Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Window of Time for Nichols murder

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

  • And now I am going to occupy the sofa and enjoy the sight of Tottenham Hotspur eliminating Manchester City from Champions League (he said, shivering with fear and anticipation in equal measures).

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

      Hi herlock.
      love you buddy but your wrong on this one. I had a similar thing happen to me. I surprised someone who had just knocked a dude out in a dark parking lot, and he acted like he was helping him out and asked me to go get help. When i got back with a cop the knocked out dude was waking up and had been robbed by the other guy. The guy could have run away, i was about 25 yards away when he noticed me, but he chise to bluff it out. Now he didnt go wit me to find the cop, but he didnt run away right away either.
      Hi Abby,

      The difference appears to be that you ‘surprised’ a guy who was yet to achieve what he wanted (ie to get the cash). You were on him unexpectedly but he still saw you and because the other guy was unconscious he could say “I just found him like this”. Lechmere only heard footsteps from around 40 yards away and he had already done what he wanted (killed and mutilated Nichols) Walking away was almost completely risk free for Lechmere. Your guy stuck around for a reason - so that he could rob the other guy. Sending you off to look for a PO was plausible. Lechmere had no reason to stick around but every reason to get away.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
        Your guy stuck around for a reason - so that he could rob the other guy. Sending you off to look for a PO was plausible.
        Hi Herlock. How do we know this alleged robber even existed and Abby didn't rob the guy himself? Aren't we constantly told that it's the innocent bystanders were are supposed to be suspicious of? The Lechmeres, the Richardsons, the Hutchinsons, the "Normal" guys....???

        What's good for the goose, is good for the gander...

        Comment


        • Is there a chance that Lechmere (IF he was JTR) THOUGHT that Paul may have seen him covering over Nichols wounds and had no choice but to try and intercept Paul to assess his response?

          If Lechmere was JTR and THOUGHT that Paul had witnessed anything, then Lechmere wouldn't have had the option to run as it would of raised Paul's suspicions immediately and drawn attention to Nichols body in a way which relinquished his control BUT by staying by Nichols body, it actually acts as rather bold form of reverse psychology to contain control of the situation at hand.

          In other words, if he thought he had been seen covering Nichols wounds, running away would have raised suspicion and almost certainly alert Paul to the crime. Once intercepting Paul, Lechmere would have soon realized that he was in the clear.


          On the flip side, if Lechmere was in fact innocent, then why didn't he see or hear the real JTR?

          Nichols was strangled initially to the point of unconsciousness, which would have had an impact on how long JTR spent with Nichols. If Lechmere noticed nothing then it makes the time the real JTR spent with Nichols.


          The Rookie Detective



          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
            Is there a chance that Lechmere (IF he was JTR) THOUGHT that Paul may have seen him covering over Nichols wounds and had no choice but to try and intercept Paul to assess his response?
            There is always a chance of anything that doesn't deny the known laws of of the universe (we can dismiss suspects who are demonstrably elsewhere at the time of the murders - some have small windows of time that might allow them to be in Whitehcapel, such as Druitt, which means he can't be entirely dismissed, but it requires a fair bit of tossing around a lot of "could have" to keep him there).

            One has to weigh the probability that if Lechmere/Cross has just killed and mutilated Nichols, and sees someone coming down towards him, that he chooses that option over the option of fleeing the scene on the basis that it is dark and Paul is far enough away that he will not have seen his face, etc.

            Also, because we don't know that Lechmere/Cross has just killed and mutilated Nichols, we also have to consider his actions starting with the assumption that he didn't. And evaluate the likelihood of those choices under that circumstance.

            Of course, evaluating those probabilities isn't like working out coin tosses, there's no formula for it. We can look at the behavior of other offenders in similar situations, and try and work out the relative proportions of "leavers vs remainers" and use those. But we don't have that data, so we each have to make our own subjective decision. Mine is that fleeing under those circumstances is far more likely, and I suspect that someone in the process of mutilating a body would also be on the look out for anyone coming, so I don't think Lechmere/Cross would have surprised him, and it's entirely possible he spotted Lechmere/Cross well enough in advance that he could flee without worrying. That's all conjecture, of course, as one could also argue that someone mutilating a body might be so focused on what they are doing that they are less likely to spot someone coming down the road. How you view those two ideas is up to you as, in the end, neither of us can know the real answer.

            If Lechmere was JTR and THOUGHT that Paul had witnessed anything, then Lechmere wouldn't have had the option to run as it would of raised Paul's suspicions immediately and drawn attention to Nichols body in a way which relinquished his control BUT by staying by Nichols body, it actually acts as rather bold form of reverse psychology to contain control of the situation at hand.

            In other words, if he thought he had been seen covering Nichols wounds, running away would have raised suspicion and almost certainly alert Paul to the crime. Once intercepting Paul, Lechmere would have soon realized that he was in the clear.
            Well, given the body is there, suspicions are likely to be raised whether Lechmere/Cross stays at the scene or not. It's a choice of "sticking around and ensuring I'm identified" or "fleeing the scene and minimizing the chance of being identified".

            Mind you, the number of offenders who end up approaching the police "to help", is much higher than one would expect.

            And sticking around if he's innocent seems perfectly reasonable since he would have had no reason to flee.



            On the flip side, if Lechmere was in fact innocent, then why didn't he see or hear the real JTR?

            Nichols was strangled initially to the point of unconsciousness, which would have had an impact on how long JTR spent with Nichols. If Lechmere noticed nothing then it makes the time the real JTR spent with Nichols.

            The Rookie Detective
            Lechmere/Cross may not have seen JtR either because JtR had killed and mutilated Polly and left the scene prior to Lechmere's arrival, or, JtR spotted Lechmere coming down Buck's Row, so he fled at that time. Given it was dark, Lechmere/Cross has no reason to be scanning far down the street but JtR does, that's not really a stretch in my view.

            So, let's say Cross/Lechmere and Paul have to leave the scene by 3:42 in order to meet Mizen at 3:45. Their entire interaction, as described, including waiting for Paul to get there, let's say takes 5 minutes (and that seems a bit long to me), so that would mean Cross/Lechmere arriving at the body at 3:37. Let's go with JtR leaving, for whatever reason, a minute earlier (3:36). We know that Eddowe's murder seems to have required less than 15 minutes, and her wounds and multiations were more extensive, so let's give 10 minutes for strangulation, cutting the throat, and mutilations, placing the murder at 3:26, and that still leaves 10 more minutes to play with since PC Neil's previous patrol.

            It seems to me there is more than ample time for someone other than Lechmere/Cross to have killed Nichols, and given that all of Lechmere/Cross's behaviours are easily explained if he's innocent, and to me require far more complicated explanations if he's guilty, I think the balance is well in favour of JtR being someone else. Others, however, weigh all of that differently, and so, come to different conclusions.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • It would be nice to see a list of sources (news, police, inquest) that were used to recount the finding of Nichols body to Scobie and Griffiths. Did they read these and/or was information given to them verbally?

              Comment


              • >>... Lechmere, who just happened to have his timings wrong, who just happened to use the name Cross instead of Lechmere, who just happened to have a PC disagree with himself over what was said on the murder morning, who just happened to have a working trek that was roughly consistent or very consistent with being at the murder sites at the correct times, who just happened to have reason to visit St Georges, who just happened to have reason to be familiar with Mitre Square and who just happened to be found stading alone in the street nearby a murdered Ripper victim one cold August morning in 1888, also just happened to be present at the one murder site where the victim just happened to have had her wounds hidden from sight. It just so happens that this, taken together, makes for a very good case of guilt.<<

                Virtually every single person who has a suspect has a list of "just happens", yours is no different in that respect. even the more ridiculous have "just happens that in themselves are factual, the proof is in the quality of the interpretation.

                >>A case, that it just so happens, a QC tells me would make it to court.<<

                Given Scobie's exact words in the TV show, there is considerable doubt as to his full understand of the evidence.


                >>Anyone is welcome to say "I don´t think it was Lechmere". Fine. But saying that he is not a good suspect is absolute bonkers in my humble view.<<

                I'd put him on a par with Louis Diemshitz, giving there are about the same about of "just happens".

                dustymiller
                aka drstrange

                Comment



                • >>And with an exact timing given. Which strengthens the case for Paul having arrived at this time. <<

                  Yes, cherry picked from the Lloyd's interview, what a marvelous piece of credibility to build an argument on.



                  >>It also jibes with his inquest statement in this respect. <<

                  Yes, the testimony where he changed his story under oath, saying he didn't know the exact time he left home. Perhaps, like St. Paul he had an epiphany on the road to Buck's.



                  >>Plus the last police report we know of has the timing 3.45.<<

                  Yes, Swanson's 19th October reports. The same reports he wrote that,

                  "about 1a.m. 30th Leon Goldstein ... called at Leman St & stated he was the man that passed down Berner St. with a black bag ..."

                  Not bad timing considering at 1:00 am Deimshitz was only just discovering the body and Fanny Mortimer hadn't even told the police about seeing a man with a bag!

                  Or how about this gem?

                  "... Lamb proceed to the spot & sent for Drs Blackwell and Phillips. 1:10 am Body examined by doctors mentioned who pronounced life extinct."

                  Not bad again, considering Phillips says he wasn't called until 1:20 and then had to get to Berner Street from Spital Sq.



                  >>Plus that late timing sits a whole lot better with the time it took Thain to fetch Llewellyn.<<

                  Yes, the timing that makes it impossible for Cross to get to Broad Street by 4:00. The timing that does in fact fit in with Thain and Llewellyn as I showed on another thread.

                  We have a choice, one theory based on some of the most dubious evidence in the case, rounded together and hammered relentlessly into a square hole, which is at odds with all the other witnesses whose timing are in sync with each other and whose timings are consistent with the distances walked and one that actually fits all the known facts.

                  You stick with your holes, I'll stick with what can be verified.

                  No matter which way you carve it up, your theory is a turkey. And therein lies the problem, Griffiths and Scobie, professionals who would normal dismiss this nonsense, took it on faith that it they were being presented with a faithful representation of the facts. Until we know that they wouldn't change there mind when presented with sound evidence, their opinions are very much in doubt.


                  dustymiller
                  aka drstrange

                  Comment


                  • >>The two men opted for a verdict of probably dead, or so Lechmere said.That´s a tad more sinister than to be sleeping rough.<<

                    Precisely! And what alarm did Paul then raise? Thank you for proving my point.


                    >>Some details we like, some we like less...<<

                    So true, so true.
                    dustymiller
                    aka drstrange

                    Comment


                    • >>The wounds WERE covered, and that only happened in the case where Lechmere was found on the site. In the other cases, the killer seems to have been outright disinclined to cover them. Hellbent on showing of, more likely, than on concealing.<<

                      All well and good, but what has this to do with my post? To wit, that we don't know the wounds were covered on purpose. What you suggest might be correct and it might not, which was the point I was making, which is correct, is it not?
                      dustymiller
                      aka drstrange

                      Comment


                      • >>Plus it should be said that since Lechmere afterwards said that he thought that the woman was probably dead, that should perhaps have encouraged him to raise the alarm and secure some sort of first aid from dwellers in the street. <<

                        Not quite sure the proper first aid for a dead person! But, again your logic doesn't work out, Paul was the one who thought she might be alive, so the onus was on him not Cross. Paul makes no mention of Cross trying to dissuade him from knocking on doors or screaming out.
                        dustymiller
                        aka drstrange

                        Comment


                        • >>On the flip side, if Lechmere was in fact innocent, then why didn't he see or hear the real JTR?<<

                          Same reason as Loius Deimshitz I'd guess, because that's the way the killer worked, silently.
                          dustymiller
                          aka drstrange

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                            >>On the flip side, if Lechmere was in fact innocent, then why didn't he see or hear the real JTR?<<

                            Same reason as Loius Deimshitz I'd guess.
                            Indeed, and similar "if only they'd got there a little sooner" folks at Hanbury Street and Mitre Square.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              Look at the boards. I already have one. Perhaps not in your eyes, but there are more eyes out here, Baron! We all have our ideas and convictions, but I would propose that you look at other serial killers. Do they all throw away their murder weapons once they´ve killed?

                              Do serial killers stand still near their victimis, carrying there weapons, and waiting for the first person to come who me come out to be a policeman, then follow him and touch him on the shoulder to show him their victims, then go with him sesrching for policemen with their weapons still on themselves ?!


                              No, I havent heared of such a thing, nor I will hear, this is not real, this is some sort of an alternative reality, you can ignore the problem (Carrying the weapon on himself) but it will be always there.



                              The Baron

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

                                You have Lechmere HEARING, not SEEING, Paul from 40 yards off in your echo chamber, Paul has seen neither Lechmere nor his victim (Abby saw both).
                                Hi Patrick,

                                Before being found in the middle of the road, Lechmere had to cover the abdominal wounds, cut her throat twice, possibly cover the throat wound (but leave the eyes open) and then silently move away from the body to take his position in the middle of the street and wait for Paul. As this would have taken some time, Paul would have been more like, at least, 60 yards away when he first heard him. Make of that what you wish.

                                All the best,
                                Frank

                                "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                                Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X