Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Window of Time for Nichols murder

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

  • Window of Time for Nichols murder

    What is the longest possible time between Nichols being attacked to Lechmere discovering her laying on the ground?


    I had read lots of heated debate and counter argument regarding Lechmere as a potential suspect and i understand that there are some who are for and against the concept of him being JTR

    However, most of the questions and statements have been based on conjecture.

    The case isn't just about finding answers; it's about asking the right questions in the first place.

    If the maximum amount of time possible is enough for JTR to have attacked Nichols and then fled before Lechmere found her, then the Lechmere suspect theory is questionable.

    However, if there's literally no way that JKR could have slain Nichols and then escaped the scene before Lechmere found her, then it would seem that Lechmere has to be JTR due to there being literally no way for any other person to have been on the scene prior to Lechmere arriving.

    Arguing about what Lechmere said to the police, whether he lied, which name he declared at the inquest or his interaction with Paul all act as a distraction from the more important question of the actual time between the attack of Nichols to Lechmere finding her.

    It would appear that she has only been attacked shortly beforehand.

    Establishing whether it was literally possible for there to have physically been another person in that street attacking Nichols and then escaping the scene BEFORE Lechmere discovered her, is a key question that needs to be answered.

    If there was time... Lechmere as a suspect is questionable
    If there was no time... Lechmere was JTR

    Thoughts please?


    The Rookie Detective



  • #2
    How both of them couldn't be able to detect blood ?!

    A woman was slained, throat was cut to the bone, abdomen cavity was opened, Two men examined her.. and yet one of them thought she was still alive and detected what may was a breath.

    How is that even possible!

    It will be easier to think she was killed after thy left the woman, maybe Jack was hiding in the shadows, or maybe he came next, found the woman, and killed her.

    Your question is based on the assumption she was slained before those two men came along.

    But that may not be 100% the case.


    The Baron
    Last edited by The Baron; 04-13-2019, 06:07 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by The Baron View Post
      How both of them couldn't be able to detect blood ?!

      A woman was slained, throat was cut to the bone, abdomen cavity was opened, Two men examined her.. and yet one of them thought she was still alive and detected what may was a breath.

      How is that even possible!

      It will be easier to think she was killed after thy left the woman, maybe Jack was hiding in the shadows, or maybe he came next, found the woman, and killed her.

      Your question is based on the assumption she was slained before those two men came along.

      But that may not be 100% the case.


      The Baron
      True, it is not 100 per cent.

      But it is 99,9.

      The idea that she was found by Lechmere and that Paul and the former examined her, felt her for warmth and pulled her rest down without her reacting at all is very odd, if she was alive. If she was gloriously drunk, then there is some little possibility.

      After the examination, the carmen went up Bucks Row and turned into Bakers Row very shortly before Neil turned into Bucks Row, and John Thain was down on Brady Street, so the time window for somebody to creep up on Nichols and cut her inbetween Lechmere, Paul and Neil is extremely narrow, if it even exists.

      But that is the funny thing about Ripperology. Nothing can be totally ruled out. Somebody could have crept out the window of Essex Wharf and cut her and crept back in. That's not to say it is I any way likely, only that it COULD have happened.

      The by far best guess is that Nichols had been cut before Paul arrived, and that the explanation for him not noticing any blood is that there was just a small pool of blood under Nicholsī neck, and it would have been hidden from those looking at her from above, plus the wounds to the abdomen had had her dress pulled down over them, effectively hiding them from sight. The scene was a surprisingly unbloody one, taking into account the horrific damage she had suffered. That is how we explain why Paul saw no blood. It can also be argued that IF Lechmere was the killer, then he can have directed Pauls position at the scene so as to minimize risk in this regard.

      Rookie Detective! The time window for a "phantom killer" to have preceded Lechmere at the scene is unestablishable since there can be no absolute certainty how long a person with the type of damage Nichols had will bleed. If the wound to the neck was a gaping one as it was claimed in the press, and if Nichols blood was a standard type of blood and if there was no disease involved influencing things, then I would say that I find it hard to fit in another murderer, although I do not categorically rule out the possibility.

      However, since we have a man whose timings seem wrong, who seemingly lied to the police, who had reasons to pass all the murder sites at the relevant hours, who spent an unknown amount of time alone in close enough proximity to the victim to have killed her etcetera, we know that we have a very viable bid for the killers role in Lechmere.

      After that, it is all a question about whether we want to admit how he fits the bill or not. Some would rather take poison, as you have seemingly noted.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        It can also be argued that IF Lechmere was the killer, then he can have directed Pauls position at the scene so as to minimize risk in this regard.
        That is a better explanation than to believe both of them weren't able to detect any blood.


        The Baron

        Comment


        • #5
          One of the problems against Lechmere candidacy as the Ripper is the murder weapon.

          It will be next to impossible I think that a guilty Lechmere will search for a policeman with the bloody knife on him.

          But, there IS a solution for this too.

          The blood was running from Nichols wounds into the gutter! There was a gutter near her!

          If Lechmere killed here, and chose not to run away, all he needed, is to throw his knife in the gutter, and what then ?! No one on earth can prove him guilty!

          Is it another coincidence too ?! that there was a gutter near him just to throw the Knife in?!


          The Baron

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by The Baron View Post

            That is a better explanation than to believe both of them weren't able to detect any blood.


            The Baron
            No itís not. No one is accusing Paul have been involved in the murder but he simply didnít see the blood. Why would he lie?
            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 04-13-2019, 01:44 PM.
            Regards

            Herlock






            "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by The Baron View Post
              One of the problems against Lechmere candidacy as the Ripper is the murder weapon.

              It will be next to impossible I think that a guilty Lechmere will search for a policeman with the bloody knife on him.

              But, there IS a solution for this too.

              The blood was running from Nichols wounds into the gutter! There was a gutter near her!

              If Lechmere killed here, and chose not to run away, all he needed, is to throw his knife in the gutter, and what then ?! No one on earth can prove him guilty!

              Is it another coincidence too ?! that there was a gutter near him just to throw the Knife in?!


              The Baron
              Apart from the fact that he would have almost certainly had blood on his hands andclothing. And I think that even the most unobservant and dim witted of police officers might have spotted a bloody knife in the gutter and deduced itís significance.
              Regards

              Herlock






              "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
                What is the longest possible time between Nichols being attacked to Lechmere discovering her laying on the ground?
                Isn't the longest possible time, about 15 minutes, but more likely 10?

                Harriet Lilley who lived two doors away heard moans & whispers around the time a train passed, the 3.07 from New Cross station which was assumed to have passed through Bucks Row around 3:30-3:35 or thereabouts. The body being found around 3:40-45.
                There plenty of room within these estimated times to allow for a third-party to have fled the scene.

                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by The Baron View Post

                  If Lechmere killed here, and chose not to run away, all he needed, is to throw his knife in the gutter, and what then ?! No one on earth can prove him guilty!

                  The Baron
                  No weapon was picked up at the scene.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Apart from the fact that he would have almost certainly had blood on his hands andclothing. And I think that even the most unobservant and dim witted of police officers might have spotted a bloody knife in the gutter and deduced itís significance.
                    Have another look at what Jason Payne-James says in the docu, Herlock. "I don't think that he would have had much, on in fact any blood necessarily visible on his person".

                    What happens to your "almost certainly" now? It withers away. Poof.

                    There are way too many "almost certainties" contaminating the boards.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                      Isn't the longest possible time, about 15 minutes, but more likely 10?

                      Harriet Lilley who lived two doors away heard moans & whispers around the time a train passed, the 3.07 from New Cross station which was assumed to have passed through Bucks Row around 3:30-3:35 or thereabouts. The body being found around 3:40-45.
                      There plenty of room within these estimated times to allow for a third-party to have fled the scene.
                      There is nothing lily with wither 15 or 10 minutes. When I asked Payne-James if 3,5 or perhaps 7 minutes were likely suggestions, he said that they COULD all apply, but to his mind, the lower estimates (3 and 5) were the safer bets. It does not take long to bleed out from the type of horrendeous wounds Nichols had suffered. In all likelihood, they were provided by Charles Lechmere.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                        No weapon was picked up at the scene.
                        Of course, if it went in the gutter!


                        The Baron

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                          No weapon was picked up at the scene.
                          Correct. The area was scrutinized and no weapon found. If Lechmere was the killer, then he carried his knife as he spoke to Mizen. THAT is an "almost certainty"!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by The Baron View Post

                            Of course, if it went in the gutter!


                            The Baron
                            A gutter is not a hole in the ground, Baron, it is the lowering where the pavement meets the road. If there had been a drain of sorts there, it would have been searched by the police. No weapon was left on the scene, I think we must accept that.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Was there no drain of any sort there ?! Are you sure of that, or this is just what you think ?!

                              For a moment, you have mentioned that there are too many certainties on the board.

                              If he didn't get rid of the weapon, then for me at least, Lechmere was not the Ripper.


                              The Baron

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X