Evidence of innocence

[JeffHamm]

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

You mean speculation. I could speculate on which was faster and which was slower. Fantasy would be to consider an idea like what if one of them was riding a horse.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

Jeff's already answer your fantasy requirements.

>>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? <<

I can't see the slightest problem with any escaping murderer, Cross or anyone, bumping into Mizen, for all we know the killer may well have passed Mizen at some stage.

If we are talking about the time Paul walked down Buck's, Neil was nowhere in sight and wouldn't be for several minutes, so again not the slightest problem there.
I genuinely don't get your point Gary.

[rjpalmer]

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

https://youtu.be/OGaW4F2pPrg

- Jeff

Thanks for that, Jeff.

As you and Dusty note, the 40 yards is just an estimate of the lowest limit and we can't be sure of the accuracy of CAL's "guesstimation" at the inquest, nor the amount of time that passed before he noticed a man walking towards him, nor the two carmen's relative speeds, etc., but it is interesting to see that the change you made didn't fundamentally alter the fact that, if the simulation is at all accurate--and I think it is--it is entirely possible that CAL was never in Paul's field of vision until both men were in Buck's Row, and even then darkness may have posed a significant challenge to their abilities to see one another.

As the simulation now stands, CAL was already past the end of Forster Street before Paul leaves his house, and--though it is very close---CAL is rounding the corner onto Brady Street just as Paul makes the end of his own street. At that point, it is 'game over' until CAL was a fair distance down Buck's Row, because Paul can't see around corners, of course.

I don't think that's a slanted conclusion--it looks highly probable that it could have happened that way, particularly if we accept that 40 yards is the lowest limit.

It's great that you have a visual model that you can tinker around with.

Here is my own gratuitous observation.

To me, if Paul couldn't tell that the woman he was crouching over had her throat cut, it seems unlikely that the lighting would have been good enough to see someone 40-60 yards away. Of course, it would also depend on the lighting at either end of the street, which might have offered some sort of outline of an approaching figure. I remember seeing Ed Stowe taking a deep dive into the lighting in Buck's Row, but there seemed to be a lot of unknowns.

[Abby Normal]

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

lech as the killer fleeing is fantasy? isnt that what all the anti lechers are saying thats exactly what he would have done??

[JeffHamm]

Hi rj,

Thanks for that, Jeff.

As you and Dusty note, the 40 yards is just an estimate of the lowest limit and we can't be sure of the accuracy of CAL's "guesstimation" at the inquest, nor the amount of time that passed before he noticed a man walking towards him, nor the two carmen's relative speeds, etc., but it is interesting to see that the change you made didn't fundamentally alter the fact that, if the simulation is at all accurate--and I think it is--it is entirely possible that CAL was never in Paul's field of vision until both men were in Buck's Row, and even then darkness may have posed a significant challenge to their abilities to see one another.

As the simulation now stands, CAL was already past the end of Forster Street before Paul leaves his house, and--though it is very close---CAL is rounding the corner onto Brady Street just as Paul makes the end of his own street. At that point, it is 'game over' until CAL was a fair distance down Buck's Row, because Paul can't see around corners, of course.

I don't think that's a slanted conclusion--it looks highly probable that it could have happened that way, particularly if we accept that 40 yards is the lowest limit.

It's great that you have a visual model that you can tinker around with.

Here is my own gratuitous observation.

To me, if Paul couldn't tell that the woman he was crouching over had her throat cut, it seems unlikely that the lighting would have been good enough to see someone 40-60 yards away. Of course, it would also depend on the lighting at either end of the street, which might have offered some sort of outline of an approaching figure. I remember seeing Ed Stowe taking a deep dive into the lighting in Buck's Row, but there seemed to be a lot of unknowns.

No problem. I need to reprogram some aspects to make it easier to make some changes. There's some fiddly bits about how I've set it up that start getting annoying when a character doesn't appear until later in the simulation, but then has to pause at some point before moving on. I need to add the ability to have multiple pauses, and maybe include the ability to change speed (right now, to change speed, I make someone "vanish" and introduce a new version of them at the new speed). It needs some refinement, but it works more or less.

Anyway, I agree, keeping things at "40 yards" as our lowest limit looks like that is just about where it starts to become possible for Paul to spot Cross/Lechmere ahead of him on Bath Street. But, it's such a brief period that it could easily have not happened. Mind you, error the other way could happen too.

I want to find some studies on people's estimation of distances to see if there is a tendency to over or under estimate (or to be accurate of course). I think that would be good to know, because if people tend to underestimate distance, then that 40 yard estimate might represent a significantly greater distance, but if they tend to overestimate, then the opposite. If I find a decent study or two, I'm hoping I might be able to reverse engineer their findings like I did with the temporal duration stuff. If so, it would give us an idea as to what the real distance was more likely to be (and a range of distances to be considered).

Thinking about your gratuitous observation. We know PC Neil says he "hears" PC Thain at the other end of Buck's Row, so he signals him. Of course, PC Neil has stopped at the body, and he probably has his lamp on now, so his vision into the darkness will be greatly impaired, but his hearing is fine. But let's say that without the lamp, 40 yards is the "visual limit" to see someone under the lighting conditions.

While both Cross/Lechmere and Paul are walking though, their own footsteps will be louder than the distant ones, so they're less likely to hear each other. But Cross/Lechmere stops because he's now only about 35-40 feet from her body, not yards. Once he stops, he now hears someone approaching, namely Paul. He might then just wait to see someone come into view, 40 yards away, even though he was aware someone was nearby and possibly approaching for some time. That would suggest the "40 yard" version has them too close. It would also explain why Paul may not have been aware of Cross/Lechmere because he can still only hear his own footfalls, so when Cross/Lechmere comes into view in the middle of the street, just standing there, he starts to try to avoid him, etc.

Sadly, we might be reaching the limits of what we know, and finer details like these might be lost to us. And it is those fine details upon which guilt or innocence often hangs. (I'll leave it to you to decide if that's a pun )

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>lech as the killer fleeing is fantasy? isnt that what all the anti lechers are saying thats exactly what he would have done??<<

You've misunderstood Abby, Cross didn't flee, therefore to claim he did is a fantasy, because we know for a fact he didn't. Jeff is going, as much as possible, on what we know did happen. What is clear is that a fleeing person would not have had a problem escaping.

[GBinOz]

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

Hi Jeff,

Your post #4040 persuaded me that Lechmere and Paul were at the body around 3:40 and Neil around 3:45, as always within the limitations of victorian clock syncs. Your "fantasy" re-enactment shows that Lechmere could have scarpered undetected even after the same adjustment was applied as for your original. However, IF Lechmere were guilty, he would not have known that at the time. His familiarity with his route to work would probably have provided him with the knowledge that Neil's beat would bring him to the murder site quite soon. Smith allowed a margin of error of five minutes for his sighting of Stride, so if Neil had been a few minutes earlier on his beat that night he may very well have been in a position to intercept Lechmere had he fled and Paul raised an alarm. Indeed, he testified at the inquest that "Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming. Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark.". I am perturbed that at the range of 12 metres from the body that you measured for Lechmere stopping in the middle of the road and waiting for Paul, Lechmere had knowledge that what he thought was a tarpaulin was actually a body, and that of a woman. Is that feasible on a night so dark that he couldn't see her throat was cut when he was close enough to be holding her hands he could, at a distance of 12 metres, determine that he was viewing a body, and that of a woman?

The other thing that I have difficulty in believing is that Polly was plying her trade in such an out of the way location. For him to be guilty he must have either left home early enough for him to have located Polly in Whitechapel Road, and she took him to the murder location, or she had abandoned her search for a client and was sleeping rough in the gateway when he came upon her.

I have to admit that I am still on the fence about Lechmere's role in this murder, but I very much appreciate your re-creations and calculations which had added a much needed clarity to the arguments.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

>>lech as the killer fleeing is fantasy? isnt that what all the anti lechers are saying thats exactly what he would have done??<<

You've misunderstood Abby, Cross didn't flee, therefore to claim he did is a fantasy, because we know for a fact he didn't. Jeff is going, as much as possible, on what we know did happen. What is clear is that a fleeing person would not have had a problem escaping.

i think the term hypothetical would have been a more accurate word to use.

[JeffHamm]

lech as the killer fleeing is fantasy? isnt that what all the anti lechers are saying thats exactly what he would have done.

In that situation, where it is argued that the prediction is that if he's guilty he would have fled, then we're dealing with a prediction.

Because he didn't flee, that is suggested to show that the prediction that arises from the theory of him being guilty was not found.

And if he's not guilty, someone else is, but they are not there.

And now we can speculate about various ways to fill in that unknown information (i.e. well, the murder has to have occurred after PC Neil's 3:15 patrol, and before Cross/Lechmere's arrival - going with the innocent version here for now). Some have speculated that she was killed at 3:30, so we can speculate about things that might have happened and see if they are plausible. In the simulation I did that, and to me, the idea of JtR fleeing south and just missing PC Neil looks too close to be something I would say is a good option. the other escape route I considered was just go East up Buck's Row, and that looked simple and easy. That would be, I think the more plausible route (because we do not have any indication that PC Neil noticed someone coming out onto Whitechapel, etc).

But, if instead, I say "let's have Cross/Lechmere flee and argue about how X would have reacted", despite the fact he didn't, that's a fantasy situation. It no longer is bounded by what we know, and no matter what we suggest we know none of it happened, so there is no "truth" to be found. It's now just story telling, bounded by nothing. Speculation has to remained bounded by what is known to explore what reality might actually have been, fantasy is the dismissal of what is known to explore an alternative reality. Predictions are claims about how the future will unfold (what should follow if X happens?).

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

In that situation, where it is argued that the prediction is that if he's guilty he would have fled, then we're dealing with a prediction.

Because he didn't flee, that is suggested to show that the prediction that arises from the theory of him being guilty was not found.

And if he's not guilty, someone else is, but they are not there.

And now we can speculate about various ways to fill in that unknown information (i.e. well, the murder has to have occurred after PC Neil's 3:15 patrol, and before Cross/Lechmere's arrival - going with the innocent version here for now). Some have speculated that she was killed at 3:30, so we can speculate about things that might have happened and see if they are plausible. In the simulation I did that, and to me, the idea of JtR fleeing south and just missing PC Neil looks too close to be something I would say is a good option. the other escape route I considered was just go East up Buck's Row, and that looked simple and easy. That would be, I think the more plausible route (because we do not have any indication that PC Neil noticed someone coming out onto Whitechapel, etc).

But, if instead, I say "let's have Cross/Lechmere flee and argue about how X would have reacted", despite the fact he didn't, that's a fantasy situation. It no longer is bounded by what we know, and no matter what we suggest we know none of it happened, so there is no "truth" to be found. It's now just story telling, bounded by nothing. Speculation has to remained bounded by what is known to explore what reality might actually have been, fantasy is the dismissal of what is known to explore an alternative reality. Predictions are claims about how the future will unfold (what should follow if X happens?).

- Jeff

i think a better word than fantasy to describe it would be a hypothetical.

[drstrange169]

Fantasy:1. a creation of the imaginative faculty whether expressed or merely conceived: 2. the act of imagining something :

No problem with fantasy being accurate. Hypothetical might be less objectionable to some, I guess, but not worth making a fuss about.

What's key is the animation itself as it makes clear the credibility of some of the claims made here.

[JeffHamm]

i think the term hypothetical would have been a more accurate word to use.

Sure, a rose by any other name. My preference is for fantasy because it clearly delineates moving into talking about a situation we know is not true rather than talking about possibilities that could still possibly be true. Hypothetical sort of applies to both because it is used to describe both speculations and fantasies, and so it can blur the distinction between "ideas about what could actually have happened" and "ideas about what could have happened in a different reality". If we're looking for what really happened, speculation is the exploration of the unknown parts of reality, while fantasy clearly indicates we're no longer looking for what really happened - we left that road the moment we changed something we know to be true.

But that's just me.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Fantasy:1. a creation of the imaginative faculty whether expressed or merely conceived: 2. the act of imagining something :

No problem with fantasy being accurate. Hypothetical might be less objectionable to some, I guess, but not worth making a fuss about.

What's key is the animation itself as it makes clear the credibility of some of the claims made here.

Fair enough. In my mind fantasy contains an aspect of "being unreal" to it (it might be "realistic" but it's "not real" in the strictest sense), but perhaps that's not the dictionary view.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Fantasy:1. a creation of the imaginative faculty whether expressed or merely conceived: 2. the act of imagining something :

No problem with fantasy being accurate. Hypothetical might be less objectionable to some, I guess, but not worth making a fuss about.

What's key is the animation itself as it makes clear the credibility of some of the claims made here.

hypothetical is more accurate a term, and less loaded.
and yes the animation is nice in showing what could have happened very visually and logistically.

[Abby Normal]

Fair enough. In my mind fantasy contains an aspect of "being unreal" to it (it might be "realistic" but it's "not real" in the strictest sense), but perhaps that's not the dictionary view.

- Jeff

hey jeff
a while back we had a nice discussion and analysis of your geo profiling stuff. i remember we talked alot about mitre square, the gsg and where tje killer may have most likely lived. did lechs home fall in any of the likely areas??
if i remember correctly wasnt one of our conclusions that the killer had a high percentage of living north and or west of the gsg?like within a ten minute walking radius?
that was another fasninating discussion.