Evidence of innocence

[Abby Normal]

So the question is, how long did his curiosity curtail his journey before he became aware of Paul.

seconds, or should have been

[harry]

To become a person of interest or suspect,one has to be connected to a crime.Now the murder of Nichols as far as we know,was unobserved.There were no eye witness evidence.There was no physical evidence that could be used against a person.Nothing that could connect any person that later came to notice.Cross,like many others,can be connected to the crime scene only.He cannot be connected to the killing.The killing occured before Cross reached the scene.That is the situation we are faced with,according to the information that is known,information given mainly by Cross himself.The theory of Cross being the killer is therefor based on Cross having lied about his activities that morning.It is a theory based on possibilities,not on information provided.Posters say we are not a court or police investigating the crime,so normal standards shouldn't apply.That is an excuse not justifiable,as Cross was a real person,the killing of Nichols a real crime.If Cross lied,it is up to those who theory it is,to prove that theory by supplying evidence that Cross was in Nichols company when she was killed,and it was Cross who killed her.

[drstrange169]

>>Doesn’t answer the question even 1%. If our protagonists are 40 - 50m apart then why doesn’t Paul sight him sooner ?<<

First of all you are not explaining yourself. As I already asked you and haven't yet replied to is, when are you talking about?

If you are talking about prior to entering Buck's Row, this has been explained ad nauseam. Jeff has shown how, I wrote an article on how, Steve's book shows how and it has been explained on the boards numerous times.

Are you talking ONLY about Buck's Row?

If so, are you asking about when the two were walking?

Are you talking about when Paul first saw Cross?

Are you talking about when Cross claims he HEARED Paul?

I'm presuming you mean when Cross first heard Paul because that is the ONLY estimation of a distance of 40 yards we have.

In that case on what evidence are you basing your claim Paul doesn't sight Cross until Cross turned around to face him?


>>Its hard for you because you actually have to think for yourself, think in the abstract, analyse and understand and come up with a possible solution.<<

You seem to think coming up with "possible solutions" is the be all end end all of ripperology.

Many like me are interested in research, uncovering facts not theories. I strongly recommend you read some of Debra Arif's posts. They are all all about uncovering information not chasing pet suspects. Most of what we know comes from people like her.

Why are academics expected to put their work up for peer review? A theory is just a theory until somebody can't find any holes in it. The Lechmere theory has enough holes "to fill the Albert Hall".

Altering quotes, not listening to other people, misdirecting, choosing dubious evidence over robust evidence, avoiding answering questions and refusing to acknowledge errors isn't thinking abstractly and analysing, it's fakery.

There might be a credible case for a Cross killer to be made, but nobody is presenting one here.

[JeffHamm]

Ok, so it's done.

And the simulation with them 40 yards apart the whole time can be seen here (I've reduced the commentary).

While it's a minor change in positions, it does mean there's a small chance Paul could have seen Cross/Lechmere before Buck's Row just as Paul steps out into Bath Street, and of course it also means there's a longer period of time where Paul could have seen Cross/Lechmere ahead of him in Buck's Row. What is frustrating for us is that while we have Cross/Lechmere telling us when he first became aware of Paul, we do not have the reverse. As such, it's hard to know if this version, or the previous version with them further apart initially, is closer to the truth. In the first version, it would suggest Cross/Lechmere slows down to try and work out what he's seeing and so his movement is reduced as he goes from thinking it's a tarpaulin to realising it's a woman. During that period Paul would be closing the distance between them, and it is only then that Cross/Lechmere turns to look and notices Paul at 40 yards. That would mean for most of their journeys Paul was more than 40 yards behind Cross/Lechmere.

In this updated version, we go with the idea that Cross/Lechmere keeps the same pace the whole time, and when he stops in the middle of the street he turns and sees Paul. This scenario would mean that they were always about 40 yards apart.

So we're probably wise to view the two versions as boundary conditions. The other issue, of course, is the accuracy of Cross/Lechmere's distance judgement. This is another area I want to read up on (the accuracy of witnesses' judgement of distance). If it's like time durations, then it may be people overestimate distance (meaning Paul was probably closer than 40 yards) or it may be people tend to underestimate distance (meaning Paul was probably more than 40 yards). But since I don't know the answer to that yet, we have to go with what we have in my opinion.

Anyway, here's the link to the 40 yards separation version.

https://youtu.be/OGaW4F2pPrg

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

Ok, so it's done.

And the simulation with them 40 yards apart the whole time can be seen here (I've reduced the commentary).

While it's a minor change in positions, it does mean there's a small chance Paul could have seen Cross/Lechmere before Buck's Row just as Paul steps out into Bath Street, and of course it also means there's a longer period of time where Paul could have seen Cross/Lechmere ahead of him in Buck's Row. What is frustrating for us is that while we have Cross/Lechmere telling us when he first became aware of Paul, we do not have the reverse. As such, it's hard to know if this version, or the previous version with them further apart initially, is closer to the truth. In the first version, it would suggest Cross/Lechmere slows down to try and work out what he's seeing and so his movement is reduced as he goes from thinking it's a tarpaulin to realising it's a woman. During that period Paul would be closing the distance between them, and it is only then that Cross/Lechmere turns to look and notices Paul at 40 yards. That would mean for most of their journeys Paul was more than 40 yards behind Cross/Lechmere.

In this updated version, we go with the idea that Cross/Lechmere keeps the same pace the whole time, and when he stops in the middle of the street he turns and sees Paul. This scenario would mean that they were always about 40 yards apart.

So we're probably wise to view the two versions as boundary conditions. The other issue, of course, is the accuracy of Cross/Lechmere's distance judgement. This is another area I want to read up on (the accuracy of witnesses' judgement of distance). If it's like time durations, then it may be people overestimate distance (meaning Paul was probably closer than 40 yards) or it may be people tend to underestimate distance (meaning Paul was probably more than 40 yards). But since I don't know the answer to that yet, we have to go with what we have in my opinion.

Anyway, here's the link to the 40 yards separation version.

https://youtu.be/OGaW4F2pPrg

- Jeff

What’s the likelihood that any two men would walk at exactly the same pace?

[drstrange169]

>>But, that's speculation, it's not in the testimony. We can look at things at their "testified limit", and see what that's like.<<

I'm glad you understand, I was being to think I was in blizzard world.

This what I keep telling Bob and he repeatedly fails to grasp. There is known evidence and there is speculation. Bob wants to ignore the known evidence and go with his personal opinions.

[JeffHamm]

What’s the likelihood that any two men would walk at exactly the same pace?

Where can I find their individual speeds? I was unaware that was available to us. More than happy to incorporate that as it would be great to know. Otherwise, I could just subjectively choose speeds rather than apply the average walking speed for an adult. Would you prefer I do that or would you like to?

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>>What’s the likelihood that any two men would walk at exactly the same pace?<<

That's why Jeff is offering variations, Bob seems to be of the opinion they were constantly 40 yards apart. I say seems because he won't tell us exactly what he's talking about.

[MrBarnett]

>>>What’s the likelihood that any two men would walk at exactly the same pace?<<

That's why Jeff is offering variations, Bob seems to be of the opinion they were constantly 40 yards apart. I say seems because he won't tell us exactly what he's talking about.

I thought Jeff considered hypothetical variations fantastical. ;-)

[MrBarnett]

Where can I find their individual speeds? I was unaware that was available to us. More than happy to incorporate that as it would be great to know. Otherwise, I could just subjectively choose speeds rather than apply the average walking speed for an adult. Would you prefer I do that or would you like to?

- Jeff

It isn’t, so you’ll have to delve into the world of fantasy.

[JeffHamm]

>>But, that's speculation, it's not in the testimony. We can look at things at their "testified limit", and see what that's like.<<

I'm glad you understand, I was being to think I was in blizzard world.

This what I keep telling Bob and he repeatedly fails to grasp. There is known evidence and there is speculation. Bob wants to ignore the known evidence and go with his personal opinions.

Having taught statistical data analysis for years, in my experience the hardest concept for students to grasp is the notion of variation. That when one does an analysis, you are making an estimate of some value, but you don't actually conclude "this is the one true value", rather, you compare your observed value with a predicted value that has a range around it based upon the expected variation.

With the simulations, the estimated times and positions that are shown are compared with the testified values. The difficult thing is that phrases like "I left about 3:30" or "I left about 3:45", is that we don't have a numerical value to compare a simulated time of say 3:33 with 3:30 +- about. However, in my opinion, the stimulated times all look like times where the qualifier would be appropriate. For example, Baxter's "not far off 3:45" is a reasonable way to describe 3:41ish. And for all of the estimated times, they do fit with the qualified statements well enough that it suggests the simulated values are within acceptable limits. No, not that they are "the truth", or that things happened exactly at those times, only that those are good estimates. And because all of the estimates are within reason, that means there is nothing in the testimony that appears suspicious.

I think Bob believes I'm presenting these as if they "are the truth", rather than what I've been trying to say all along, they are an "approximation that recreates the events as they are testified to be", and because the recreation is a coherent story where the values could be appropriately described as the witnesses describe them, there's nothing to show the testimonies are conflicting. So there's nothing to raise suspicion.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>I thought Jeff considered hypothetical variations fantastical. ;-)<<

Here's what Jeff said,


"Ah, ok, fair enough, I should have said "would not necessarily have changed". But sure, if you want the story to be told otherwise and they do change their behaviours in this version that never happened, I'm fine with that. As I say, it is about a scenerio that did not happen, so how can you be sure what I suggested would not happen? We're making stuff up by this point. I'm not sure where that gets us other than talking about a fictional situation. I'm happy for you to make up anything you want, though, as you explore this alternative reality. I just thought you really were interested in seeing how the simulation would play out (particularly as it suggests that PC Neil wouldn't have spotted our fictionally fleeing Cross/Lechmere as you suggested - but I think you were thinking of my speculative (i.e. also could be viewed as fictional) JtR coming out at an even earlier time.

Anyway, feel free to create whatever stories you want in this fantasy version (it is a fantasy; Cross/Lechmere did not flee upon Paul's approach after all, so we're not speculating about something that we try to fit in with what we know, but we're altering what we know to be something different - the latter is fantasy because we already know it didn't happen, the former is exploring an idea that could fit with what we know - a possible reality, or speculation)."


Careful, if you keep obsessing on one word, Bob will claim you are autistic.;-)

[MrBarnett]

>>I thought Jeff considered hypothetical variations fantastical. ;-)<<

Here's what Jeff said,


"Ah, ok, fair enough, I should have said "would not necessarily have changed". But sure, if you want the story to be told otherwise and they do change their behaviours in this version that never happened, I'm fine with that. As I say, it is about a scenerio that did not happen, so how can you be sure what I suggested would not happen? We're making stuff up by this point. I'm not sure where that gets us other than talking about a fictional situation. I'm happy for you to make up anything you want, though, as you explore this alternative reality. I just thought you really were interested in seeing how the simulation would play out (particularly as it suggests that PC Neil wouldn't have spotted our fictionally fleeing Cross/Lechmere as you suggested - but I think you were thinking of my speculative (i.e. also could be viewed as fictional) JtR coming out at an even earlier time.

Anyway, feel free to create whatever stories you want in this fantasy version (it is a fantasy; Cross/Lechmere did not flee upon Paul's approach after all, so we're not speculating about something that we try to fit in with what we know, but we're altering what we know to be something different - the latter is fantasy because we already know it didn't happen, the former is exploring an idea that could fit with what we know - a possible reality, or speculation)."


Careful, if you keep obsessing on one word, Bob will claim you are autistic.;-)

Why use the word in the first place? Is ‘fantasy’ the preferred word used by academics in Jeff’s field for hypothetical situations? Or is he trying to make a point?

It has been claimed that the killer staying put rather than legging it is implausible. Well, we know what happened when Lechmere engaged Paul and then Mizen - he was able to go on his merry way unhindered. What if he’d hared off immediately and bumped into Neil or Mizen just as Paul was realising he’d come across a major crime scene?

[JeffHamm]

I thought Jeff considered hypothetical variations fantastical. ;-)

No, I consider versions that change known events to be fantastical. Or do you think that Cross/Lechmere did actually flee the scene?

By using the average walking speed for both, though, it means I do not get to cherry pick values to make an outcome. Remember, these aren't supposed to be "he was exactly here", they are recreations based upon what we have to work with. Where we have to fill things in, like walking speeds, one uses a population average because that way you minimize the error you introduce. If you have actual specific information, though, then you use that, because that will introduce less error than the grand average.

But, what one would expect is that recreation should be pretty close to what happened, even if not exactly what happend. And given that all of the recreated times are times that would be appropriately described by the qualified times people give in testimony, then that indicates the simulations do appear to be reasonable approximations of the events. And there's nothing in the testimonies that create a problem, so there's no evidence of anyone being deceptive.

I stick to the testimonies, but I have no doubt there is information that would have improved the simulations had it been recorded and we had access to it.

And again, for those who like Cross/Lechmere as a suspect, just argue Cross/Lechmere lied in his testimony, and he left at 3:25 or whatever as the rest of the timings could arise whether he's guilty or not.

That would shift the focus to debating about whether or not the police checked up on him. But you could just argue "well, if they asked his wife did he leave for work about 3:30" she probably confirmed that because 3:25 is about 3:30.

It also means assuming that Paul never described to the police that he was aware of Cross/Lechmere far sooner than Cross/Lechmere was aware of him. If Paul saw Cross/Lechmere ahead of him, and then saw him slow down and move to the middle of the street, etc, then he may have cleared Cross/Lechmere and that's why we see no interest in him from the police at the day. Sadly, that's just speculation because Paul's testimony does not go into enough detail for us to know at what point Paul was aware of Cross/Lechmere.

There's also the issue of why Cross/Lechmere doesn't flee. The argument that "it would raise suspicion against him" so he chose not to, requires that Cross/Lechmere thinks he can be seen at the point he moves from the body. If he thinks he can be seen though, clearly it's better to flee and not be identified than be seen moving away from the body and engage with that person! He's now surely to be recognizable. But if he moves towards Paul because he thinks he cannot be seen, then again, fleeing is the option that makes sense. The reasoning for "not fleeing" applies even more for "not moving towards Paul", so it's logically irrational as a theory.

Those are just some of the problems that the guilty Cross/Lechmere theory faces, and which, despite Christer's claims to the contrary, have never been adequately addressed. The timing of the events, and so forth, is of interest to us all, though, no matter what one's view of Cross/Lechmere's involvement. And the timings by themselves do not preclude guilt or innocence. There's nothing to suggest guilt, but that can be argued around (Cross/Lechmere left earlier than he claimed - i.e. he lied).

Anyway, I'm not really that fussed. If this sort of analysis of the testimonies is not your thing, feel free to ignore it.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Why use the word in the first place? Is ‘fantasy’ the preferred word used by academics in Jeff’s field for hypothetical situations? Or is he trying to make a point?

It has been claimed that the killer staying put rather than legging it is implausible. Well, we know what happened when Lechmere engaged Paul and then Mizen - he was able to go on his merry way unhindered. What if he’d hared off immediately and bumped into Neil or Mizen just as Paul was realising he’d come across a major crime scene?

And that's what changes it from a speculation to a fantasy. With a speculation we are considering unknown events that might have happened and still fit within the boundaries of what we know.

A fantasy situation is where we change something we know to be the case and enter into a world where we are debating a different reality.

Cross/Lechmere did not flee the scene. So once you say "Well, what would it be like if he did ..." we move from speculation about possible events that might have really happened to "alternative events to the ones that did happen". That is fantasy. And yes, it's important to differentiate between the two. Speculation remains possible, fantasy by definition is not.

- Jeff