-
-
Hi George,
The measurement is the distance I get when working out his position based upon his statement, whether or not it would be possible to recognize at that distance that what he was looking at was a woman lying in the street is impossible for me to say. That would require us being there. By the sounds of it, though, he spotted "something" at a greater distance, and was heading over to check it out. So we know he could see a shape, and we know he's moving towards it, so he's focused on it. It doesn't seem implausible that under those circumstances that he makes out that it's not just a crumpled tarpaulin but a women (the shape of the clothing would indicate that). But again, I can't know for a fact how realistic that is.Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
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.
But doesn't that argue against Cross/Lechmere committing murder in that location in the first place? If he is aware that PC Neil could come by anytime ...
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.
Yah, it seems more a place to take a client than a place to find one. The other option, which involves a non-guilty Cross/Lechmere, is that she took a different client to that location at some point prior to 3:40, and they killed her and left, possibly fled when Cross/Lechmere is heard walking down the street (we know PC Neil hears PC Thain at the end of Buck's Row from that location after all).
But that's the issue under discussion, isn't it? How and when did she get there? Who was she with when she got there? Where did that person go (if anywhere) after she died?
- JeffComment
-
no. a much more lengthy one where jeff posted multiple geo profile maps and me and him are really digging into it re night of double event, mitre square gsg etc. its a great thread IMHO and very interesting.Originally posted by drstrange169 View PostComment
-
Hi Abby Normal,
Yes, I recall that. You had some ideas that corresponded to how the geographical routines came out as well.Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
And you recall correctly. The area that gets highlighted tends to be around the Kelly and Chapman locations, and stretches down towards Mitre Square. Interestingly, that's also the area where the non-canonical cases occur too for the most part. Anyway, we have to remember that geographical profiling is sort of like making a "usual suspects list", 1) spouse/ex spouse 2) family member 3) close friend 4) work associate, type list, where you are organising people in terms of the priority to seach. You'll find most offenders are #1, then #2, etc. Except, rather than listing people, it's about organising locations (you'll find the offender has a strong association with this area, then this area, and so on). That "strong association" is referred to as an "anchor point", and while the residence is often a strong anchor point, it's not the only thing that one should look for. Anchor points also include a place of work, a favourite pub, their church, a club, and so forth. Neither Cross/Lechmere's residence nor his place of work fall in the area of interest. And we don't know enough about his habits to know if he has an association with that area in particular. Given his job involves transporting of goods though, well, if he had regular deliveries along there that could be it, but I'm speculating
as I don't know those details about him.
So, while from what I do know he doesn't ring any alarm bells from the spatial analysis of the crime locations, we don't know enough to fully evaluate how well he fits. And of course, one of the questions that got me into that area in the first place, is we it's hard to work out the "failure rate". Most research tends to focus on cases that are sort of ideally suited (i.e. the offender is known to live close to the offenses, etc), but if you pre-select cases by throwing out those that are likely to fail, your just going to get an inflated sense of the success rate with unsolved cases. I've analysed a small set of data that I have available (all serial arson cases in New Zealand over a period of years), without throwing out any, and the rate of success is pretty good with that, but it's a small data set. I would really like to get my hands on a larger one, to really address the question properly.
The short story is, I wouldn't rule out Cross/Lechmere based on the geographical profile alone, but at the same time, I wouldn't raise him on my list either. I would want more information. The one thing that he has got that is of interest is that his home and work are on either side of the crime range. So, maybe he's working the "middle ground"? It would be a bit unusual, though, as typically you would see offenses clustering closer to his work, and more up towards his home. But we only have 5, so maybe we just have a poor idea of his full potential range of offending?
- JeffComment
-
thanks jeffOriginally posted by JeffHamm View PostHi Abby Normal,
Yes, I recall that. You had some ideas that corresponded to how the geographical routines came out as well.
And you recall correctly. The area that gets highlighted tends to be around the Kelly and Chapman locations, and stretches down towards Mitre Square. Interestingly, that's also the area where the non-canonical cases occur too for the most part. Anyway, we have to remember that geographical profiling is sort of like making a "usual suspects list", 1) spouse/ex spouse 2) family member 3) close friend 4) work associate, type list, where you are organising people in terms of the priority to seach. You'll find most offenders are #1, then #2, etc. Except, rather than listing people, it's about organising locations (you'll find the offender has a strong association with this area, then this area, and so on). That "strong association" is referred to as an "anchor point", and while the residence is often a strong anchor point, it's not the only thing that one should look for. Anchor points also include a place of work, a favourite pub, their church, a club, and so forth. Neither Cross/Lechmere's residence nor his place of work fall in the area of interest. And we don't know enough about his habits to know if he has an association with that area in particular. Given his job involves transporting of goods though, well, if he had regular deliveries along there that could be it, but I'm speculating as I don't know those details about him.
So, while from what I do know he doesn't ring any alarm bells from the spatial analysis of the crime locations, we don't know enough to fully evaluate how well he fits. And of course, one of the questions that got me into that area in the first place, is we it's hard to work out the "failure rate". Most research tends to focus on cases that are sort of ideally suited (i.e. the offender is known to live close to the offenses, etc), but if you pre-select cases by throwing out those that are likely to fail, your just going to get an inflated sense of the success rate with unsolved cases. I've analysed a small set of data that I have available (all serial arson cases in New Zealand over a period of years), without throwing out any, and the rate of success is pretty good with that, but it's a small data set. I would really like to get my hands on a larger one, to really address the question properly.
The short story is, I wouldn't rule out Cross/Lechmere based on the geographical profile alone, but at the same time, I wouldn't raise him on my list either. I would want more information. The one thing that he has got that is of interest is that his home and work are on either side of the crime range. So, maybe he's working the "middle ground"? It would be a bit unusual, though, as typically you would see offenses clustering closer to his work, and more up towards his home. But we only have 5, so maybe we just have a poor idea of his full potential range of offending?
- Jeff
like i said, fun stuff.
you know what might be really cool for you on a rainy day if your so inclined is to do one for lech, include tabram with the c5 and use his house, his work place and his mums house and see what happens.
my kindergarden version says all the murders fall within a triangle (or very close)of those three points. lolLast edited by Abby Normal; 01-12-2022, 05:45 AM.Comment
-
We still haven’t solved the nuts and bolts of the matter. Using the 40m distance between our protagonists mentioned in previous posts, this.requires Paul to walk 90m up Bucks Row and have no awareness of a man walking 40m in front of him the entire way. Paul doesn’t see him and he doesn’t hear him (Lechmere too has no awareness of anyone behind him).
Lechmere’s version is that he finds the body and a few seconds later he becomes aware of Paul coming up Bucks Row. I think we have caught Lechmere in a lie This scenario requires Paul both to be about 40m away (others estimate not mine) and also not to see Lechmere until he see’s him “standing where the woman was”. I think these 2 situations are mutually exclusive. For me its just not possible that Paul doesn’t sight Lechmere sooner.
My explanation is this. I think Paul see’s nobody ahead of him because there is nobody ahead of him. I think Lechmere is crouched by Nichols, hidden by the darkness of the gateway as Paul walks up Bucks Row. He’s engrossed in killing her and becomes aware of Paul too late. He quickly pulls her dress down to cover her wounds and steps back from the body into the road. His pantomime of ‘finding’ the body begins.
Comment
-
HI SS,Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
That is the suspicion that nags at me as well. He knows that Neil's beat will bring him to that spot soon and is intent of finishing to the point where he misses Paul's approach until too late. He decides that the lesser risk is a bluff rather than fleeing and running into Neil if Paul raises the alarm. In hindsight, a very good decision.
With regard to the Geoprofiling, Lechmere would surely fit into the Commuter category rather than the Marauder. The Commuter theory points to the first murder as being the closest to the killer's home, so I suppose it depends on whether Tabram is regarded as the first, or Nichols.
Cheers, GeorgeLast edited by GBinOz; 01-12-2022, 06:37 AM.They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
Out of a misty dream
Our path emerges for a while, then closes
Within a dream.
Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis
Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff HammComment
-
>>He decides that the lesser risk is a bluff rather than fleeing and running into Neil if Paul raises the alarm. In hindsight, a very good decision.<<
Except there was no chance of running to Neil.
The killer was only seconds away from getting lost in Whitechapel Road, which is presumably what he did.
If you read Baxter's summation you'll see he said more or less the same thing. Although, don't read Bob's (SuperShodan) article in the latest Ripperologist because he deliberately altered Baxters statement to make Lechmere appear guilty.
"the Coroner said: It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection, for there must surely have been marks of blood about his person. If, however, blood was principally on his hands, the presence of so many slaughter-houses in the neighbourhood would make the frequenters of this spot familiar with blood-stained clothes and hands, and his appearance might in that way have failed to attract attention while he passed from Buck's-row in the twilight into Whitechapel-road, and was lost sight of in the morning's market traffic."
The man himself, P.C. Neil's opinion?
"At that time any one could have got away."
The idea that a guilty Lechmere couldn't run/walk/sneak away has been thoroughly debunked.Last edited by drstrange169; 01-12-2022, 07:49 AM.dustymiller
aka drstrangeComment
-
>>My explanation is this. I think Paul see’s nobody ahead of him because there is nobody ahead of him. I think Lechmere is crouched by Nichols, hidden by the darkness of the gateway as Paul walks up Bucks Row. He’s engrossed in killing her and becomes aware of Paul too late. He quickly pulls her dress down to cover her wounds and steps back from the body into the road. His pantomime of ‘finding’ the body begins.<<
Clearly, Bob, you haven't been doing any "thinking in the abstract, analysing and understanding". Your argument, as always, is self defeating.
If you "think Paul see’s nobody ahead of him because there is nobody ahead of him" How did Cross get in the middle of the road some distance from the body without Paul seeing him moving?
Why didn't Paul see him emerge from the alledged darkness outside Brown's yard.
And explain how Neil could see the body from the other side of the road if the body was completely shrouded in darkness.?
We really do need someone to put forward a sensible case against Lechmere.
Last edited by drstrange169; 01-12-2022, 07:44 AM.dustymiller
aka drstrangeComment
-
Hi SS,
I agree that this is where things move to more interesting aspects. But to me, there's no way for two sides to discuss what happened if there's no agreement on what happened in the first place!Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
So, I've just measured out the distances, just to give us all a common rough estimate of distances involved. So, if we have Cross/Lechmere in the location by the Wool Warehouse (roughly 12m, or 39.7 feet from Nichols; we then place Paul 40 yards, 120 feet, not 40m but 35.6m, up Buck's row, then that leaves 236 feet from Paul to the east end of Buck's Row, or 72m). Shown below. Red is Nichols, Green is Cross/Lechmere and Blue is Paul.
This is how things are testified to at the point that Cross/Lechmere says he first became aware of Paul.
Your concern is a valid one. How could Paul and Cross/Lechmere walk more or less in line with each other for 236 feet without Paul knowing about Cross/Lechmere?
The debate, I think, will depend upon whether or not it can be established that Paul was, in fact, unaware of Cross/Lechmere ahead of him until this point is reached. We know Cross/Lechmere is unaware of Paul, but Paul's behind him. His own footsteps could easily mask Paul's, hence Cross/Lechmere's unawareness of Paul is easy to understand. He only hears Paul when he himself stops moving.
But what of Paul? Unfortunately, we do not have Paul testifying when he first became aware of Cross/Lechmere the way we do the reverse. What we have is Paul starting his telling that he noticed a man standing in the middle of the street. Prior to that, we do not know if he had seen this fellow but paid little attention to what would just be another person heading to work. It's not "noteworthy", so to speak. But if that fellow stops in the middle of the street, we know Paul became concerned, and he indicates he started to cross to the other side to avoid him. So we know Paul becomes "more aware" of Cross/Lechmere, and not surprising this would be where a retelling of events would begin, at that point of heightened awareness. In this idea, it may be that Paul was indeed aware of Cross/Lechmere for much longer, and didn't actually fail to see him. If that were the case, it would explain, perhaps, why the police did not consider Cross/Lechmere a suspect, Paul told them he saw the fellow ahead of him heading down Buck's Row, etc.
Or, is Paul a "down looker" when he walks though? (Someone who walks looking at the ground not far ahead of them) If he is, maybe it's not so mysterious.
No, I don't know the answers to those, and I'm not presenting either as if it is a fact. But, either is consistent with what we know, and the 2nd would be consistent with him being unaware as well.
Of course, what you present is also consistent. We do not have a statement from Paul indicating that he was aware of Cross/Lechmere prior to seeing him in the middle of the street, etc.
I think now we're at the point where we have some sort of agreement on things like positions and distances and so on, and there are explanations that could be argued for to explain that common ground. I'm sure there are other ideas out there from both sides of the debate as well.
This is where I think discussions become most fruitful, but it requires some agreement on what it is that needs to be explained (in this case, the above positional layout, including the time just leading up to it when Paul is walking down Buck's Row, and either Cross/Lechmere is as well, or Cross/Lechmere got to the position he's in from some other location, namely where Nichols is found).
As I've sort of signalled, I don't think we have enough information from the witnesses, particularly Paul, to actually answer this question, though I'm sure there are individuals on either side of the debate who will be adamant we do. That's a pretty good indication we don't, actually.
Also, while I've set that diagram up, there's an area of research I'm looking into that I'm hoping to find some decent studies to learn from. Basically, we've had to work from Cross/Lechmere's testimony that Paul was 40 yards away. So Cross/Lechmere has had to make a distance estimate. People are shockingly bad at somethings, and what I want to find out is just how reliable is such an estimation? It might be people tend to overestimate a distance, which would mean it's probably that Paul was even closer. But it might be that people tend to underestimate a distance, which would mean Paul was most likely further away. Or, people may be generally pretty accurate with their estimations of distance. I have no idea what the findings are, but I want to know because finding out how people tend to perform will give us the ability to better translate a witness statement to the actual scene - and it will also alert us to just how variable people are. We might find that Paul could be just about anywhere on Buck's Row if it turns out individuals are highly inaccurate and variable in their estimations. If so, we can never be sure if we're explaining what actually happened. Hopefully the variation is low enough that we can do something interesting with what we know.
- Jeff
Comment
-
Thanks for that Jeff. A comprehensive answer as always.
Comment
-
Hi JeffOriginally posted by JeffHamm View Post
As always you have done a fine job with your mapping and calculations.
But the reality is that a time of death cannot be firmly established and that is most crucial to the Lechmere saga. The evidence of Pc Neil as i have continually stated has to be taken on face value as to what his movments were leading up to the body being found, and was he where he said he was and passed by the murder spot at 3.15am I have my doubts his testimony makes it unclear "I had previously seen the men at work. That would be about a quarter-past three, or half an hour before I found the body" was he having a cuppa with those men? The officer clearly had been at the slaughterhouse because he left his cape behind but how long had he been there and if he had been there for a significant amount of time, that would have thrown his beat times out of sync so can his testimony be relied upon without question, no it cant!!!!!!!!! So Nichols could have been murdered much earlier and Pc Neils was forced to lie about his movements.
There is still this pointless argument going on about distances again, the reality is that Lechmere stated he saw/heard Paul coming 40 yards down the road that is a hell of a distance if he had been the killer that was more than enough time to take flight. Those who suggest he decided to front it out is beyond belief. As to how dark it was is unclear but at the crime scene it was that dark that Lechmere stated that he thought the body when he first saw it was a tarpaulin.
One final thing as a general observation, is that despite Lechmere being framed for these murders no one has come up with a motive for him to be the killer, and why after working for 20 years at Pickfords and travelling the same route to work every day on that morning he suddenly becomes a killer? The Whitechapel Murders were somewhat unique as there were very few serial killers in the LVP. So why does a married family man who has been holding down the same job for 20 years suddenly decide to go on a killing spree?
Comment
-
Hi Trevor,Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Hi Jeff
As always you have done a fine job with your mapping and calculations.
But the reality is that a time of death cannot be firmly established and that is most crucial to the Lechmere saga. The evidence of Pc Neil as i have continually stated has to be taken on face value as to what his movments were leading up to the body being found, and was he where he said he was and passed by the murder spot at 3.15am I have my doubts his testimony makes it unclear "I had previously seen the men at work. That would be about a quarter-past three, or half an hour before I found the body" was he having a cuppa with those men? The officer clearly had been at the slaughterhouse because he left his cape behind but how long had he been there and if he had been there for a significant amount of time, that would have thrown his beat times out of sync so can his testimony be relied upon without question, no it cant!!!!!!!!! So Nichols could have been murdered much earlier and Pc Neils was forced to lie about his movements.
There is still this pointless argument going on about distances again, the reality is that Lechmere stated he saw/heard Paul coming 40 yards down the road that is a hell of a distance if he had been the killer that was more than enough time to take flight. Those who suggest he decided to front it out is beyond belief. As to how dark it was is unclear but at the crime scene it was that dark that Lechmere stated that he thought the body when he first saw it was a tarpaulin.
One final thing as a general observation, is that despite Lechmere being framed for these murders no one has come up with a motive for him to be the killer, and why after working for 20 years at Pickfords and travelling the same route to work every day on that morning he suddenly becomes a killer? The Whitechapel Murders were somewhat unique as there were very few serial killers in the LVP. So why does a married family man who has been holding down the same job for 20 years suddenly decide to go on a killing spree?
Thanks. I agree that I find it impossible to understand the explanation offered for "not fleeing". As you say, 120 feet is a good distance, it's dark, so at best the approaching person is just going to see a figure in motion, certainly there's no risk of being identified. Some have argued that he may have been worried that PC Neil would see him on the basis that Cross/Lechmere would be familiar with PC Neil's beat schedule. But that just makes it all the more a mystery as to why he would murder Nichols at that time then? If he's worried PC Neil might see him running, I would think being caught in the act of killing a larger concern.
But as for being spotted, he has to move towards Paul away from the body given where he waits for Paul. He would only risk doing that if he knows he can't be seen moving, but if he knows he can't be seen moving, he should flee. But if he doesn't flee because he thinks he will be seen, then he is still risking being seen when he moves forward, but now he gives up the possibility of not being identifiable, so again, flee is the only option.
I just find it very hard to get my head around the argument he moves towards a potential witness when there is ample opportunity to exit.
Also, everything about the positions of the crime scene, Cross/Lechmere, and Paul is entirely what one would expect if the first of two men first sees the body. The lack of police interest in Cross/Lechmere may be a sign that in talking with Paul, Paul told them he saw Cross/Lechmere ahead of him for quite some time (pure speculation of course, as we don't know what Paul said when the police spoke to him - but it would go towards offering an explanation for their lack of any apparent interest at all).
- Jeff
Comment
-
Comment
-
Tweet
Comment