Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Fisherman]

I have no research to quote on this subject Fish but we often speak in terms of likelihood. What percentage of serial killers take unnecessary, almost suicidal risks compared to those that don’t? The ripper wasn’t one of those serial killers that pick up their victims on the freeway or in out-of-way places. He killed in places like Mitre Square and Hanbury Street, locations that involved danger and risk of discovery, and yet he remained undiscovered. This, to me, implies caution, an in-built instinct for self-preservation from someone that wanted to remain free to kill. Very little is impossible and so Lechmere loitering around for any length of time for the opportunity to stick his head in the noose isn’t an absolute no-no but I’d say it’s unlikely in the extreme.

Why would it not involve an overbelief in himself? A brazen attitude? A sense of invincibility? Cockyness?

Why do those parameters not pop up in your reasoning, Herlock? Why is he all about caution and self-preservation only to you?

[Fisherman]

Very interesting reply,
In post 386 you said:

" I never said it was, I said it sounded like it"

Which is to imply or suggest.


Yet here you say I was acting as a know-it-all, and you "implied nothing".

So which is it ?
Did you imply or did you say?


Steve

No, to say it sounded like it is NOT implying something. It is pointing out that the wording itself implied something to me, namely that you thought very highly of yourself. Which may or may not be unwarranted.

I am the journalist here, Steve. And you are the...?

I don' t doubt that you will peddle the wrong take on this in extenso. I will not respond though, since I don't have to - this post has settled the question, once and for all.

[Fisherman]

Fish my friend, we are talking about an English Victorian serial killer, not a modern day American one. Social, Moral Values and attitudes amongst killers do change over the years! Jack did like to show off his work and this has been discussed on these very boards. I do not think Jack ran anywhere. He casually walked away and quite probably heard the call and screams of murder, there's been another one as everyone else went running past him at high speed in the opposite direction. Who is rubbish then- Jack, the Police, or those who could have been a good witnesses, but turn out to be wanting fifteen minutes of fame?

So a victorian serial killer was materially different from a modern day American ditto? Killed for different reasons, ran for different reasons, had a different set of moral values? And this you can prove?

Are you sure you want to go down that path?

[Fisherman]

Pardon?

According to your theory, he is aware of Paul at over 100 yards away.
That means he will be out of sight before Paul even arrives at the body, possibly on the other side of the Whitechapel Road.
Such is not just opinion but backed by the distances and walking speeds, any walking speeds.

The argument you make is truly astounding in its unrealistic approach.


Steve

The only astounding thing here is how you claim that I would have passed it off as a fact that Lechmere heard Paul from 130 yards away. I THINK that he MAY WELL have, and I BELIEVE that he heard him from a much longer distance than 30-40 yards. But that is as far as it goes. And in the end, it means little to me, since I also BELIEVE (not claim as a fact - believe) that he may have chosen to stay put even if he had time to run.
In fact, he would not have pulled down the clothing and stashed his knife and walked away from the body in full view of Paul so whatever time THAT took, would have been time when he could have run off unseen.
But he didn't.

[Fisherman]

Simply because you do imply it over and over again.
Please stop playing the victim, no one is buying it.


Steve

I´m afraid that is a lie. I imply nothing. Claiming that I do MAKES me a victim.

You can't have it both ways.

[Fisherman]

So you cannot supply who made this unrealistic claim, oh well, says it all.


And you carry on about the body and the gate, which has no bearing on the original point made by Dusty.
Which you obviously do not wish to discuss.

That being that the shadows from the Board School would have made escape west very easy, given Paul is at least 30 yards from the body when Lech becomes aware of him(you say much more).

Steve

I cannot fix the distance, nor can you. Lechmere said 30-40 yards, but he may have lied. Sound certainly carries a lot longer than that.

Nichols was lying in the shadows you speak of. Dusty claimed that Lechmere saw her from a very long distance away. if he could do that, then why would the shadows conceal a fleeing killer?

That is the problem here.

[Fisherman]

Im confused about something-did or did not paul say he entered bucks row at 3:45?
also, when did lech say he entered bucks row/discover her body?

In the Lloyds interview, Paul is quoted as saying that it was exactly 3.45 as he passed down Bucks Row.

At the inquest, he says "I left home just before a quarter to four", which bolsters the time as such.

Lechmere never says anything about the time he entered the street or saw the body. He only gives the time when he left home.

[Fisherman]

Re: 150 yards

>>No-one says it. But someone SAID it, which was what I pointed to.<<

I just did a search of Casebook and jtrForums and I couldn't find any hits for Cross being 150 yards from the body. Care to "point" a little more specifically? Is this one more of your "facts"?

The street was not 150 yards from Brady Street down to Browns, so 150 yards is obviously a mistake. I meant 150 feet.

And there is not much of fact about any information putting Nichols at any of those distances away from Lechmere as he noticed her.

All I know is that it was a number you reached by cutting away vital information and that it was absolutely ridiculous. Which will be the reason that this number is never quoted out here - nobody believed in it.

Sorry for the confusion, I really need to invest a little bit more in my exchanges with you.

[Abby Normal]

Im confused about something-did or did not paul say he entered bucks row at 3:45?
also, when did lech say he entered bucks row/discover her body?

[Patrick S]

Re: 150 yards

>>No-one says it. But someone SAID it, which was what I pointed to.<<

I just did a search of Casebook and jtrForums and I couldn't find any hits for Cross being 150 yards from the body. Care to "point" a little more specifically? Is this one more of your "facts"?

Maybe he was speaking colloquially.

[Elamarna]

"Lechmere was either the killer of the last person to see Nichols before the Killer escape"

I see several posters who I respect have sort of agreed with this statement and that really confuses me.

I just so not see how this can be supported in any way guys.

The body is already there when he arrives and he sees no one .

Therefore he may be the first to see her after the killer leaves; but not the LAST BEFORE.


Even if we go down the route of the killer hiding and coming back after the carman leave, which I consider highly unlikely, he would only be one of the two last people to see her before the Killer left.

Am I missing something ?


Steve

[drstrange169]

Re: 150 yards

>>No-one says it. But someone SAID it, which was what I pointed to.<<

I just did a search of Casebook and jtrForums and I couldn't find any hits for Cross being 150 yards from the body. Care to "point" a little more specifically? Is this one more of your "facts"?

[drstrange169]

>>All we can say with any certainty is... Nichols was murdered by JTR
Nichols was strangled in the first instance to stop her blood flow, before being mutilated<<

Sadly, there is not even certainty over that. There are some that argue there was no Jack the ripper. That the name was created by a journalist and that some of the murders were by different hands.


>>Lechmere was EITHER the killer OR the last person to see Nichols BEFORE the real killer escaped <<

Depending on the t.o.d. this seems likely, but if you believe the Lloyds newspaper article that Fisherman holds so much store in, Mrs Nichols was dead before Lechmere says he left home.


>>The latter fact means that statistically at least, Lechmere is 50% likely to be JTR and 50% likely to be completely innocent.

With regards to those statistics, it makes Lechmere more likely than any other suspect to be JTR.<<

The statistics are a bit more complicated than that. For a start Lechmere would be no more likely to be the murderer than any other discoverer of the other women's bodies, not to mention people like Israel Schwartz.

[drstrange169]

>>No-one says it. But someone SAID it, which was what I pointed to.<<

Who needs verification when you can just say things.

[drstrange169]

>>And how was the killer to know that the alarm would not be raised, Steve?<<

Err ... might bit be because anyone raising an alarm would have to be behind him not in front of him? Or perhaps you think they sent a text out?