at the inquest He would have known what Paul could see as a few seconds previously he had had the same view. Or similar. Even if Paul had seen him he would not have been able to identify him like all the other witnesses in the case. Cross, at the time it took Paul to encroach on the 40 or so yards Cross heard him from, had enough time to be around the School Building and away. There is absolutely zero reason for a guilty Cross to stay in situ. Unless you believe, which you do in the fantasy portrayed by Holmgren and Stow.
He had time to get away, he didn't because he was not guilty, it's that simple I'm afraid.

[chubbs]

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

If the moon was at 39 degrees, in that position in the sky, its direct light would not have reached ground level, or even human head level in Bucks Row at that time. It would have caught the higher parts of taller buildings (eg the warehouse). In any case, a crescent moon's illuminative power is minimal, even on a clear night.

There's no getting away from the fact that is was bloody dark down there.

[JeffHamm]

Perhaps I just misunderstand, but if Cross/Lechmere could not have been that far from Nichols because he had to be very close to see her body due to the darkness, how could Paul, 40 yards away, see him flee? Isn't it supposed to be so dark that Cross/Lechmere can't discern a shape to be a body when only 1/2 a street width or so away (pending on the angle)?

It seems to me that like so many things in this theory, "it is, until it has to be otherwise, and which point it isn't".

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

So a guilty Lechmere, who the evidence proves clearly was known as Cross at that period of his life, hears a man approach and he doesn’t know what the man had or hadn’t seen. He would certainly have known though that the man wouldn’t have been able to have given a remotely damaging identification. ‘It was a man I think’ would have been about the extent of it. So does he a) escape into the darkness realising the obvious fact that, after going over to look at the body, the chances of a complete stranger chasing after a knife-wielding murderer with a 100 yard head start through the streets was non-existent, or b) he stands around in the hope of finding out what he’d seen?

So for your suggestion, b) how would he have hoped to have achieved that? “I say old chap, when you were walking toward me what did you actually see? Whereabout was I standing? Did you see me actually doing anything that might be construed as suspicious? And what would he have done if he’d said “I saw you crouching over the body wiping something on the woman’s dress,” what would he then have done? Come up with a ‘Caught Bang To Rights Scam’?

Get a grip Mark. A 30-40 yard head start. By the time Paul gets to the body Cross is 70-80 yards away. Even just 30 seconds to go over to the body and discover the wounds and Cross is 100+ yards. If he’d run he’d have been 150 yards away.

It’s a no-brainer. Unless Cross was not only an entirely unique serial killer he was also possibly the stupidest. The fact that he stayed put proves his innocence. There is no case to answer for Cross. Scobie only said that there was because he was duped by false evidence. Remove the gap and he would given Cross a resounding ‘no chance.’ Clearly innocent.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps I just misunderstand, but if Cross/Lechmere could not have been that far from Nichols because he had to be very close to see her body due to the darkness, how could Paul, 40 yards away, see him flee? Isn't it supposed to be so dark that Cross/Lechmere can't discern a shape to be a body when only 1/2 a street width or so away (pending on the angle)?

It seems to me that like so many things in this theory, "it is, until it has to be otherwise, and which point it isn't".

- Jeff

Exactly Jeff. The evidence is like a buffet for some. Just pick the parts that you like and ignore the rest.

[chubbs]

...Even if Paul had seen him he would not have been able to identify him like all the other witnesses in the case. Cross, at the time it took Paul to encroach on the 40 or so yards Cross heard him from, had enough time to be around the School Building and away. There is absolutely zero reason for a guilty Cross to stay in situ. Unless you believe, which you do in the fantasy portrayed by Holmgren and Stow.
He had time to get away, he didn't because he was not guilty, it's that simple I'm afraid.

There are three possible scenarios, aren't there?...

SCENARIO 1
The murderer, Charles Cross, is in the process of ripping open Polly Nichols' stomach, or arranging her legs in the 'wide open' position, when he becomes aware of Robert Paul approaching. He quickly puts his knife in his pocket (if it's still out), wipes his hands, stands up and quickly sneaks back into the middle of the road, hoping (fingers crossed) that Paul hasn't seen him move away from the body.
Then he approaches Robert Paul and touches him on the shoulder WITH A HAND THAT COULD STILL HAVE BLOOD & STUFF ON IT, and says, "There's a woman lying there." - or whatever he says. The rest is 'as testimony'. There is no way Cross would know how much/little Paul could see or had seen, yet he waits there.

SCENARIO 2
The murderer (not Charles Cross) is in the process of ripping open Polly Nichols' stomach when he becomes aware of Charles Cross approaching in the distance. He quickly puts his knife in his pocket, wipes his hands, stands up and quietly legs it, westwards, without Cross becoming aware of him. We know, from other murders, that he's a quick, slippery customer who is good at vanishing. It's possible.

SCENARIO 3
The murderer (not Charles Cross) kills, abuses and poses Polly Nichols, wipes his knife and puts it away, wipes his hands and disappears off into the night, direction unknown. A minute or two later Charles Cross turns the corner into Bucks Row. We know the rest from his testimony.



I have typed the 3 scenarios in order - least likely first. You'd have to be a bit daft to think Scenario 1 is likely.

Look - no blood!