Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Window of Time for Nichols murder

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

  • A question for Fish out of genuine interest.

    We interpret the information that has been passed down differently. You believe that the known facts point toward Lechmere’s guilt so i’d ask how you think that Lechmere’s behaviour and actions might have differed had he been innocent?

    And congrats on the Spurs win by the way.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 04-18-2019, 09:33 AM.
    Regards

    Herlock






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

    Comment


    • I see we still have the nonsense about 3, 5 or 7 minutes placing Lechmere at the eye of the storm.

      The hypothesis does not work, it is fatally flawed, as will be shown in the next few weeks.
      Before you say I am disagreeing with Payne-james, I will say I am not, only that the information he supplied has been over enthusiastically and completely misinterpreted.

      Blood flow rates from the Carotìds alone make those figures redundant, and given that some remain of the view that the cause of death is loss of blood from the abdomen, those figures are , if correct, even more meaningless.

      And has I said before the hypothesis does not actually work, it cannot even be tested.


      With regards to the possible gap, it is impossible to reach a meaningful conclusion.

      We can assume the body is not there at 3.15.
      We can assume the latestest it is found is around 3.45.

      However we cannot be sure of the actual time that Lechmere arrives, or Paul, or Neil or Thain or Mizen.

      These events are all open to debate.
      We can make educated guesses at the intervals between each event, but there is even debate on those.

      All of which is covered in "Inside Bucks Row" (almost ready for release) giving all the options.


      Harriet Lilley is tantalising, however we do not know what time the train passed.
      We do know the scheduled time, but that is not the same thing.


      We can make a best guess about the gap, using the available evidence, and say the following.

      If Lechmere is not the killer, and the evidence does not in my opinion say that he is, the killer probably attacks in the 5-10 minutes before Lechmere arrives.


      Anything else is not based on evidence, but on wishful thinking.


      Steve

      Ps, sorry for long delay in the book, but these things take time.


      Comment


      • Just finished reading this thread.
        Been away, a few weeks, and nothing changes.

        The same old tired personal account of the murders being posted. The same rebuttals being made, and those are again ignored or sidestepped.

        Just as Monty posted, there is nothing New being presented, no new medical insights, no new evidence of any type in fact.

        I am sorry I have been away, but the book has taken up much of my time, and while it has been delayed, due to personal circumstances, it is nearing release now.

        I expect to be back here more permanently by the end of May.
        No doubt having new arguments over old issues.


        Steve

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
          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?
          I asked this question when the documentary first aired some years back. And was told a file was presented by Ed and/or Christer and/or the producers (I forget who precisely).

          The question is what exactly was in that file? The exact contents were never revealed. Not that they should be. However transparency and all that.

          Monty





          Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

          http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Monty View Post

            I asked this question when the documentary first aired some years back. And was told a file was presented by Ed and/or Christer and/or the producers (I forget who precisely).

            The question is what exactly was in that file? The exact contents were never revealed. Not that they should be. However transparency and all that.

            Monty
            Well from my telephone conversation with Scobie shortly after the prog aired it was clear he was not provided with all the relevant information

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
              Just finished reading this thread.
              Been away, a few weeks, and nothing changes.

              The same old tired personal account of the murders being posted. The same rebuttals being made, and those are again ignored or sidestepped.

              Just as Monty posted, there is nothing New being presented, no new medical insights, no new evidence of any type in fact.

              I am sorry I have been away, but the book has taken up much of my time, and while it has been delayed, due to personal circumstances, it is nearing release now.

              I expect to be back here more permanently by the end of May.
              No doubt having new arguments over old issues.


              Steve
              Yes, the same weak arguments being presented again.

              Good to hear you will be present more

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                Well from my telephone conversation with Scobie shortly after the prog aired it was clear he was not provided with all the relevant information

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Can you elaborate, Trevor?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

                  Can you elaborate, Trevor?
                  From what I recall and it was a long time ago, Scobie pointed out that his contribution to the program was around forty minutes, of which less than three minutes finished up being shown. That important three minutes was exactly what our intrepid researchers wanted to hear and what the program makers wanted the viewing public to absorb. Scobie`s final opinion as highlighted in the program was that there was enough evidence against Lechmere to put before a jury. Scobie did point out to me that in the grand scheme of things, there was not sufficient evidence to have ever secured a conviction, and that the CPS would probably have never authorized a charge if it had been today. I wonder if these comments were also edited out. He also stated he raised concerns with the program makers in relation to some of what was presented to him, but could not be specific.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    From what I recall and it was a long time ago, Scobie pointed out that his contribution to the program was around forty minutes, of which less than three minutes finished up being shown. That important three minutes was exactly what our intrepid researchers wanted to hear and what the program makers wanted the viewing public to absorb. Scobie`s final opinion as highlighted in the program was that there was enough evidence against Lechmere to put before a jury. Scobie did point out to me that in the grand scheme of things, there was not sufficient evidence to have ever secured a conviction, and that the CPS would probably have never authorized a charge if it had been today. I wonder if these comments were also edited out. He also stated he raised concerns with the program makers in relation to some of what was presented to him, but could not be specific.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Thanks, Trevor.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                      Yes, the same weak arguments being presented again.

                      Good to hear you will be present more
                      I wish this Lechmere debacle would disappear down the same black hole from which it appeared

                      for the last time the case against Lecherme is all about timings

                      He is supposed to have killed Nichols within a short time frame between leaving his house and Robert Paul coming across him in the street, and to support that, those postulating this theory seek to rely on what Dr Llewellyn says about the time of death, and their own interpretation of also trying to estimate a time of death by reason of the various descriptions given witnesses who viewed the body in situ, and what they said about blood flowing from the neck wound.

                      Of course if the time of death can be proved to be wrong then Lechmere is eliminated forever. I purposely put what Dr LLewely had said to Dr Biggs his reply I think now puts it firmly to bed for ever I have posted this before but it seem there are some who choose to ignore it

                      "In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise ‘time of death’ based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork. Nowadays, we recognize that it is subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn’t attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature you couldn’t estimate a time since death to within less than a few hours. Suggesting that death happened 30 minutes previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days... but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said"

                      "It is possible that death could have occurred even a few hours before the time of body discovery, and the observations made by the doctor would have been the same. Clothing state can affect the time of death calculations, but in reality, it would make very little difference in the scenario you describe. I think the doctor’s estimation of the time of death should be taken with a pinch of salt, and in fact, it could have been far earlier. This is not a criticism: back then that was the sort of thing that was said and done. We just know more now and therefore, can’t be so ‘certain’."

                      "A window of 15 minutes would certainly allow someone to do the deed, and for the blood to have collected as stated... but a considerably longer period would look no different and so many eventualities are possible"

                      "Blood is a funny substance, and doesn’t necessarily ‘congeal’ in all cases... therefore a lack of congealing doesn’t indicate a particular time frame. Nor does the presence of congealed blood, for that matter (other than the fact that it doesn’t happen instantaneously, so a ‘small number of minutes’ can probably be relatively safely ‘assumed’)."

                      "As I’ve said before, blood ‘still flowing’ from a dead body does not necessarily indicate that death has only just happened. I’ve certainly been at scenes some hours after death (or even the next day) and been able to make more blood ooze out of a wound with very little movement of the body"


                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Very clear points by Dr Biggs, Trevor.

                        A pity that others do not address them correctly.

                        Why they continue to repeat the TODs given 130 years ago as if they are fact , when the methods used were purely subjective, is the real question?

                        Steve

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                          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.


                          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.



                          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
                          Jeff, you give one of the most compelling and balanced viewpoints and i completely acknowledge all of the points you make.

                          I initiated this particular thread at the very beginning asking the key question of timings and i am finally getting a measured and open minded logical analysis and response to my query.

                          You make a very good argument for Lechmere being innocent.


                          However, I am still unsure and Lechmere for me remains a key suspect.

                          The reason for this stems from another line of investigation that i am running concurrently with this particular thread and so i needed some response from the question i raised at the beginning of this thread.

                          If there was time for it NOT to be Lechmere, then that helps me to focus on other areas of my investigation.


                          I am close to making a link between Lechmere and another JTR victim. If it mounts to nothing (which is most likely) then at least i have exhausted every possible outlet.

                          I am hoping to be the first person to connect Lechmere with multiple victims. If i can somehow reaffirm what i have already discovered to make it conclusive and definitive, then it really increase the chance of Lechmere having been JTR. If i fail, then it's just another of thousands of other theories.


                          Thank you for your response, i fully appreciate someone who displays a measured and logical way of thinking which tackles the question instead of attacking fellow members; which i have noticed happens a lot.

                          A bit like politics; if everyone was to actually work together we could collectively crack the case wide open


                          I look forward to more discussion with you over time


                          The Rookie Detective

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                            Very clear points by Dr Biggs, Trevor.

                            A pity that others do not address them correctly.

                            Why they continue to repeat the TODs given 130 years ago as if they are fact , when the methods used were purely subjective, is the real question?

                            Steve
                            Hello Steve

                            we had this very same issue when discussing Annie Chapman’s TOD in regard to John Richardson and Dr Phillips.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






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

                            Comment


                            • Hi Herlock,

                              Been having just that very debate over on Facebook.

                              Pity people are incapable of listening to facts.


                              Steve

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                                Hi Herlock,

                                Been having just that very debate over on Facebook.

                                Pity people are incapable of listening to facts.


                                Steve
                                Steve
                                Its not that they dont listen, its because they wont accept what they hear because they have their own agendas.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X