Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    It’s irrelevant. You can’t prove he was at any site at any time. Is there some kind of serial killers rule book that I’m unaware of which say “killers must at all times commit murders near to a site of personal relevance?” What are we saying? That if Lech had been questioned near a crime scene at 3am he would have said “yes I was just paying a visit to my mom?”

    This was a small area. I bet if you looked into Robert Paul’s life you’d probably find that he had a relation near to a site or two and a good friend near another and an ex-girlfriend near another. Over a concentrated area these things happen. They only become potentially relevant if you could prove that he killed Nichols and that ship has sailed I’m afraid.
    hi herlock
    i see your point but imho it becomes more relevant back then when most people traveled by foot. they didnt have the luxury of a mobile bolt hole (cars)that could travel large distances quickly like they do in the modern era of serial killers. so whike it dosnt mean they must commit murders near a site of personal relevance i think it increases the liklihood and is one of the reasons i put such a large emphasis on geographical and proximity considerations in this case. but thats just me.
    "Is all that we see or seem
    but a dream within a dream?"

    -Edgar Allan Poe


    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

    -Frederick G. Abberline

    Comment


    • Hi Abby,

      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

      thanks jeff
      your the master at this sort of thing so i appreciate your insight.
      Well, I'm familiar with the complexities and limitations of it that are not discussed in the media, and overlooked by Hollywood, but I wouldn't call myself a master at it. It is, however, a fascinating area for those who don't mind dealing with a lot of maths.

      As we've been talking, though, I'm starting to get a twinge of a memory and there might be a paper out there that has looked at this very type of thing. It does sound like something people will have looked at. I'll have to see if I can find it again.

      - Jeff

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
        Nichols was clearly out touting for business and I doubt she would have been doing that in a quiet street like Bucks Row, that being said where would she have gone where she was more likley to find business at that late hour, I guess the Whitechapel Road

        Now for those who postulate Lechmere as the killer I would suggest that there would not have been enough time for him to leave his house and walk to The Whitechapel Road and look for a victim and then walk with that victim to Bucks Row and then kill her

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Hi Trevor,

        While I am not one who postulates that Lechmere was the killer, if he was then the time limitation that you quote above (with which I agree) relies on the testimony of a serial killer. He could have left earlier and lied by presenting a time that he thought would clear him, but still be considered plausible. This prospect is often refuted with the possibility that the police would have checked his leaving time with his wife, but that presumes that she arose from bed to see him off. In the years that I left home before dawn to travel to work my wife and children slept on and would have had not the slightest clue as to my departure time.

        Cheers, George
        “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

        Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

          Yes, he would have been unquestionably safer. It's not far to Whitechapel, and as Baxter points out, he would vanish into the people there. He would also be able to claim he's on his way to work as he's heading in the right direction. Moreover, as we see, though he wouldn't know, the first things additional police at the scene did was 1) go for the doctor and 2) go fetch the ambulance. We don't know how long it took before the police start searching the area for her killer, but it looks like at least 15 minutes or more pass during which we know a search has not yet begun. Cross/Lechmere is, therefore, at work by 4:00 apparently before a search even begins, and that's without him waiting for Paul, checking the body, and speaking with PC Mizen.

          If he flees, then he's not going to been seen as anything other than a fleeing figure in the dark, if even that (the C/L is guilty theory seems to require the area to be very dark and Paul can't see him move away from the body after all). And at the earliest time a search might begin, he's almost a mile away, at work, like 1000s of other men. How risky is that compared to sticking around and making sure someone gets a good look at you after possibly seeing you crouched over the body? How is he to know what Paul has seen? Turn away and get out of there is absolutely the safer option.

          He's got 120 feet as a head start, and he'll run, while Paul will be walking. He will be on Whitechappel before Paul reaches the body, and even then there's a chance Paul won't notice it (remember, it's so dark Paul can't see C/L move away; even C/L indicates it's not noticeable as a body on the far side of the street), or at least, won't check it out. Paul only examines the body because C/L gets him involved. Of course, if in this fantasy world of fleeing C/L (yes, I'm engaging in fantasy here), Paul does check out the body, given he appears to suggest propping her up, without C/L there to refuse to help, maybe he would have noted her head was almost off. Sure, at that point, after C/L is long gone, an alarm would no doubt get raised. And he would have blood on his hands he has to explain probably.

          But of course, C/L didn't take the obviously safer option for a guilty person. And that, I think, is important information. So maybe engaging in fantasy is not completely pointless. It's certainly fun to be able to tell a story without having to be constrained by evidence though.

          - Jeff
          Jeff,

          What definition of fantasy are you using here?

          Gary


          Comment


          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

            Jeff,

            What definition of fantasy are you using here?

            Gary

            The one I outlined before, where we change something we know to be true. I'm entering fantasy once I alter C/L's known behaviour (staying in Buck's Row) to a universe where he flees. It's already outside of reality, so we're now in the realm of fantasy and nothing we actually know about what happened after that point need constrain me - because none of it can possibly be "real" anymore, so reality doesn't matter. We've entered a different universe.

            Speculation, as I've said before, is when we keep to what we know (allowing of course for different interpretations of the witness statements) and speculate about things that we don't know, but are still constrained by what we do know.

            As an example, I'm speculating about Nichols entering Buck's Row via Whitechappel, such that she's murdered around 3:30. I fill in something we don't know, but not altering what we do. And I was curious to see if that speculation caused massive problems. It doesn't, particularly in the version where JtR flees east. The western route looks problematic, though not entirely impossible. Hence, that speculation could be viewed as "plausible" (i.e. not impossible), but I've gone to great lengths to point out I don't think that means we should view it at "probable".

            I hope I've been able to make that clear. It seems clear to me, but then, it's how my head thinks and conveying concepts can be tricky. It's not meant to be derogatory, which I think it came across as before. It's meant to delineate between speculation about possible events and events we know are not possible realities (we know they did not happen - C/L did not flee, therefore it's fantasy - we don't know when or by what route Nichols gets to Buck's Row, but the one I look at could be it - so that is speculation).

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
              Ok lets work on that shall we , Nicoles last seen alive at 2.30am , 15 mins to gets to murder, spot dead at 2.50 am . option 1 , Nobody sees the body till paul and lech at 3.45am , [ if neil is wrong or lied ] lets take him out of the picture for a 1 min . Nichols now lays dead for 55mins with out discovery, is that what you think ?. Because thats an awful long time laying dead with all them police walking the beat that morning to believe this would be the case . Or option 2, P.C NEIL walks through bucks row at 3.15am ,see nothing , body found at 3.45am , doctor says at roughly at 4.00am ''death not more than 30 mins'' . t.o.d 3.30 am . Option 2 is for obvious reasons is far and away the better of the two . . out of 100 people how many would say 1 ?:
              hi fishy
              apparently only one lol.

              there is absolutely no reason to doubt neil.
              "Is all that we see or seem
              but a dream within a dream?"

              -Edgar Allan Poe


              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

              -Frederick G. Abberline

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                The one I outlined before, where we change something we know to be true. I'm entering fantasy once I alter C/L's known behaviour (staying in Buck's Row) to a universe where he flees. It's already outside of reality, so we're now in the realm of fantasy and nothing we actually know about what happened after that point need constrain me - because none of it can possibly be "real" anymore, so reality doesn't matter. We've entered a different universe.

                Speculation, as I've said before, is when we keep to what we know (allowing of course for different interpretations of the witness statements) and speculate about things that we don't know, but are still constrained by what we do know.

                As an example, I'm speculating about Nichols entering Buck's Row via Whitechappel, such that she's murdered around 3:30. I fill in something we don't know, but not altering what we do. And I was curious to see if that speculation caused massive problems. It doesn't, particularly in the version where JtR flees east. The western route looks problematic, though not entirely impossible. Hence, that speculation could be viewed as "plausible" (i.e. not impossible), but I've gone to great lengths to point out I don't think that means we should view it at "probable".

                I hope I've been able to make that clear. It seems clear to me, but then, it's how my head thinks and conveying concepts can be tricky. It's not meant to be derogatory, which I think it came across as before. It's meant to delineate between speculation about possible events and events we know are not possible realities (we know they did not happen - C/L did not flee, therefore it's fantasy - we don't know when or by what route Nichols gets to Buck's Row, but the one I look at could be it - so that is speculation).

                - Jeff
                hi jeff
                with all due respect. I think your continued use of the word fantasy here is inaccurate and well, unfortunate (its also too loaded a term to use against someone your debating with).
                yes we know lech didnt flee. but he could have. he could have left even if he wasnt the killer. its a hypothetical. fantasy is something like could never happen. like the ripper fled on a unicorn.
                "Is all that we see or seem
                but a dream within a dream?"

                -Edgar Allan Poe


                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                -Frederick G. Abberline

                Comment


                • Hi George,

                  Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                  Hi Trevor,

                  While I am not one who postulates that Lechmere was the killer, if he was then the time limitation that you quote above (with which I agree) relies on the testimony of a serial killer. He could have left earlier and lied by presenting a time that he thought would clear him, but still be considered plausible. This prospect is often refuted with the possibility that the police would have checked his leaving time with his wife, but that presumes that she arose from bed to see him off. In the years that I left home before dawn to travel to work my wife and children slept on and would have had not the slightest clue as to my departure time.

                  Cheers, George
                  And that, in my opinion, is a far better argument than I've seen offered by those who do propose C/L as the undisputed killer. It also is an explanation that leaves us unable to compare things further because we do not have the information recorded as to what his wife may or may not have told the police if they did question her. That question is unanswerable, and it shows the limit of our knowledge.

                  It means the timeline, from the point of C/L and Paul's first encounter and onwards can be shared by both explanations, with the difference being that C/L lies about his departure in the guilty version. And because he has enough knowledge of the distances, knows what lie to give as his departure time. It hinges on his wife not being awake, which is information outside out knowledge, so we cannot say she was or was not. We don't know.

                  So if the timing's we have are fine for both accounts, only his departure time is in question, then the debate shifts to other details.

                  And this, to me, is progress! Mapping out the limits of our knowledge is progress. It tells us where we need to do more research; or at least what sort of information we need to make the next step.

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • As a guilty Lechmere becomes aware of Paul approaching, what’s going through his head? He has three options: fight, flight or flannel. The longer he delays, the less viable flight becomes. How many minutes would it take Paul to reach the body from which someone had just legged it and start shouting ‘murder!’?

                    And then we’re not talking about sending for doctors and ambulances and casually searching the area for a hidden assailant or a weapon, we’re talking about an almost immediate hue and cry with Paul screaming, ‘He went that way!’

                    There may have been people in the Whitechapel Road, but not do many that a running man would be swallowed up and lost to sight. I wonder how much experience Wynne Baxter had of the Whitechapel Road in the early hours of the morning, any morning.


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                      hi jeff
                      with all due respect. I think your continued use of the word fantasy here is inaccurate and well, unfortunate (its also too loaded a term to use against someone your debating with).
                      yes we know lech didnt flee. but he could have. he could have left even if he wasnt the killer. its a hypothetical. fantasy is something like could never happen. like the ripper fled on a unicorn.
                      Perhaps it has another definition in the rarefied academic world Jeff inhabits. Or perhaps he’s not totally sure of his own argument and thinks ridiculing an alternative view is the way to proceed.

                      Comment


                      • What is a real fantasy is the idea that if a witness had just pointed out in which direction the killer had taken off and that he’d done so a minute or two previously the police would have behaved exactly the same as if they had no idea that he’d just left and run in such a direction.
                        Last edited by MrBarnett; 01-14-2022, 01:27 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Hi Abby,

                          Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                          hi jeff
                          with all due respect. I think your continued use of the word fantasy here is inaccurate and well, unfortunate (its also too loaded a term to use against someone your debating with).
                          yes we know lech didnt flee. but he could have. he could have left even if he wasnt the killer. its a hypothetical. fantasy is something like could never happen. like the ripper fled on a unicorn.
                          To be fair, I was using it in relation to my own line of thinking - I was engaged in fantasy.

                          I do see your point, which is why I tried to clarify that I don't mean it in a derogatory way, rather only to delineate between hypotheticals that could exist (which I call speculations) and hypotheticals that cannot (i.e. fleeing C/L's - since he didn't we shift into an alternate reality when we create hypotheticals from that starting point). That's why I don't use hypothetical as it encompasses both the "possible" and "impossible" lines of thought. I use speculation for possible hypotheticals and fantasy for impossible lines.

                          It is no more possible for C/L to ride a unicorn than for Paul to react to C/L fleeing - neither exists in the real world. There are no unicorns, and C/L did not flee - neither is more "unreal" than the other.

                          I see what you mean though, and it appears that despite presenting my definition people will view it as derogatory despite that not being intended. I do, however, think it is useful to delineate the two types of hypotheticals, and I'll probably stick to speculation for those that try and "fill in the blanks of what we know", but need to think about what to call hypotheticals that change what we know to a different reality (and so draw us into ideas that cannot be true in that we know they did not happen). I like fantasy because it conveys that idea, at least it does to me, so makes that difference clear. Alternative realities is too cumbersome, but might work although I'm just not sure if there is any term I could use that would not be viewed as offensive though, because I think what people are offended by is the fact that I'm emphasising that we're no longer talking about a real situation. But that's not disputable, once we talk about C/L actually fleeing we've left the real world as it happened.

                          Now, of course, discussing whether or not C/L thought about his options (to flee or not to flee) is speculation. We can talk about what he may have thought about his choices, and what led to his decision to stay. But once we "have him flee", it's fantasy (in my use of the term; I'm happy to use another provided it doesn't confuse speculation - why he might have chosen to stay rather than flee - with ideas that follow on from changing his decision - having him actually flee). I hope that's not just muddied the waters? it seems clear to me, but perhaps that's just because I'm the one thinking it!

                          - Jeff
                          Last edited by JeffHamm; 01-14-2022, 01:36 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Fantasy is something that is improbable or impossible. ‘Fantasy fiction’ is not a tautology. The Lord of the Rings is fantasy, Jane Eyre isn’t.

                            I’m pretty sure Abby once described a real life situation where someone who had committed a crime didn’t immediately run from the scene but stayed to engage someone. I had a similar example.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                              What is a real fantasy is the idea that if a witness had just pointed out in which direction the killer had taken off and that he’d done so a minute or two previously the police would have behaved exactly the same as if they had no idea that he’d just left and run in such a direction.
                              Sure, we can change anything at any point and I didn't go into every possible variation, as it didn't seem necessary given we're not talking about real events anyway. If you want him to get caught doing so, and the rest of the murders don't happen, that's cool. If you want the murders to happen though, he has to get away (or only be responsible for Nichols), that might be fun too. As I say, we're into fantasy, so yah, fill your boots, there's nothing to stop you.

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                                Fantasy is something that is improbable or impossible. ‘Fantasy fiction’ is not a tautology. The Lord of the Rings is fantasy, Jane Eyre isn’t.

                                I’m pretty sure Abby once described a real life situation where someone who had committed a crime didn’t immediately run from the scene but stayed to engage someone. I had a similar example.
                                Language is very adaptable, and words are often adapted to different contexts, particularly in areas of special knowledge. I've clearly outlined the definition by which I'm using the description here, to delineate between types of hypotheticals; those that explore possible versions of reality (speculation) and those that explore an unreal scenerio (fantasy). That's how I've been using them. If you don't like my use of the word fantasy as the descriptor, just replace it with a term that you like that allows us to demark those situations.

                                So as to avoid getting too sidetracked over a word, though, I would like to point out that when people talk about serial killers they often talk about how they engage in "fantasy" before they actually commit their crimes. They are thinking about an alternate reality, which unfortunately they make real. So fantasy is not only used in the context of "Lord of Rings" or other "impossible" type ideas.

                                However, as it appears use of this word has people up in arms, I'll try to switch to "fictional accounts" instead. It may take me awhile to adapt.

                                - Jeff
                                Last edited by JeffHamm; 01-14-2022, 01:53 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X