PC Neil's Route

[JeffHamm]

Jeff and I , working completely independently arrived at broadly the same conclusions for the timings in Bucks Row.
All of these are scenario's, with distances and varing walking speeds are included in INSIDE BUCKS ROW. I also link to the videos that Jeff links to above in tge book.
if you want to get an overview yoy really should have a look.

Steve

Yes, I should have mentioned that. At the time I was working on the simulations, Steve was independently working on a much more complete study of Buck's Row, and using slightly different values for things like patrol speeds, and different variations of Neil's beat, and so forth, we independently came to very similar conclusions. Effectively, we replicated each other's findings, and also, we demonstrated that the conclusions are robust (meaning, even if some of our starting assumptions are not quite correct, the take home message doesn't change). I think there was at least one other person also looking at things at that time, and they too came to the same conclusions.

In other words, multiple people, all using different approaches (but sound ones), and all using slightly different parameters (but all justified by the evidence and information we have), came to the conclusion that the testimony given all points to events unfolding as stated.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

Personally, while most accept that times stated by witnesses are open to multiple sources of error including mundane things like clocks not being in sync, simple errors of memory, and so forth, I like to start with the information as stated and see if it "works" first. Then, if it doesn't, I consider if something simple might explain the discrepancy, like two clocks out of sync by a few minutes, a simple memory error.

With Nichol's case in Buck's Row, I found no reason to even get to the "consideration of simple errors" as the information, as stated, works really well (as seen in the simulation I put together here). The link goes to the post containing the first version, and there are some modified versions a bit later in the thread. I admit, I include some very speculative stuff in there in terms of how and when Nichols and JtR may have arrived at the scene, but I think I'm pretty clear in the presentation when I'm doing such things.

While I've not posted versions for all of the variations I've looked at, I have played around with a few variations of Neil's beat, and nothing substantial changes.

- Jeff

Jeff and I , working completely independently arrived at broadly the same conclusions for the timings in Bucks Row.
All of these are scenario's, with distances and varing walking speeds are included in INSIDE BUCKS ROW. I also link to the videos that Jeff links to above in tge book.
if you want to get an overview yoy really should have a look.

Steve

[Monty]

To be honest I'm not even sure the gap came first. I've read most threads regarding Cross here and on the JtR Forums and a lot of stuff on Facebook etc. I honestly think the eureka moment was when it was found he 'lied' to the court and called himself Cross instead of Lechmere. The rest was manipulated around that. People call the shawl, the watch, the diary out more ferociously maybe because they are physical 'inventions' however should something be less ridiculed as not fact just because it's a timing, a conversation or a route to work - something less tangible that we physically can't touch?

"...When it was found he 'lied' to the court and called himself Cross instead of Lechmere"

It wasn't found. It was suggested. A suggestion based on personal interpretation rather than ascertained fact.

[JeffHamm]

Personally, while most accept that times stated by witnesses are open to multiple sources of error including mundane things like clocks not being in sync, simple errors of memory, and so forth, I like to start with the information as stated and see if it "works" first. Then, if it doesn't, I consider if something simple might explain the discrepancy, like two clocks out of sync by a few minutes, a simple memory error.

With Nichol's case in Buck's Row, I found no reason to even get to the "consideration of simple errors" as the information, as stated, works really well (as seen in the simulation I put together here). The link goes to the post containing the first version, and there are some modified versions a bit later in the thread. I admit, I include some very speculative stuff in there in terms of how and when Nichols and JtR may have arrived at the scene, but I think I'm pretty clear in the presentation when I'm doing such things.

While I've not posted versions for all of the variations I've looked at, I have played around with a few variations of Neil's beat, and nothing substantial changes.

- Jeff

[Monty]

I had a flat tire and had to walk 5.5 miles at night. I went at at a fast rate for 1 hr 40 minutes and only averaged 3.4 mph.
I left a time on my car window, looked at the time when I arrived home, and used Google maps to get the distance. I was delayed by traffic lights for maybe 2 minutes.

That is not the speed of a policeman on a beat carrying a lantern - no way.

Clarify

[Geddy2112]

Would we have had this level of ‘interest’ in Cross as a suspect if we hadn’t had the ‘gap’ manufactured by the deliberate omission of the word ‘about’? Just imagine a situation with no gap suggested for a minute. What’s left? He used the name of his step father instead of his birth name but did he gain any advantage in terms of evading the law? Absolutely not and it’s been categorically proven that this was hardly unique. So that’s two complete non-issues. So what’s left? A slight, unimportant miscommunication between Cross and Paul and Mizen - crime cases are full of miscommunications. Anything else? He was alone for an unprovable length of time with a recently killed woman like the millions of other people that find bodies. Do the circumstances mean that Cross was a likelier killer than a guy who fled the scene just before he arrived. Of course not.

That this can’t be seen as obvious stuff is a pretty sad state of affairs.

To be honest I'm not even sure the gap came first. I've read most threads regarding Cross here and on the JtR Forums and a lot of stuff on Facebook etc. I honestly think the eureka moment was when it was found he 'lied' to the court and called himself Cross instead of Lechmere. The rest was manipulated around that. People call the shawl, the watch, the diary out more ferociously maybe because they are physical 'inventions' however should something be less ridiculed as not fact just because it's a timing, a conversation or a route to work - something less tangible that we physically can't touch?

[Geddy2112]

An educated guess doesn't equal garbage in. We cannot prove nor disprove anything maybe, but we can explore possible outcomes.

Hi Baron, I think as far as fingering someone to be the World's most notorious Serial Killer I think it does. We should stick with facts not speculation. Unfortunately facts are rather thin on the ground with regards to Lechmere, in fact I would comfortably state there is not ONE single fact that points to Lechmere's guilt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Would we have had this level of ‘interest’ in Cross as a suspect if we hadn’t had the ‘gap’ manufactured by the deliberate omission of the word ‘about’? Just imagine a situation with no gap suggested for a minute. What’s left? He used the name of his step father instead of his birth name but did he gain any advantage in terms of evading the law? Absolutely not and it’s been categorically proven that this was hardly unique. So that’s two complete non-issues. So what’s left? A slight, unimportant miscommunication between Cross and Paul and Mizen - crime cases are full of miscommunications. Anything else? He was alone for an unprovable length of time with a recently killed woman like the millions of other people that find bodies. Do the circumstances mean that Cross was a likelier killer than a guy who fled the scene just before he arrived. Of course not.

That this can’t be seen as obvious stuff is a pretty sad state of affairs.

[The Baron]

This is kind of my point, all the fancy mathematics do is provide a possible theory. However if the maths are not founded in facts then you are going to get a false, not factual theory.

1) We do not know when Cross left home.
2) We do not know what route Cross took to work.
3) We do not know if Cross stopped or slowed down for any particular reason.
4) We do not know Cross' walking speed.
5) We do not know when Paul left home.
6) We do not know Paul's route (although his is rather straight forward.)
7) We do not know Paul's walking speed.
8) We do not know how good Paul's or Cross' hearing and sight was.
9) We do not know what time the body was discovered.

...the list goes on so with any mathematical formula if you put garbage in you are going to get garbage out I'm afraid and that is a HUGE problem when trying to pin a series of murders onto someone.

An educated guess doesn't equal garbage in.

We cannot prove nor disprove anything maybe, but we can explore possible outcomes.


The Baron

[Geddy2112]

This is kind of my point, all the fancy mathematics do is provide a possible theory. However if the maths are not founded in facts then you are going to get a false, not factual theory.

1) We do not know when Cross left home.
2) We do not know what route Cross took to work.
3) We do not know if Cross stopped or slowed down for any particular reason.
4) We do not know Cross' walking speed.
5) We do not know when Paul left home.
6) We do not know Paul's route (although his is rather straight forward.)
7) We do not know Paul's walking speed.
8) We do not know how good Paul's or Cross' hearing and sight was.
9) We do not know what time the body was discovered.

...the list goes on so with any mathematical formula if you put garbage in you are going to get garbage out I'm afraid and that is a HUGE problem when trying to pin a series of murders onto someone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know you don't like numbers Herlock .... God knows why,
but we can use them to attempt to make sense of some things.

We already know what happened. Cross walked to work, found the body, Paul arrived, they walked together and found Mizen, they told him about the body then went to work, Mizen went to Bucks Row and found PC Neil with the body. Nothing to see here.

Is 4 am important to you? Of course it is, you use it to justify the impossibility of Lech committing the murder.
Go figure.

Ive never once said that it’s impossible for Cross to have been the killer but it’s ’not impossible’ that numerous men could have been the killer. I’ve said that there’s nothing to make us suspicious of him and the case that’s been made against him has been ‘created’ rather than by following the evidence. This continues to be the case.

It's not that numbers are irrelevant to you - you use them when you feel they are convenient; but when you assume they attack your position,
you quickly tack in the other direction.

So, you suddenly declare that numbers again are irrelevant? That's fine.

PC Neil abided by some schedule, and proceeded methodically, using some clock at the end to coordinate his activity. We can use this.
With a decent degree of precision, we can estimate 'his' time at which he arrived at certain destinations, back tracking from his position by the body at 3:45 am - his time.

Charles Lechmere had some sense of when he should leave the house (none you say?), and would be expected to proceed at some consistent rate to make it to work on time. Most people like sleep and would try to head out as late as possible.

Can we estimate his walking speed to make it to work on time? Of course, there is nothing to argue about here.
But, still you try.

The gap time would be when PC Neil looked at a clock and undoubtedly took a quick break, most probably sitting down for a spot - it would also be a routine.

You think he walked continuously for 8 hours, save a 30 minute break sometime.

Well, I suggest you try it .... and bring your lantern.


And for the record, my analysis here didn't go into when Lechmere left home and arrived at the body.
Nor did I assume that the sense of time for all individuals was synchronized.

It was more limited in scope.

I was responding very specifically to Geddy’s post, as the fact that I’d quoted it should have made clear. He made this point:

. I thought we had all generally agreed over the last ten or so years there was no mysterious time gap and that was an invention by Team Lechmere to frame an innocent man.

So I responded to that point alone by stating nothing but facts. We don’t have an exact time that Cross left the house and we don’t have an exact time the Robert Paul met Cross and we can’t know either of those men’s exact walking speeds therefore suggesting a gap is impossible.

[Newbie]

There is no time gap. We don’t know what time Cross left his house and we don’t know what time Paul met Cross. Numbers are irrelevant. A wave of numbers changes nothing. There’s nothing to make us suspicious about Cross. He found a body, nothing more.

I know you don't like numbers Herlock .... God knows why,
but we can use them to attempt to make sense of some things.

Is 4 am important to you? Of course it is, you use it to justify the impossibility of Lech committing the murder.
Go figure.

It's not that numbers are irrelevant to you - you use them when you feel they are convenient; but when you assume they attack your position,
you quickly tack in the other direction.

So, you suddenly declare that numbers again are irrelevant? That's fine.

PC Neil abided by some schedule, and proceeded methodically, using some clock at the end to coordinate his activity. We can use this.
With a decent degree of precision, we can estimate 'his' time at which he arrived at certain destinations, back tracking from his position by the body at 3:45 am - his time.

Charles Lechmere had some sense of when he should leave the house (none you say?), and would be expected to proceed at some consistent rate to make it to work on time. Most people like sleep and would try to head out as late as possible.

Can we estimate his walking speed to make it to work on time? Of course, there is nothing to argue about here.
But, still you try.

The gap time would be when PC Neil looked at a clock and undoubtedly took a quick break, most probably sitting down for a spot - it would also be a routine.

You think he walked continuously for 8 hours, save a 30 minute break sometime.

Well, I suggest you try it .... and bring your lantern.


And for the record, my analysis here didn't go into when Lechmere left home and arrived at the body.
Nor did I assume that the sense of time for all individuals was synchronized.

It was more limited in scope.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm looking at Herlock Sholmes and Fiver here to come in and dissect the maths on this one. As for me I'd kind of ignore it and go with the 'no way of accurately assume time' routine and you are talking in parts of a minute (seconds) to make a point which I consider unsafe.

I thought we had all generally agreed over the last ten or so years there was no mysterious time gap and that was an invention by Team Lechmere to frame an innocent man.

There is no time gap. We don’t know what time Cross left his house and we don’t know what time Paul met Cross. Numbers are irrelevant. A wave of numbers changes nothing. There’s nothing to make us suspicious about Cross. He found a body, nothing more.

[Geddy2112]

And yes, the gap time should be 5 minutes and 38 seconds ..... a mistake I cannot correct.

I'm looking at Herlock Sholmes and Fiver here to come in and dissect the maths on this one. As for me I'd kind of ignore it and go with the 'no way of accurately assume time' routine and you are talking in parts of a minute (seconds) to make a point which I consider unsafe.

I thought we had all generally agreed over the last ten or so years there was no mysterious time gap and that was an invention by Team Lechmere to frame an innocent man.

[The Baron]

One interesting result from my calculations is that if this were PC Neil's route and pace, he would be cruising up and down Court Street and then Thomas St. (south) between 3:33 am & 3:35 am, and then arrive at the top of Buck's row (White's row) on Baker street after 3:37 am and then linger there for about a minute.

The advantage of this route and pace is that:

A. it covers all the streets on this cycle, except for Queen Anne Street, which had no commerical properties and perhaps the Woods buildings passage / Nelson court, which are covered in a glance.
B. it has PC Neil, at 4 different locations within 'hearing distance' of the murder site, before exiting Thomas Street (north) at Buck's row.

The disadvantage is:

it cannot be covered briskly in 12 minutes: it takes 24 minutes going all the way around at 2.5 mph.
However, cut out Winthrop street, along with the ingresses up Court, Thomas and White's row (roughly 500 yards) and a 'brisk' walk could possibly take 12 minutes.
* that would be 1276 yards in total: 1276 yards = 0.725 miles, 12 minutes = 0.2 hours --> 0.725 miles / 0.2 hours = 3.625 mph ( a brisk walk)

If a prostitute wanted to take a punter/John down to Buck's row from White Chapel road, then after 3:30 am, Brady street would be the way to go; before 3:30 am it would be from the western end: Court or Thomas Street. Experienced prostitutes would know the general location of beat cops. If not, they'd ask a friend when they arrived. Polly Nichols had been doing this sort of thing for at least 10 years and knew the ropes, even while sloshed. It would behoove Jack the Ripper to know pretty much where the beat cops were situated before he slashed a victims throat. If he didn't, he could ply the victim while they walked to the spot, or he could assume based on the direction they entered and the location.

The direction Jack the Ripper would most likely want to escape is eastward before 3:30 am, being led there from Thomas/Court,
and westward after 3:30 am, being led there via Bradley street.

Its possible, but leaving White Chapel without a client, to hang out at Brown's stable yard would be a very odd: the streets were unusually quiet that night per multiple sources.

Great Newbie!


The Baron