Evidence of innocence

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n778595][QUOTE=JeffHamm;n778593]

Ahhh, but that's a different issue. All I'm saying is that Trevor is right in pointing out that PC Neil's testimony is not independently verified. Agreeing on that point doesn't mean we have to agree on where to go from there.

To debate different ideas you first need to find the common path that got you to the question. It's only at the crossroads that a decision must be made after all. Ooooh, doesn't that sound like I should sign off "Kwai Chang Caine" .

Edward Watkin, No. 881 of the City Police,I passed through Mitre-square at 1.30 on the Sunday morning. I had my lantern alight and on - fixed to my belt. According to my usual practice, I looked at the different passages and corners.[Coroner] At half-past one did anything excite your attention? - No.[Coroner] Did you see anyone about? - No.Coroner] Could any people have been about that portion of the square without your seeing them? - No. I next came into Mitre-square at 1.44, when I discovered the body lying on the right as I entered the square.

You might like to ask trevor if p.c watkins had his testimony independently verifed ?[that would be no ] but i bet he has no problm with Eddows t.o.d . George morris the night watchman does not verify watkins movements from 1.30 to 1.45 only after he discovered eddows did he inform morris . The same as p.c neil .

So again did P.C Watkins lie or was he mistaken ?

Long , Cadosch , Richardson etc etc etc

Hi Fishy,

I think you'll find Trevor does not hold many of the "accepted facts" of any of the murders are acceptable. Where he goes with them is a different matter from whether or not it is wise to question them.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is it my imagination, or do his suggested work routes form a sort of FISH shape?

Have you done any research to see if Lechmere had any Swedish ancestors Gary?

[FISHY1118]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n778599][QUOTE=FISHY1118;n778595]

Hi Fishy,

I think you'll find Trevor does not hold many of the "accepted facts" of any of the murders are acceptable. Where he goes with them is a different matter from whether or not it is wise to question them.

- Jeff

'' Accepted facts ''

[Mark J D]

And did you know that in 1888, Henry Tomkins had a horse-slaughtering colleague named Fred Ling? And that ling is another name for a cod fish? I’m not codding you - I think we may be getting somewhere.

I knew you'd bring all this back to Harrison Barbel...

M.

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n778601][QUOTE=JeffHamm;n778599]

'' Accepted facts ''

I would like to point out, the phrase is "accepted facts" not "alternative facts". I'll leave it at that. I'm now going to spend the rest of the evening immersed in Jethro Tull's view of the world, factual or not.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n778604][QUOTE=FISHY1118;n778601]

I would like to point out, the phrase is "accepted facts" not "alternative facts". I'll leave it at that. I'm now going to spend the rest of the evening immersed in Jethro Tull's view of the world, factual or not.

- Jeff

Enjoy J.T . Accepted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n778604][QUOTE=FISHY1118;n778601]

I would like to point out, the phrase is "accepted facts" not "alternative facts". I'll leave it at that. I'm now going to spend the rest of the evening immersed in Jethro Tull's view of the world, factual or not.

- Jeff

If you’re a prog fan too Jeff you get another plus point from me.

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n778604][QUOTE=FISHY1118;n778601]

I would like to point out, the phrase is "accepted facts" not "alternative facts". I'll leave it at that. I'm now going to spend the rest of the evening immersed in Jethro Tull's view of the world, factual or not.

- Jeff

nice! saw them live in tje late seventies. great show. hes whacky

[Abby Normal]

Hi all,

Ok, I just want to point out, I do think Abby Normal has an interesting idea. I like the suggestion of linking the possible routes, in crude estimations by straight lines, between anchor points, as a way of assessing an particular suspect to a series of offences. I'm not presenting this as if the idea is wrong to consider.

But, I want to point out, we don't know where the crimes "should be expected to occur" with respect to these lies. Moreover, we don't even have good information about one of those locations (where exactly was C/L headed when he went to work? That location is not, as far as I'm aware, known at this point).

So, to illustrate, we have to consider some area, around where we've chosen, to place that most westerly location. I've drawn a circle, roughly centered by my eye - which I accept is not the best - on the location chosen. I just drew something large enough to illustrate the point, not based upon any real information of about how variable that location could be. It might be more, it might be less, but I would be the last person to suggest I've guessed correctly. If you feel the need to argue I could be wrong, sit back, relax, you win, I probably am wrong.

But, that doesn't answer the question of whether I'm wrong because I've drawn my circle too big (probably), or too small (if so, we're in real trouble). If you don't like mine, please explain why you think it should be bigger/smaller. Since my point here is just to emphasise that we don't know, I'm using this one. (And looking again, even my circle is a bit ellipical, but I really can't be fussed to correct that).

If C/L's actual location is further north (bright red line), the "shape" takes in Chapman's murder location well, which fell outside before, but Eddowe's and GSG fall outside. If the actual location moves south (purple shape), Chapman, Kelly, and Eddowes are all outside.

Now, it's been suggest that "near the line" is "close enough". Near and close are not objective terms. As a researcher, I really dislike such terms, I want a value "how near, how close"? This is why, when I present the recreation, I accept that when I suggest that, for example, Cross leaves home at 3:33(ish), I think that fits with his testimony of "about 3:30". I do not see my estimated time as "shifting" the testimony. Gary does (though I would like to point out he seems fine with Christer's times, which shift other, more definite statements of time, by 5-8 minutes - seems because he hasn't commented either way, and silence will be construed as agreement. Perhaps Gary would be willing to comment upon Christer's suggested times along with my suggestions of estimated times?).

What the below is trying to show is more about what we don't know. The variability. Do those dark red lines really illustrate "reality"? I don't know. I don't know the address that C/L was heading to. Neither does Abby, though I understand he's using an estimated location (estimated in that it's one that has been suggested upon some incomplete information). He's probably not far off, but he might be. We don't know.

What if that location were to become known? What if that location were shown to be in a position where the "fit" to the eye doesn't look so "common sensible"? Are people here who say "this is great" going to change their view and say "oh, that analysis now proves I'm wrong?" - Sadly, I doubt it. But that's exactly what we should do if we really think this is the be all and end all of information. Or even if we believe this analysis "should work". If you like it now, and someday we find the true location of C/L's work, if that "triangle" is worse, you should then say "I believe C/L less than I did before". Otherwise, either you don't actually believe this analysis (which , by the way, I'm suggesting you shouldn't because it's untested) or you are just using what you think works to support the conclusion you will put forth "no matter what" (i.e. if this analysis no longer works, you'll abandon your support for the analysis, rather than for the conclusion it led to).

The thing is, I don't know what to expect from Abby's idea, in terms of where I should expect to see offenses. I do know that there is no analysis that will ever pinpoint those locations (i.e. know exactly where each and every offender will commit their crimes), but I do know that we get reasonably ok estimates of areas where to expect things - there are patterns. I know that if we start with crime locations, we get a "blurred idea" of roughly where we might expect to find offender's anchor points (those are the plots I've shown - those work but they are not perfect). So, if there are patterns (and there are), then what I expect, if his idea "works", is that there will be areas/regions that I can select using these "paths" where I should expect to see more crimes. And, if his idea doesn't "work" (meaning, it turns out to be one of the many interesting ideas that just, well, didn't work), then these lines will mean nothing, and if crimes are close or far from them, it won't matter.

What I don't know is that, if I assume there's a good chance of this idea "working", should those locations that contain the crimes be expected to be at the end of the lines (near the anchor points) or tend to be in the middle of two of them (along a path, sort of blending the anchor points), or just equally distributed along those lines?. Should most (all?) of the crimes be inside the shape? If not all, what percent? If all, how close to inside is close enough that the rest is just error? If the crimes should just be "along" the lines, how close to the line are we talking? I know enough about this area that I know any of these ideas could be the case, and if they are, there are a lot of ways that Abby's idea could "work", and that not all of those "working possibilities" will fit with the relationships we get with C/L and these lines. But because there's an underlying logical idea to it, that an offender will offend along the routes between locations, and that the offenses will be distributed along those routes, then that becomes specific enough that we could test it by using a large sample of offenders and see if, in general, that is the case. That's why I like it - it is testable, it allows for us to set up a way to examine a large sample of data, and we can extract a general pattern from that data if there is one. It might result in a way to look at POI (persons of interest), to see who fits best with the general pattern. (but again, it will just be a "this is what is typically found" and an individual suspect for whom there is real evidence to suspect should never be excluded because they don't fit the "profile" - it's not a profile, it's a spatial analysis of crime location information, that's all it is, a probability map of "where to look" not "who to look for").

But until that testing is done, we don't know what to expect, so we can't say these crimes fit C/L's "triangle" - or even if this "triangle" is useful. It might be, it might not be, the crimes might fit the pattern, and they might not. Nobody knows because nobody has tested this idea, good though it may be "as an idea". As a "method by which we make inferences", it is unverified.

Not only that, to come back to the location information we have, even if the method "works", we still don't know for sure what values to enter into the calculations! Where exactly did C/L go when he went to work? That western location is, at the moment, unknown. If it's not where the graphic below placed it, who is to say my circle is "too big" or is "too small"? Sure, I suspect it's too big, but who cares what I suspect? Clearly, based upon many posts, what I suspect is not universally held to be "the truth" (and honestly, I'm glad that's the case - I really don't know the answers, I have ideas, opinions, and some skills that are useful for addressing some of those questions, but it's a multi faceted problem, and my skills just deal with one face of that mountain).

I know I go on about this, but we have enough grey area stuff where we debate subjective opinions that it would be nice if we could recognize that when something is indeed an objectively quantifiable idea, as Abby's is, we should not make any decision until that objective quantification has been done.

I don't have the data to examine it. If you do, I look forward to your results. Until then, I don't know how to interpret this demonstration.

- Jeff

hey jeff
one thing i noticed anout the map you and mark are using appears to be from an angle. and therefor skews locations. i think it would be better to use a total birds eye view map, ie one that looks straight down. and has north at the top center

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n778595][QUOTE=JeffHamm;n778593]

Ahhh, but that's a different issue. All I'm saying is that Trevor is right in pointing out that PC Neil's testimony is not independently verified. Agreeing on that point doesn't mean we have to agree on where to go from there.

To debate different ideas you first need to find the common path that got you to the question. It's only at the crossroads that a decision must be made after all. Ooooh, doesn't that sound like I should sign off "Kwai Chang Caine" .

Edward Watkin, No. 881 of the City Police,I passed through Mitre-square at 1.30 on the Sunday morning. I had my lantern alight and on - fixed to my belt. According to my usual practice, I looked at the different passages and corners.[Coroner] At half-past one did anything excite your attention? - No.[Coroner] Did you see anyone about? - No.Coroner] Could any people have been about that portion of the square without your seeing them? - No. I next came into Mitre-square at 1.44, when I discovered the body lying on the right as I entered the square.

You might like to ask trevor if p.c watkins had his testimony independently verifed ?[that would be no ] but i bet he has no problm with Eddows t.o.d . George morris the night watchman does not verify watkins movements from 1.30 to 1.45 only after he discovered eddows did he inform morris . The same as p.c neil .

So again did P.C Watkins lie or was he mistaken ?

Long , Cadosch , Richardson etc etc etc

If you have read my book then you will know that some researchers have suggested the couple seen by Lawnede and others was not Eddowes and her killer, which is a sensible approach, because it cannot conclusivley be proved that they were the killer and Eddowes. It has also been suggested that Eddowes was killed much earlier and Pc watkins was not in the square at 1,30am when he says he was, If that be the case it could be that the killer and Eddowes enterd the square earlier from Mitre Street and that Pc Watkins by not being where he said he was could not have seen the body earlier because he was not where he said he was. but he does find the body 15 mins later So whether or not he was there or not at 1.30am has no real impact on the case and the time of death.

For comparisons Nichols was killed between 2.30am-3.45am,=75 mins The time difference relative to Eddowes murder is much shorter she was killed between 1.am -1.44am and thats tops only 44 mins, so the doctors estimated time of death cannot be to far out whereas with the time gap relative to Nichols is far greater if Pc Neil didnt pass the crime scene when he said he did.

Yous have been told, and you need to accpet that police officers do lie especially to get themselves out of the proverbial.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Is it my imagination, or do his suggested work routes form a sort of FISH shape?

Nope, it's just the way the plaice looks.

[FISHY1118]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n778625][QUOTE=FISHY1118;n778595]

If you have read my book then you will know that some researchers have suggested the couple seen by Lawnede and others was not Eddowes and her killer, which is a sensible approach, because it cannot conclusivley be proved that they were the killer and Eddowes. It has also been suggested that Eddowes was killed much earlier and Pc watkins was not in the square at 1,30am when he says he was, If that be the case it could be that the killer and Eddowes enterd the square earlier from Mitre Street and that Pc Watkins by not being where he said he was could not have seen the body earlier because he was not where he said he was. but he does find the body 15 mins later So whether or not he was there or not at 1.30am has no real impact on the case and the time of death.

For comparisons Nichols was killed between 2.30am-3.45am,=75 mins The time difference relative to Eddowes murder is much shorter she was killed between 1.am -1.44am and thats tops only 44 mins, so the doctors estimated time of death cannot be to far out whereas with the time gap relative to Nichols is far greater if Pc Neil didnt pass the crime scene when he said he did.

Yous have been told, and you need to accpet that police officers do lie especially to get themselves out of the proverbial.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor im not going throught this again , ive already given my reasons for why i support the ''Accepted chain of events '' where the Nichols murder is concerned . i bid you good luck.

[Dickere]

Have you done any research to see if Lechmere had any Swedish ancestors Gary?

Liz Stride was Swedish. How about if she was the real target of a firm back home, and the others were only killed to confuse things. Look how well it's worked too.

[Fisherman]

I’m not suggesting dishonesty here but I seem to recall (and Fish can obviously correct me if I’m misremembering) that the experts Scobie and Griffiths presented will files which were basically the case for Lechmere being guilty?

So, Iīm back after a few days off, and I find this is a good place to start. To begin with, I was not there as Scobe was interviewed, but I did spend a lot of time with Griffiths and he wa supplied with the exact same material as I was. And no, that material was not skewed in any way. It was a very broad and comprehensive array of articles from the papers together with a number of police reports. The exact same material as you yourself have had access to for all these years, Herlock. In it, there were no additions from the documentary team, it was the articles and the reports onle, the same articles and reports that never have had you saying that they point to guilt in Lechmeres case.
The documentary suggested that Lechmere was the killer and made that case, and Griffiths was quite aware of this, of course. But the material he was given was not in any way tilte or skewed. Think about it, Herlock; could you choose a hundred or two articles and a dozen or so reports that would in between them suggest that Lechmere was the killer? NONE of the contemporary articles or reports were written assuming that Lechmere was the killer, were they?

This whole business is a perfect example of what I have many times said: there is an ongoing vilification of those who promote Lechmere. It is vital that people do not buy these claims, and reason that the docu team somehow would have been able to find contemporary articles and reports that were all instrumental in pointing to Lechmere as the killer. But out here, it is not easy to see what is going on, because there are many vociferous posters who are very careless with the truth.

Never buy simple "truths" before having looked into them yourself, Herlock. Yes, the docu pointed out Lechmere as the killer and made as good a case as possible for it. No, that did not entail giving Andy Griffiths some sort of skewed material or lying to him.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,



From the recreation analysis I've presented, the methods which I've fully explained and outlined, the estimated times for all people involved correspond well with the qualified times they testify to. That includes PC Mizen, PC Neil, PC Thain, Dr. Llewellyn, Baxter's summing up statement about the time of discovery by Cross/Lechmere and Paul, the fact that both Paul and Cross appear to get to work on time, etc.

- Jeff

Iīm afraid that you cannot get Pauls and Llewellyns times to correspond with the times given by the PC:s unless you allow for some inventive moving of the clock arms. You know it and I know it, so letīs not try and pretend anything else.

You nasitly add "What you object to is that it does not support your theory", but the truth of the matter is that I can just as easily point out that what YOU do is to try and support YOUR thinking, so you are shooting with soaking wet powder. Add to this that whereas MY timing is supported WITHOUT changing the times Paul and LLewellyn gave, YOUR timing rests on the good old "maybe they were wrong?" suggestion.

My timeline can be anchored. Yours canīt. What you are about can be summed up as "letīs beleive the three UNANCHORED timings given by the PC:s". The timings, by the way, that the Daily News, Wynne Baxter and Donald Swanson threw out.

You see, nothing has changed in that department, nor will it do so.