Why is the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper so often discarded?

[Mark J D]

... If I remember, the advantage of hobnailed boots is that they lasted much longer. The PCs seemed to be wearing them, because Neil could hear Thain at the base of Buck's row...

Didn't someone on here once point out that police boots had wooden soles back then?

M.

[John Wheat]

If I remember, the advantage of hobnailed boots is that they lasted much longer.
The PCs seemed to be wearing them, because Neil could hear Thain at the base of Buck's row.

Lech would spend roughly 1 hour each day just walking back and forth to work, and Paul would spend 30 minutes.
Cheap shoes would wear out very quickly under such a regiment.

Having functioning shoes was an issue for people back in the day.

I really can't see Jack the Ripper wearing hobnail boots they would be too noisy.

[JeffHamm]

One remarkable feature of our brains is that it tunes out noises that are uninformative - particularly the repetitive sound of your hobnailed boots striking the ground while walking, while focusing on what is new.

This process is called sensory gating.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics...nic%20patients.

From an article on the subject:

Our brains are remarkably good at cancelling out all sorts of constants in our everyday lives. The brain is interested in changes that it needs to react or respond to, and so brain cells are charged with looking for any of these differences, no matter how minute.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20120508-why-your-brain-loves-to-tune-out

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20120508-why-your-brain-loves-to-tune-out

So, the brain of Lechmere/Paul, when walking in a dangerous, dark neighborhood would be filtering out its own repetitive footsteps and limited bland visual information, and be locked on to any new sounds coming from in front or behind.

The brain of guilty Lechmere would be flooded with new visual and olfactory information coming from the dead/dying body in front of him. He is far less likely to
pick up on the new information of Paul's footsteps in a timely manner than an innocent Lech, walking only 50 yards ahead.

Unless Lech felt perfectly safe walking down Buck's row early morning and was wrapped in his own thoughts, its simply not credible to think he was impervious to Paul's footsteps for over a minute until that last moment

And yes, he could have arrived earlier than he stated, noticed the figure, examined it for a bit and hearing the footsteps of Paul went back towards the middle of the road and pretended to just have discovered it....fearful of being blamed for a crime he did not commit.

I will respond to your other points when i have time.

Like everything involving the brain and our perceptions, it's a bit more complicated than that. Yes, we habituate to constant stimulation. If you can hold your eyes as still as possible and stare at something, after a short period your vision will start to blurr and fade as the retinal cells habituate. We move our eyes a lot more than we realise, in what are called "microsaccades", to prevent this. It's also why we do not notice the feel of our clothes most of the time, or why we do not feel our tongue inside our mouth (which you've probably just become aware of now; no, there's no need to thank me). The light pattern on our eyes that causes vision to fade is occurring right at the sensory level (the cells in the eyes and very early portions of the visual track fatigue).

Things like the stimulation on our tongue, or our clothes against us, are not constants, the pattern is changing (our tongue moves, the clothes move, etc), but they get filtered out due to their familiarity - they are not really very informative to us. However, if we direct our attention to them, we can become aware of them, we can feel the weight of our shoes, or the brush of a pant leg, or when our tongue touches the back of our teeth and how it fills our mouth, etc.

As a result, Lech might not "take any notice" of the sounds of his own footfalls, but that doesn't mean they are filtered out and weaker signals like someone else's footfalls in the distance would somehow become important. Rather, the footfalls of an innocent Lechmere would mask the weaker signal and make it more unlikely for him to hear them, particularly as the sounds of other people walking around would also be a familiar sound on his walk to work. Unless he's attending to such sounds, they all are likely to go unnoticed.

Contrast that with a guilty Lechmere, who is not making any footfalls, and who would be in a high alert state, listening specifically for the sounds of anybody in the area. That Lechmere is much more likely to hear someone at a distance, much greater than his estimated 40 yards. Moreover, a guilty Lechmere is going to be on alert in order to flee, to avoid detection, particularly if he's supposed to be a clever, and planning, psychopath. Moreover, he's more likely to misperceive any sound as a person approaching as in the situation missing a real person approaching has a far greater penalty than mistaking something for being a person approaching (the two types of errors are not equivalent).

Basically, considering what he is likely to hear or not hear is greatly influenced by what state he himself is in at the time, and what his attention is likely to be focusing on. An innocent Lechmere is unlikely to be focusing on distant footsteps on his walk to work, while a guilty Lechmere is going to be specifically scanning for those very sounds. The former is, therefore, unlikely to notice them until his situation changes such as when he stops, becomes aware there's a woman in front of him, and his state goes from "ho hum, another day at work" to "oh my, something is very different here today, what's going on?" - and it is when he enters a more "my surroundings are not as they should be" state that he then notices footsteps approaching - and that is entirely consistent with how our perceptions and attention systems works.

To not hear Lechmere until he's only 40 yards away is inconsistent with a guilty Lechmere, who would be monitoring for such sounds. Of course, given guilty Lechmere has to get to the middle of the street, he must have heard Paul at a distance greater than 40 yards. He also has to believe he can get up from the body and walk to the middle of the street without Paul seeing him do so, otherwise Paul will know he was at the body. But if he believes he can do that, he must also believe he can leave the scene without Paul seeing him, making his choice to engage with Paul hard to comprehend. While one can argue that a psychopath won't make rational decisions, etc, that is a bit of a "no matter what he does, when it appears odd it's just the psychopath card, and when it appears clever, it's also the psychopath card because they are cunning and clever, leading us to a situation where no matter what he does we just claim he's a psychopath. So it explains everything without predicting anything - we can't predict his behavior because whatever he does we just say he's psychopathic, so all behaviors are possible making none predictable. That's not a theory, that's a catch all, theories make predictions, and rule out certain possibilities, while a catch all just catches everything and predicts nothing).

What's also missing, of course, is anything to suggest that Lechmere was a psychopath. We can't use the JtR crimes, or his behaviours within that context, as evidence he was a psychopath because that becomes circular reasoning. We would be looking for evidence from his life, and so far nothing in his life points to psychopathy. This leaves us with two explanations for his actions, one based upon him being psychopathic, which is rare, and for which we have no supporting evidence, and which appears to be used in such a way that no matter what he does it will be folded into that explanation (a catch all explanation), and another, which also accounts for his behaviour, and predicts more or less what he did and predicts he won't do some thing (i.e. he won't attack Paul; he won't have a knife on him; he won't be overly concerned about speaking to the police because he knows he is innocent and he doesn't know Polly is dead for sure; he won't prevent Paul from interacting with Polly because again, he doesn't know there is anything to "find" - i.e. her throat is cut, her abdomen is mutilated). If he had a knife on him, that was found to be bloody, that would be evidence against him because the innocent theory predicts that should not occur. The Psychopath catchall allows for that to have been discovered, and when it is not, it's because he's so clever and he hid it, and so forth. He's also not afraid to speak to PC Mizen, despite having this knife, because he's so clever, but he's not so clever as to just allow Paul to walk on by, which is what he appears to try to do - the catch all has him making both "clever and cunning" decisions and "stupid and foolish" decisions, folding both into the "because he's a psychopath" catchall explanation.

Anyway, I've meandered off from the perceptual stuff, sorry. But basically, there are a lot more factors involved in our sensation and perception of the world around us, and our attentional systems (there's more than one) play a big part in selecting what sensory information to give priority to. And one thing that influences that selection process is our current state of being, and if you've just killed someone and are with the body, that state is going to put you in a state where sounds of capture/discovery are going to be prioritized. If you are just walking to work as per usual, you are not going to be in a state where everyday and normal sounds get noticed - unless, of course, that day turns out to be unusual. We react to change, and Lechmere's testimony about noting what appeared to be a tarpaulin, was an initial change (but one that was still within the realm of "normal"), and he reacts to that by approaching it. Once he notes it is a woman, that is now a larger change, making the day "weird", and at that point his attention will alert him to his environment, and that's when he notes Paul. He description of events is entirely consistent with what we know about how our senses and attention works.

- Jeff

[FrankO]

As a result, Lech might not "take any notice" of the sounds of his own footfalls, but that doesn't mean they are filtered out and weaker signals like someone else's footfalls in the distance would somehow become important. Rather, the footfalls of an innocent Lechmere would mask the weaker signal and make it more unlikely for him to hear them, particularly as the sounds of other people walking around would also be a familiar sound on his walk to work. Unless he's attending to such sounds, they all are likely to go unnoticed.

Contrast that with a guilty Lechmere, who is not making any footfalls, and who would be in a high alert state, listening specifically for the sounds of anybody in the area. That Lechmere is much more likely to hear someone at a distance, much greater than his estimated 40 yards. Moreover, a guilty Lechmere is going to be on alert in order to flee, to avoid detection, particularly if he's supposed to be a clever, and planning, psychopath. Moreover, he's more likely to misperceive any sound as a person approaching as in the situation missing a real person approaching has a far greater penalty than mistaking something for being a person approaching (the two types of errors are not equivalent).

Basically, considering what he is likely to hear or not hear is greatly influenced by what state he himself is in at the time, and what his attention is likely to be focusing on. An innocent Lechmere is unlikely to be focusing on distant footsteps on his walk to work, while a guilty Lechmere is going to be specifically scanning for those very sounds. The former is, therefore, unlikely to notice them until his situation changes such as when he stops, becomes aware there's a woman in front of him, and his state goes from "ho hum, another day at work" to "oh my, something is very different here today, what's going on?" - and it is when he enters a more "my surroundings are not as they should be" state that he then notices footsteps approaching - and that is entirely consistent with how our perceptions and attention systems works.

To not hear Lechmere until he's only 40 yards away is inconsistent with a guilty Lechmere, who would be monitoring for such sounds. Of course, given guilty Lechmere has to get to the middle of the street, he must have heard Paul at a distance greater than 40 yards. He also has to believe he can get up from the body and walk to the middle of the street without Paul seeing him do so, otherwise Paul will know he was at the body. But if he believes he can do that, he must also believe he can leave the scene without Paul seeing him, making his choice to engage with Paul hard to comprehend.

Thanks for stepping in, Jeff. This is exactly how I see it and I was drawing from personal experience. Whenever I follow my routine routes to work, the city centre, my soccer club or things like that, I always tend to get there as quickly as I can, and get very easily caught up with my own thoughts while doing so. It has happened more than once that shortly after such a trip someone I know said to me: “Didn’t you see me the other day? I even waved/spoke to you/honked the horn, but I got nothing from you!” I do remember hearing a horn then, but remain oblivious of the person trying to get my attention, nontheless. And this is how I see it would be very much possible for an innocent Lechmere not to hear Paul until he noticed the tarpaulin shape was actually a woman and how I think it would be difficult for a guilty Lechmere at the side of Nichols's body to not be listening for sounds and not hearing Paul ever-getting louder footfalls until he had about gotten halfway Brady Street and the crime scene, especially when we consider he's supposed to be stationary at that point. Also, how could a guilty Lechmere know or even have the idea that Paul wouldn't see or hear him until he'd taken up his position in the middle of the road?

[MrBarnett]

Of course, this was a fairly new route for Lechmere and it was through a reputedly dangerous part of London. Would he have been on full auto-pilot, oblivious of what was going on around him?

Lechmere stepping back from Polly to approach Paul and show him what he’d found seems like a less suspicious action to me than leaving the scene immediately upon becoming aware of Paul’s approach.

[Newbie]

I really can't see Jack the Ripper wearing hobnail boots they would be too noisy.

They would present a problem.

[JeffHamm]

Of course, this was a fairly new route for Lechmere and it was through a reputedly dangerous part of London. Would he have been on full auto-pilot, oblivious of what was going on around him?

Lechmere stepping back from Polly to approach Paul and show him what he’d found seems like a less suspicious action to me than leaving the scene immediately upon becoming aware of Paul’s approach.

He had lived in the Whitechapel area for quite a long time, it's not like he moved in from the West End. And, he had moved long enough that his route to work would be well established. Generally, people are going to be more attentive to what is ahead of them, given they've already been through and evaluated what is behind. As such, even if he is scouting for danger, which his testimony doesn't imply but we can consider it all the same, then he's going to be more focused on what is up ahead (hence spotting Polly at a distance in the first place, even if he misidentified what he first saw).

Stepping back from Polly, etc, for a guilty Cross/Lechmere, requires he knows he can do all that movement without being seen otherwise his personal risk becomes undeniably huge. And if he knows he can't be seen, leaving the scene becomes the far less riskier option as he has complete control over that option, while allowing Paul to approach, and then to engage Paul to look at the body when he appears to try and just get past, is to follow the highest risk and most foolish path. It's not defying the laws of physics, so it's not impossible, but not all possible options are probable. Our difference in that latter evaluation appear to reflect our differences in the risk assessment. I cannot see how remaining and moving away from the body could ever be evaluated as less risky than fleeing the scene, particularly as leaving at a quite walking pace is unlikely to arouse Paul's suspicions until he eventually arrives at the body, and only then if Paul chooses to examine her (and not just presume she's passed out). And by that time, he would be far enough away, and never seen well enough to be identified or recognized, that he's removed the risk he was facing. Clearly, you evaluate that differently than I do, and so you come to a different conclusion. That's the nature of things, if we disagree on the starting point (risk assessment), it's hardly surprising we get to different conclusions as to what follows. The commonality is that we are both following what we believe to be the path with least risk, so I guess we agree that he would choose things that reduce his risk, we just disagree on what the risks are.

- Jeff

[Newbie]

As a result, Lech might not "take any notice" of the sounds of his own footfalls, but that doesn't mean they are filtered out and weaker signals like someone else's footfalls in the distance would somehow become important. Rather, the footfalls of an innocent Lechmere would mask the weaker signal and make it more unlikely for him to hear them, particularly as the sounds of other people walking around would also be a familiar sound on his walk to work. Unless he's attending to such sounds, they all are likely to go unnoticed.


Contrast that with a guilty Lechmere, who is not making any footfalls, and who would be in a high alert state, listening specifically for the sounds of anybody in the area. That Lechmere is much more likely to hear someone at a distance, much greater than his estimated 40 yards. Moreover, a guilty Lechmere is going to be on alert in order to flee, to avoid detection, particularly if he's supposed to be a clever, and planning, psychopath. Moreover, he's more likely to misperceive any sound as a person approaching as in the situation missing a real person approaching has a far greater penalty than mistaking something for being a person approaching (the two types of errors are not equivalent).


Basically, considering what he is likely to hear or not hear is greatly influenced by what state he himself is in at the time, and what his attention is likely to be focusing on. An innocent Lechmere is unlikely to be focusing on distant footsteps on his walk to work, while a guilty Lechmere is going to be specifically scanning for those very sounds. The former is, therefore, unlikely to notice them until his situation changes such as when he stops, becomes aware there's a woman in front of him, and his state goes from "ho hum, another day at work" to "oh my, something is very different here today, what's going on?" - and it is when he enters a more "my surroundings are not as they should be" state that he then notices footsteps approaching - and that is entirely consistent with how our perceptions and attention systems works.


To not hear Lechmere until he's only 40 yards away is inconsistent with a guilty Lechmere, who would be monitoring for such sounds. Of course, given guilty Lechmere has to get to the middle of the street, he must have heard Paul at a distance greater than 40 yards. He also has to believe he can get up from the body and walk to the middle of the street without Paul seeing him do so, otherwise Paul will know he was at the body. But if he believes he can do that, he must also believe he can leave the scene without Paul seeing him, making his choice to engage with Paul hard to comprehend. While one can argue that a psychopath won't make rational decisions, etc, that is a bit of a "no matter what he does, when it appears odd it's just the psychopath card, and when it appears clever, it's also the psychopath card because they are cunning and clever, leading us to a situation where no matter what he does we just claim he's a psychopath. So it explains everything without predicting anything - we can't predict his behavior because whatever he does we just say he's psychopathic, so all behaviors are possible making none predictable. That's not a theory, that's a catch all, theories make predictions, and rule out certain possibilities, while a catch all just catches everything and predicts nothing).



Anyway, I've meandered off from the perceptual stuff, sorry. But basically, there are a lot more factors involved in our sensation and perception of the world around us, and our attentional systems (there's more than one) play a big part in selecting what sensory information to give priority to. And one thing that influences that selection process is our current state of being, and if you've just killed someone and are with the body, that state is going to put you in a state where sounds of capture/discovery are going to be prioritized. If you are just walking to work as per usual, you are not going to be in a state where everyday and normal sounds get noticed - unless, of course, that day turns out to be unusual. We react to change, and Lechmere's testimony about noting what appeared to be a tarpaulin, was an initial change (but one that was still within the realm of "normal"), and he reacts to that by approaching it. Once he notes it is a woman, that is now a larger change, making the day "weird", and at that point his attention will alert him to his environment, and that's when he notes Paul. He description of events is entirely consistent with what we know about how our senses and attention works.


- Jeff

We are entirely in disagreement.

You contend that Lech walking casually down Buck's row is not monitoring for sounds, then what is his brain monitoring at this time? Wouldn’t it be monitoring for danger, or was that part of the brain deactivated and instead it was pondering upon the interesting upcoming work day, impervious to external stimuli? I would opt for danger and particularly sounds, given the limited visibility.


You are simply not correct on one account, so i felt a need to clarify it:


"As a result, Lech might not "take any notice" of the sounds of his own footfalls, but that doesn't mean they are filtered out and weaker signals like someone else's footfalls in the distance would somehow become important. Rather, the footfalls of an innocent Lechmere would mask the weaker signal and make it more unlikely for him to hear them, particularly as the sounds of other people walking around would also be a familiar sound on his walk to work. Unless he's attending to such sounds, they all are likely to go unnoticed."


Yes, they are filtered out in several respects. Your position on Lech’s footsteps canceling the weaker footsteps of Paul is at variance to all known research on the subject concerning the unconscious brain and whether or not it is ‘focusing’ on distant sounds. Unless Lech was purposefully focused on his own footsteps, this cancellation process is simply not true and I would ask you to do some further reading on the subject. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes no sense.


Once again, there are special neurons tasked with looking for what is novel in our environment. When they are activated by novel stimuli, the brain gives them precedence over anything else. This need not be a conscious process, but it certainly becomes enhanced when focusing on directing the brain towards noticing certain stimuli. When we are talking about weaker signals, we are not talking about the intensity of the sound waves in this case, but of the strength of the neuron signals sent to the brain in response - the action potential of neurons fired when stimulated. Repetitive stimulation causes them to fatigue: it takes energy to prepare neurons to re-fire, and after a bit it is a waste of energy continuously firing signals from a repetitive stimuli: typically, the activated neurons stop sending signals. You started out giving a good reason why the brain ignores most stimuli....there are just too many sights, sounds, touches of which we need not pay attention, and which would require too much energy to take notice. These signals are not evaluated and ignored, they do not exist, no longer activating neural activity. Another filter would be a certain part of the brain that monitors signals no longer evaluating those from the region from which they come. One can for sure consciously direct the brain towards focusing on certain stimuli type: shapes, colors, particular sounds, even that of your own footsteps. Most people walking that street at that time would be consciously focused on new sounds.


A wonderful example of the brain at work is the bird in the cage game: stare at it for 20 seconds, and then quickly look away at a white background and you see a ghostly image of the bird. However, in the ghostly image is no longer the original red color…….the image contains all colors excluding red. The reason for this is that the red cones have fatigued and are no longer firing. It takes energy to move potassium ions back into a neuron to prepare it to fire again.

This is why repetitive sights & sounds are tuned out. Neuron signals are no longer being sent, despite the external strength of the signal, or the portion of the brain monitoring ignores signals from that region of neurons. Either lends itself to the same outcome....ignoring something. What this means is that Lech’s brain, whether actively focused or not, would take note of those novel new signals, ignoring his own…..those audio neurons no longer firing, or a part of the brain that monitors for sounds no longer interested in the neural region that responds to Lech’s footsteps. As for the more active listener in Lech he killer, that is the Lech as a multi-tasker theory. He has two things on mind: mutilating and listening; he’s not focused on both simultaneously. He’s not making his cuts at specific regions and focused on footsteps, particularly if he is not expecting them. If he’s poised listening for footsteps (why do they take precedence?), he’s not doing the cutting. So, i disagree with you entirely.

[JeffHamm]

We are entirely in disagreement.

You contend that Lech walking casually down Buck's row is not monitoring for sounds, then what is his brain monitoring at this time? Wouldn’t it be monitoring for danger, or was that part of the brain deactivated and instead it was pondering upon the interesting upcoming work day, impervious to external stimuli? I would opt for danger and particularly sounds, given the limited visibility.


You are simply not correct on one account, so i felt a need to clarify it:


"As a result, Lech might not "take any notice" of the sounds of his own footfalls, but that doesn't mean they are filtered out and weaker signals like someone else's footfalls in the distance would somehow become important. Rather, the footfalls of an innocent Lechmere would mask the weaker signal and make it more unlikely for him to hear them, particularly as the sounds of other people walking around would also be a familiar sound on his walk to work. Unless he's attending to such sounds, they all are likely to go unnoticed."


Yes, they are filtered out in several respects. Your position on Lech’s footsteps canceling the weaker footsteps of Paul is at variance to all known research on the subject concerning the unconscious brain and whether or not it is ‘focusing’ on distant sounds. Unless Lech was purposefully focused on his own footsteps, this cancellation process is simply not true and I would ask you to do some further reading on the subject. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes no sense.


Once again, there are special neurons tasked with looking for what is novel in our environment. When they are activated by novel stimuli, the brain gives them precedence over anything else. This need not be a conscious process, but it certainly becomes enhanced when focusing on directing the brain towards noticing certain stimuli. When we are talking about weaker signals, we are not talking about the intensity of the sound waves in this case, but of the strength of the neuron signals sent to the brain in response - the action potential of neurons fired when stimulated. Repetitive stimulation causes them to fatigue: it takes energy to prepare neurons to re-fire, and after a bit it is a waste of energy continuously firing signals from a repetitive stimuli: typically, the activated neurons stop sending signals. You started out giving a good reason why the brain ignores most stimuli....there are just too many sights, sounds, touches of which we need not pay attention, and which would require too much energy to take notice. These signals are not evaluated and ignored, they do not exist, no longer activating neural activity. Another filter would be a certain part of the brain that monitors signals no longer evaluating those from the region from which they come. One can for sure consciously direct the brain towards focusing on certain stimuli type: shapes, colors, particular sounds, even that of your own footsteps. Most people walking that street at that time would be consciously focused on new sounds.


A wonderful example of the brain at work is the bird in the cage game: stare at it for 20 seconds, and then quickly look away at a white background and you see a ghostly image of the bird. However, in the ghostly image is no longer the original red color…….the image contains all colors excluding red. The reason for this is that the red cones have fatigued and are no longer firing. It takes energy to move potassium ions back into a neuron to prepare it to fire again.

This is why repetitive sights & sounds are tuned out. Neuron signals are no longer being sent, despite the external strength of the signal, or the portion of the brain monitoring ignores signals from that region of neurons. Either lends itself to the same outcome....ignoring something. What this means is that Lech’s brain, whether actively focused or not, would take note of those novel new signals, ignoring his own…..those audio neurons no longer firing, or a part of the brain that monitors for sounds no longer interested in the neural region that responds to Lech’s footsteps. As for the more active listener in Lech he killer, that is the Lech as a multi-tasker theory. He has two things on mind: mutilating and listening; he’s not focused on both simultaneously. He’s not making his cuts at specific regions and focused on footsteps, particularly if he is not expecting them. If he’s poised listening for footsteps (why do they take precedence?), he’s not doing the cutting. So, i disagree with you entirely.

You can disagree. But, for what it's worth, IRL I do research and lecture on this sort of stuff (human perception and attention), so, in my defence, I would like to think I am actually aware of the research in this area. But, as we know, people can claim anything on the internet.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

This is exactly why Lechmere should be taken off the suspect list .

[MrBarnett]

He had lived in the Whitechapel area for quite a long time, it's not like he moved in from the West End. And, he had moved long enough that his route to work would be well established. Generally, people are going to be more attentive to what is ahead of them, given they've already been through and evaluated what is behind. As such, even if he is scouting for danger, which his testimony doesn't imply but we can consider it all the same, then he's going to be more focused on what is up ahead (hence spotting Polly at a distance in the first place, even if he misidentified what he first saw).

Stepping back from Polly, etc, for a guilty Cross/Lechmere, requires he knows he can do all that movement without being seen otherwise his personal risk becomes undeniably huge. And if he knows he can't be seen, leaving the scene becomes the far less riskier option as he has complete control over that option, while allowing Paul to approach, and then to engage Paul to look at the body when he appears to try and just get past, is to follow the highest risk and most foolish path. It's not defying the laws of physics, so it's not impossible, but not all possible options are probable. Our difference in that latter evaluation appear to reflect our differences in the risk assessment. I cannot see how remaining and moving away from the body could ever be evaluated as less risky than fleeing the scene, particularly as leaving at a quite walking pace is unlikely to arouse Paul's suspicions until he eventually arrives at the body, and only then if Paul chooses to examine her (and not just presume she's passed out). And by that time, he would be far enough away, and never seen well enough to be identified or recognized, that he's removed the risk he was facing. Clearly, you evaluate that differently than I do, and so you come to a different conclusion. That's the nature of things, if we disagree on the starting point (risk assessment), it's hardly surprising we get to different conclusions as to what follows. The commonality is that we are both following what we believe to be the path with least risk, so I guess we agree that he would choose things that reduce his risk, we just disagree on what the risks are.

- Jeff

Jeff,

What do you mean by the Whitechapel area? How long do you imagine he had lived in that area?

What do you mean by the West End? Were there no dangerous areas there?

You seem to know all this stuff. Can you enlighten us?

Gary

[JeffHamm]

Jeff,

What do you mean by the Whitechapel area? How long do you imagine he had lived in that area?

What do you mean by the West End? Were there no dangerous areas there?

You seem to know all this stuff. Can you enlighten us?

Gary

Hi Gary,

Hmmm, I thought all of those rather self evident. But, the "Whitechapel area" means, you know, the area around Whitechapel. Nearby, in the vicinity, he could walk from his new residence to his old without it seeming a big deal. Basically, he was familiar with the general area, it wasn't a big move to a whole new part of London. I think we can show both his old and new residences on the same map without zooming out too much. Not sure how else to put it. My understanding is that he lived in his previous address for some years, and in his new location for a few months? I believe his mother lived in the general area as well didn't she, and he used to live with her too. I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong though, but you don't appear to know either otherwise you would have provided the information I'm sure and wouldn't need me to "enlighten" you. Sadly, I can just offer what I've picked up from others posting about Cross/Lechmere and it's entirely possible I misunderstood what they were saying, so true enlightenment will have to come from elsewhere.

The West End refers to the West Side of London (not entirely sure where the division lies though), which I understand was of a more affluent nature and had a much reduced crime level. If someone had lived there, but circumstances forced them to move to the "Whitechapel area", they would probably be much more frightened and worried of their surroundings, in part because it was more violent and dangerous, and in part because they woudl probably have heard rumours to make it seem even worse. People habituate to their surroundings, and note the change or difference. So Cross/Lechmere, who still lives in an area he's familiar with, and who has to walk through areas he's familiar with (even if not the exact same streets), is going to be more comfortable in general than someone who moved from the West End of London I would think.

Anyway, I hope I've clarified what I was saying.

- Jeff

[Newbie]

You can disagree. But, for what it's worth, IRL I do research and lecture on this sort of stuff (human perception and attention), so, in my defence, I would like to think I am actually aware of the research in this area. But, as we know, people can claim anything on the internet.

- Jeff

Great!

Then you can provide me with a study on how repetitive auditory signals (& i don't mean someone operating a jackhammer) 'cancels' out less intense but novel auditory information that is perceptible, absent any other sound.

That is all that i am asking. If not, you are using a scientifically unverified idea to support a position - and you need to move away from it.

As of now, the 'cancels out' idea doesn't wash.

A much better mode of argument would be along the lines of the soles of shoes of typical workmen in late Victorian England were not likely to produce sounds along that road that were perceptible beyond close range.

[Newbie]

And i have been looking along those lines: its not easy to get information.

Hobnailed shoes were popular among soldiers in WWI, and certain perfections were made at that time to reduce certain disadvantages.
One such disadvantage was the ingress of water, another is that they did not provide good traction along hard, and particularly wet pavement.
They were best used plodding through dirt.

Here is a picture of some hobnailed boots worn by someone in the 19th century from the excavations of Christ Church, Spitafields, East London:

https://blog.underoverarch.co.nz/2014/09/these-boots-are-made-for-walking-in-19th-century-christchurch/

[Newbie]

And here is an excerpt from an article in A dictionary of Every-day wants ©1872 on shoe and boot care:

http://historicaltidbits.blogspot.com/2016/10/boots-shoe-care.html

"If shoes be treated in this manner, and a row of round-headed shoe nails be driven around the edge of the soles, they will wear like copper, and always set easy to the feet. Boots and shoes should be treated as suggested, and worn a little several months before they are put to daily service."