Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

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

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.

[Abby Normal]

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

yes it does. isnt that Strange? hehehe

[Abby Normal]

Yes and no. The classical Autumn of Terror and C5+1 are easy to do, given certain assumptions (e.g. he kept working out of Broad Street right through to the Kelly murder); and I've done it...



For the others, the problem is that the triangle may have changed through time, and we won't know how. Thanks to Edward Stow, we have a roughly dated succession of addresses for Lechmere and his mother; but the further we move from the date of the Nichols killing the less we can be confident that he was working out of Broad Street rather than from one of the two other Pickfords bases in the area or some other location entirely. The data we need may be findable, some of it; but only if more people start looking...

Let me have a go at a few, and we'll see how they look...

M.

now add his work routes from his previous home/ mum lech and i think weve got him mate. bam right by stride and eddowes

oh and i forgot. eddowes bloody apron in goulston st on his way scarpering back to doveton
its too easy like a giant stepping on a cockroach lol

[MrBarnett]

now add his work routes from his previous home/ mum lech and i think weve got him mate. bam right by stride and eddowes

oh and i forgot. eddowes bloody apron in goulston st on his way scarpering back to doveton
its too easy like giant stepping on a cockroach lol

And a big blob of colour to identify Haydon Square, his nearest major Pickfords depot to where he was living when he started working for them. Just east of Mitre Square and just south of Goulston Street.

[Aethelwulf]

Yes and no. The classical Autumn of Terror and C5+1 are easy to do, given certain assumptions (e.g. he kept working out of Broad Street right through to the Kelly murder); and I've done it...



For the others, the problem is that the triangle may have changed through time, and we won't know how.

M.

Or, it's not as easy to manipulate the triangle to fit everything in? These maps are cleverly done - the fact that the base map is pretty much blacked out and Lech's actual route (+fictional routes) are 'lit up' gives a sort of subliminal message that these routes are fact and he is guilty.

[FISHY1118]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n778453]

Again, pure inventivness on your behalf , and now other posters have explain it in cleary detail the series of events. .P.C neil passed through bucks row at 3.15am and saw no one, and Nichols was discovered at 3.45am . She was murdered between these two times, and whats abundantly clear to me is your the only one that cant see it . [or wont]

There is no corrobration to show Pc Neil passed by the murder spot at 3.15am, on the contrary there is clear evidence that he might not have done which i have posted previoulsy and dont intend to keep re posting the same stuff over and over again because poster like you totall ignore what is posted

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 ?:/QUOTE]

But taking Pc Neil out of the equation does not allow Nichols to lay dead for 55 mins she was last seen alive at 2.30am and found dead at 3.45am she could have been killed as late as 3.30am just before Lechmere foudn the body for all we know he could have disturbed the killer.

and do we believe his account as to how his cape came to be left at the slaughterhouse because if you do I certainly dont !!!!!!!

I can speak from exeperience that in my early days as a beat officer on nights I would always call in to premises where I knew people were working overnight, sometimes to get out of the cold and to get a hot cuppa. sometimes just for a chat sometime staying for long periods !!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott,co.uk

There is no corrobration to show Pc Neil passed by the murder spot at 3.15am, on the contrary there is clear evidence that he might not have done which i have posted previoulsy and dont intend to keep re posting the same stuff over and over again because poster like you totall ignore what is posted

We have P.C Neils sworn testimony at the official inquest, . What you have trevor,is made up speculation, no proof , no clear evidence what so ever that he did not pass through bucks row when he said he did .Where you get that stuff from i do not know. So yes dont post that again .

[JeffHamm]

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

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fishy,

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n778580]

There is no corrobration to show Pc Neil passed by the murder spot at 3.15am, on the contrary there is clear evidence that he might not have done which i have posted previoulsy and dont intend to keep re posting the same stuff over and over again because poster like you totall ignore what is posted

We have P.C Neils sworn testimony at the official inquest, . What you have trevor,is made up speculation, no proof , no clear evidence what so ever that he did not pass through bucks row when he said he did .Where you get that stuff from i do not know. So yes dont post that again .

As frustrating as it may be, Trevor is correct. We cannot simply state that because PC Neil testified he passed that location at 3:15 it has to be true.

As I've said, when I present the recreations I'm only testing if the testimonies all "hold together", I've never said the testimonies are "true". I think that is readily apparent when I've pointed out that if C/L lied about his departure time, then that would just mean what the simulations show is that he picked a time that works.

It's also apparent when I've spent a lot of time pointing out that the "curiosity" I've presented about Nichols' arrival, etc, is just that. Testing if that idea seems plausible, given the testimonies of other people. I never say it is "true", and I think I repeat a number of times that it should only be viewed as one "plausible" idea (and perhaps need to also say "provided the other testimonies are true").

None of the times I present are meant to be taken as if they are "true" to the exact second, and I've said that before, even if not every time. I repeat myself enough as it is. But it's clear that maybe I should, given that this very important point seems to be missed, or overlooked, or forgotten.

In the end, we have no corroboration for a lot of the testimonies from the PC's. I start by making the assumption that they haven't lied, because if they have, we have no idea what happened, and if we have no idea what happened then nobody can say if C/L looks guilty or not. We don't know what we're talking about. So, under the assumption that the PCs testimonies are at least close to true, if not "True with a capital T", then does everything "fit together"? Yes, it does. If they are fudging things? Then we have no idea what happened, and so have no idea what it is we have to explain, and so no way of knowing if C/L, or Paul, or anyone else, looks guilty.

So, while I recognize that Trevor is raising a valid point, where I deviate from him is that I think we have to draw the line a bit "closer" to the testimonies and work from there because we cannot test the concerns that Trevor raises (which, if this were being investigated today, we most certainly would want tested). But Trevor's point is valid, we cannot be absolutely sure that PC Neil did pass by at 3:15, or that the time was exactly 3:45 when he found the body. But that's all we do have to work with.

the simulations/recreations use PC Neil's, PC Mizen's, and PC Thain's 3:45 as a reference point. All other times are relative to that time. If a particular position of the hands on a clock matter to you, add or subtract whatever you want to all the times I present. But the intervals are all based upon estimated times for travelling distances, and those are the same whether it is 3:45 or 5:30. I just stick to what people said, and when they are inexact, I look to see if the movement times that estimate the clock results in a time that one might reasonably testify was "about X o'clock". And none of the estimated times fail that test.

And nothing in the recreation, other than the "curiosity", which I do not present as if it's the only thing that could be true, points to any indication that any of the people are lying. They could be, but there is no evidence from this analysis to suggest they were. Nichols, though, could have been killed prior to 3:15 in reality, and all that would suggest is that either PC Neil is lying, and he didn't patrol at that time, or that he missed her. But since there are situations where she could easily have been killed post 3:15, I see no reason to suspect that was the case, but that doesn't mean we should preclude those possibilities. Recreations of testimonies are not proof of reality, they are tests used to see if the testimonies cannot be true. In this case, the testimonies are entirely consistent with being true, so there is nothing to indicate any fabrication. That is all I have ever claimed them to show. They are consistent with innocence, therefore they are evidence of innocence - not proof of innocence. I hope I don't have to explain the difference to anyone.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n778584]Hi Fishy,

As frustrating as it may be, Trevor is correct. We cannot simply state that because PC Neil testified he passed that location at 3:15 it has to be true.

As I've said, when I present the recreations I'm only testing if the testimonies all "hold together", I've never said the testimonies are "true". I think that is readily apparent when I've pointed out that if C/L lied about his departure time, then that would just mean what the simulations show is that he picked a time that works.

It's also apparent when I've spent a lot of time pointing out that the "curiosity" I've presented about Nichols' arrival, etc, is just that. Testing if that idea seems plausible, given the testimonies of other people. I never say it is "true", and I think I repeat a number of times that it should only be viewed as one "plausible" idea (and perhaps need to also say "provided the other testimonies are true").

None of the times I present are meant to be taken as if they are "true" to the exact second, and I've said that before, even if not every time. I repeat myself enough as it is. But it's clear that maybe I should, given that this very important point seems to be missed, or overlooked, or forgotten.

In the end, we have no corroboration for a lot of the testimonies from the PC's. I start by making the assumption that they haven't lied, because if they have, we have no idea what happened, and if we have no idea what happened then nobody can say if C/L looks guilty or not. We don't know what we're talking about. So, under the assumption that the PCs testimonies are at least close to true, if not "True with a capital T", then does everything "fit together"? Yes, it does. If they are fudging things? Then we have no idea what happened, and so have no idea what it is we have to explain, and so no way of knowing if C/L, or Paul, or anyone else, looks guilty.

- Jeff

With respect jeff , i will disagree , trevor is not correct , with neil we have a tangilble statment to work with . The fact he stated what time he went through bucks row to which we have no reason to think he was mistaken or lied. i dont recall him being on trial or under cross examination where he had to prove what he said , trevor has to prove he lied or was mistaken ,and he cant .

[JeffHamm]

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'll bite. I'm wondering, though, if we cast our net wide enough, aren't we likely to just get our lines crossed?

- Jeff

P.S. see what I did right at the end of the line there? I'm hoping to at least get a raise.

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n778587]

Hi Fishy,



With respect jeff , i will disagree , trevor is not correct , with neil we have a tangilble statment to work with . The fact he stated what time he went through bucks row to which we have no reason to think he was mistaken or lied. i dont recall him being on trial or under cross examination where he had to prove what he said , trevor has to prove he lied or was mistaken ,and he cant .

Hi Fishy,

No, Trevor is just pointing out that PC Neil's testimony is not independently verified. Yes, we know what he testified to, what Trevor is pointing out is that we shouldn't assume his testimony is "true".

I had a chat with a friend of mine, who's an older fellow who spent 13 years on the police force in the UK back in the 60s/70s. I chatted with him about this case, and he was not at all against the idea that the police of 1888 might very well be less than honest. He was more knowledgable of the JtR cases than someone picked at random (he knew the "last one was inside", the suspect was supposed to be Jewish wasn't he? and so forth - so ideas that are out there about the case, but no, not to the point of detail that people here would call "knowledgeable". But really, I bet if you asked a random person "where did Jack the Ripper commit his crimes", the percentage that would even know we're talking about murders in London would shock you). Anyway, the point is, Trevor, a retired homicide detective, and my friend (whose rank I'm not sure of, but I think he said "chief constable"? - he wasn't a detective, nor in homicide, but he had done some planes clothes work and dealt with deaths, etc) are both pretty sure that just because a PC says they did something, we really should want that to be corroborated. That's all Trevor is pointing out. We're dealing with witness testimonies, and that is the worst kind of evidence to deal with although it is also the one that influences the jury the most. Be the investigator, not the juror.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n778589]

Hi Fishy,

No, Trevor is just pointing out that PC Neil's testimony is not independently verified. Yes, we know what he testified to, what Trevor is pointing out is that we shouldn't assume his testimony is "true".

I had a chat with a friend of mine, who's an older fellow who spent 13 years on the police force in the UK back in the 60s/70s. I chatted with him about this case, and he was not at all against the idea that the police of 1888 might very well be less than honest. He was more knowledgable of the JtR cases than someone picked at random (he knew the "last one was inside", the suspect was supposed to be Jewish wasn't he? and so forth - so ideas that are out there about the case, but no, not to the point of detail that people here would call "knowledgeable". But really, I bet if you asked a random person "where did Jack the Ripper commit his crimes", the percentage that would even know we're talking about murders in London would shock you). Anyway, the point is, Trevor, a retired homicide detective, and my friend (whose rank I'm not sure of, but I think he said "chief constable"? - he wasn't a detective, nor in homicide, but he had done some planes clothes work and dealt with deaths, etc) are both pretty sure that just because a PC says they did something, we really should want that to be corroborated. That's all Trevor is pointing out. We're dealing with witness testimonies, and that is the worst kind of evidence to deal with although it is also the one that influences the jury the most. Be the investigator, not the juror.

- Jeff

Well i guess we will just continue to butt heads where this topic is concerned so i will move on. I will say tho i have read trevors book and have researched his work , its my belief when it come to the murder of polly nichols his attempt to dismiss p.c neil as mistaken or lying is only to fit a much earlier time of death that only he belives in . ive yet to see another poster who agrees on that . There is very little difference between t.o.d 2.50 am and 3.15am so i really dont see his point .

[Mark J D]

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

A case of parr-eidolia...?

M.

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n778591]

Well i guess we will just continue to butt heads where this topic is concerned so i will move on. I will say tho i have read trevors book and have researched his work , its my belief when it come to the murder of polly nichols his attempt to dismiss p.c neil as mistaken or lying is only to fit a much earlier time of death that only he belives in . ive yet to see another poster who agrees on that . There is very little difference between t.o.d 2.50 am and 3.15am so i really dont see his point .

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" .

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n778593][QUOTE=FISHY1118;n778591]

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