Window of Time for Nichols murder

[drstrange169]

>>Or he thought that no clever person would take the risk to run into the arms of a PC.<<

Like Lechmere did?

Oh dear!

[drstrange169]

>>There are facts that support that Mizen spoke of the earlier occasion. End of story.<<

In which case, there are "facts" that support Mizen spoke of a the later occasion. Since there is no definitive answer, we only have opinions on which is right.

[drstrange169]

>>To anybody who has asked about it. If you are making the point that I don't spend my days telling everybody that there were errors in the docu, then you are correct. <<

Thank you.


>>You, on the other hand, start every conversation by saying that you got the doors wrong in Broad Street,...<<

Do I? thanks for telling me that I didn't know.

Since I got the doors right and have found even more in the meantime, I'm not sure why I would "start every conversation" with that. In fact I distinctly recall challenging you about them and you doing your run away act again.


>> ... that you had Lechmere in the wrong spot by a country mile in Bucks Row, I take it?<<

"I" didn't have Lechmere anywhere, I simply cited the newspaper reports that quoted him claiming to be at the "Wool Warehouse" gates, how was that the wrong spot, in anybody's world? You know about newspaper articles don't you Christer? The things you regard as gospel when they say something you like.

[drstrange169]

>>Which of the points I make do you think are wrong? That Paul said 3.45 exactly to the paper?<<

Correct!

The newspaper interview that exonerated Xmere, by saying the body was so cold it had been lying there from before Xmere says he left home.
The newspaper interview that said Paul did all the talking to Mizen. Good research skills you've got there Christer.

Once more you defeat yourself by your own story. But, of course, your theory isn't based on facts, evidence or logic like the rest of us use, it's based on cherry-picking a sentence here and a sentence there, loading it up with biased opinion and going on TV and misrepresenting the evidence.


>>That he bolstered it at the inquest by saying that hen left home close in time to 3.45?<<

The old, "Road to Damascus" theory again? Paul didn't know the time when he left home, but had a revelation in Buck's Row.
Well, you ran away last time this came up, so how about manning up this time and going back to the Mizen thread and answering the questions you promised faithfully to answer about all this there?

>>Debunked indeed! <<

No doubt about it.

[drstrange169]

>>It is not Llewellyn who says that he "seems" to incline that the abdominal wounds came first.<<

Can you point me to a post where anybody said it was? Yet again you invent an argument to distract from what was actually written.

Please keep your posts more accurate and on topic.


>>So we have no indication t all of any hesitation on Llewellyns behalf,...<<

Neither do we have any indication of what he really thought. Which, of course is the point you are trying to obscure.

[drstrange169]

>>AND you wrote that you could see no controlling exhibited in what Lechmere said and did. it seems you have now effectively retracted that rather senseless suggestion, so we are in agreement.<<

This lack of thought before typing is really beginning to let you down.

It is expected that an innocent man would flag down a passerby. It is expected that an innocent man would inform a policeman. Ergo, nobody can tell whether someone is trying to exert control by doing those actions.

Which is why Patrick and I were talking about the lack of control Cross exerted over Paul when it came to examining Mrs Nichols and the lack of sense of invulnerability he demonstrated by trying to get past Mizen rather than involving himself in the investigation.

Once again you are defeated by your own argument (see post 389 to Herlock as a prime example).

[drstrange169]

>>There are those who have claimed that Lechmere was 150 yards ...<<

Who are "those"?

>>And of course, this all translates to the simple fact that the killer could not bank on having any clear escape route where he would not run into a PC.<<

According to your theory the killer did run into a policeman and got away with it, so your argument is destroyed by your own theory. You really do need to stop and think things through before you type.

>>I am acquainted with darkness in its most extreme form, believe me.<<

Which means your just saying silly things for the sake of arguing.

[JeffHamm]

So with regards to my initial query at the very beginning of this thread; we can't be sure if there was time.

We can't be sure of Nichol's actual TOD
We can't be sure exactly of any of the police patrols with regards to routes and timings
We can't be sure which injuries were inflicted first
We can't be sure exactly what Lechmere/Cross said to Mizen i.e. whether he specified if there was a policeman already with the body
We can't be sure of the accuracy of the coroners interpretation of the evidence
We can't be sure how long it took for Nichols to bleed out
We can't be sure exactly where Cross/Lechmere was standing when Paul saw him as their accounts differ
We can't be sure which escape route the killer took of over 20 plus viable options
we can't be sure the exact timings for any of the events for the sequence of events for the night in question
We can't be sure of the reason why Lechmere gave the name he had used 2 decades previously to the inquest
We can't be sure whether the killer was interrupted due to the abdominal wounds being seemingly covered
We can't be sure whether Nichols was the first victim of JTR
We can't be sure of what Nichols movements were between 2.30am - 3.45am
We can't be sure of the accuracy of any of the police/ witness statements
We can't be sure of the accuracy of the newspaper reports


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

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.

Not that i believe he was, but those are the statistics which are there for all to see.

Do we agree that Lechmere if innocent was the LAST person to see Nichols BEFORE JTR escaped?


Unless of course it was Paul who murdered Nichols and went EAST along Buck Rows BEFORE Lechmere arrived. Paul then may of heard Lechmere approaching and quickly hid in the shadows to allow Lechmere to pass him and then after a few minutee Paul then retraced his steps WEST to intercept the innocent Lechmere. If is was Paul then going back to the body would have been a perfect alibi as Lechmere would have testified he got the body first...

BUT i don't believe ANY of that... just another random theory...

regardless of theories, if Lechmere was innocent, then he WAS the last person to see Nichols BEFORE JTR escaped.


50 / 50


You decide?



The Rookie Detective

Being the person to discover the body always makes someone a person of interest, so Cross/Lechmere is certainly worth investigating and considering. That's more or less what is going on here, as people mull over all the possibilities. Given the scant evidence we have, and the inability to obtain evidence what would help answer some of the questions that arise, generally means no firm solution that satisfies everyone will arise.

But, I would caution against the suggestion it's 50/50. Let's stick with the C5, recognizing that we're already on disputed grounds. But there were 5 victims, each found by a different individual. On the basis of calling Cross/Lechmere "either yes or no" simply because he found the body, applies to all the other people as well. So we're already at him just being 1 of 5, or 20%. Add to that, what's the percentage of times that a body is found by someone other than the killer? Either it is or isn't? is that 50%? Even if it is, that now drops Cross/Lechmere to 10% odds. I don't actually know the statistics, but I rather suspect bodies tend to be found by people other than the killer far more often than not, driving that percentage down even further. Add in those who were last known to see victims alive (also good POIs), like Hutchinson, etc, will further drive down the probability too. Add in Tabram, and we have more people finding a body, and more who are the last person who saw her alive, and so forth. Somewhere, of course, we need to work in the probability that JtR is not one of our listed POIs, and smaller and smaller that 50% goes.

Basically, that sort of probability estimation will result in a minuscule probability, because it's the "chance" probability of picking him at random and being right. It is through the evaluation of the evidence we have that we try and estimate a likelihood that he is, in fact, not at some chance level, but rather that he's better than randomly selecting an individual. Once one has evidence, though, that starts to implicate someone, and does so in a way that becomes hard to explain if they are innocent (i.e. finding someone's DNA at a crime scene when they have no valid innocent reason for being there), then the probability of that person being responsible quickly starts to rise well above chance.

In my opinion, there's nothing compelling against Cross/Lechmere. Everything we know is fully and completely in line with him being completely innocent. Because we know so little, it can be viewed and presented in ways that paint him as guilty, but those explanations seem, to me, to be more strained and convoluted explanations. Obviously, to some, they do not appear that way, and from such differences of opinions are born.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

So with regards to my initial query at the very beginning of this thread; we can't be sure if there was time.

We can't be sure of Nichol's actual TOD
We can't be sure exactly of any of the police patrols with regards to routes and timings
We can't be sure which injuries were inflicted first
We can't be sure exactly what Lechmere/Cross said to Mizen i.e. whether he specified if there was a policeman already with the body
We can't be sure of the accuracy of the coroners interpretation of the evidence
We can't be sure how long it took for Nichols to bleed out
We can't be sure exactly where Cross/Lechmere was standing when Paul saw him as their accounts differ
We can't be sure which escape route the killer took of over 20 plus viable options
we can't be sure the exact timings for any of the events for the sequence of events for the night in question
We can't be sure of the reason why Lechmere gave the name he had used 2 decades previously to the inquest
We can't be sure whether the killer was interrupted due to the abdominal wounds being seemingly covered
We can't be sure whether Nichols was the first victim of JTR
We can't be sure of what Nichols movements were between 2.30am - 3.45am
We can't be sure of the accuracy of any of the police/ witness statements
We can't be sure of the accuracy of the newspaper reports


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

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.

Not that i believe he was, but those are the statistics which are there for all to see.

Do we agree that Lechmere if innocent was the LAST person to see Nichols BEFORE JTR escaped?


Unless of course it was Paul who murdered Nichols and went EAST along Buck Rows BEFORE Lechmere arrived. Paul then may of heard Lechmere approaching and quickly hid in the shadows to allow Lechmere to pass him and then after a few minutee Paul then retraced his steps WEST to intercept the innocent Lechmere. If is was Paul then going back to the body would have been a perfect alibi as Lechmere would have testified he got the body first...

BUT i don't believe ANY of that... just another random theory...

regardless of theories, if Lechmere was innocent, then he WAS the last person to see Nichols BEFORE JTR escaped.


50 / 50


You decide?



The Rookie Detective

hi RD

very interesting view. and yes if lech wasn't the ripper, he was the last (or latest-most recent) to see her after the ripper fled.

regarding the stats. on the face of it, as you state it is 50/50. however, either or events have to be weighted. either the sun will come up tomorrow, or it wont would not be 50/50 lol. drastic example, but you see my point. my father in law got into this discussion when trying to come up with a point system for scoring picking the correct winners in a sports tournament. two teams play and there is an either or scenario on who wins. but one team is much better and heavily favored so it cant really be 50/50.

that being said, one of the reasons I consider Lech a very valid suspect, is that, along with his red flags (using a different name, discrepancy in stories with mizen, missing time, seen hovering near a victim before raising alarm) you would have to blame an unsub, whom lech scared off, when there is no evidence of it, and Lech very well had the opportunity to kill her. and I don't go much for phantom rippers.

I wont put a number on the chances of lech being the ripper-but if you included him in the handful of men I think could have been the ripper-hutch, blotchy, Kelly, chapman, koz and bury, I would think you have a slightly better than 50/50 chance of the ripper being in that group.

but individually I think they are all pretty weak suspects.

[Elamarna]

So with regards to my initial query at the very beginning of this thread; we can't be sure if there was time.

We can't be sure of Nichol's actual TOD
We can't be sure exactly of any of the police patrols with regards to routes and timings
We can't be sure which injuries were inflicted first
We can't be sure exactly what Lechmere/Cross said to Mizen i.e. whether he specified if there was a policeman already with the body
We can't be sure of the accuracy of the coroners interpretation of the evidence
We can't be sure how long it took for Nichols to bleed out
We can't be sure exactly where Cross/Lechmere was standing when Paul saw him as their accounts differ
We can't be sure which escape route the killer took of over 20 plus viable options
we can't be sure the exact timings for any of the events for the sequence of events for the night in question
We can't be sure of the reason why Lechmere gave the name he had used 2 decades previously to the inquest
We can't be sure whether the killer was interrupted due to the abdominal wounds being seemingly covered
We can't be sure whether Nichols was the first victim of JTR
We can't be sure of what Nichols movements were between 2.30am - 3.45am
We can't be sure of the accuracy of any of the police/ witness statements
We can't be sure of the accuracy of the newspaper reports


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

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.

Not that i believe he was, but those are the statistics which are there for all to see.

Do we agree that Lechmere if innocent was the LAST person to see Nichols BEFORE JTR escaped?


Unless of course it was Paul who murdered Nichols and went EAST along Buck Rows BEFORE Lechmere arrived. Paul then may of heard Lechmere approaching and quickly hid in the shadows to allow Lechmere to pass him and then after a few minutee Paul then retraced his steps WEST to intercept the innocent Lechmere. If is was Paul then going back to the body would have been a perfect alibi as Lechmere would have testified he got the body first...

BUT i don't believe ANY of that... just another random theory...y

regardless of theories, if Lechmere was innocent, then he WAS the last person to see Nichols BEFORE JTR escaped.


50 / 50


You decide?



The Rookie Detective

From the reported injuries to her Neck, we can reasonably assume her heart would fail after approx 3.5 minutes.

Sorry if not the killer, he is the first person to see Nichols AFTER the killer leaves.

When he sees her, the killer has already gone.


Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Do we agree that Lechmere if innocent was the LAST person to see Nichols BEFORE JTR escaped?

No. But he most likely was the first to see her after JTR escaped.

[Patrick S]

All we can say with any certainty is...

Nichols was murdered by JTR

First, there are some on these board who are of the view that Jack the Ripper never existed, that the women were killed by several people, from Jacob Isenschmid to Michael Kidney to Hutchinson or Barnett. So, we can't say it's agreed that she was a victim of Jack the Ripper if we can't agree that there was a Jack the Ripper. But, I get your point. I agree that, if we view all the potential victims, canonical and non-canonical, then Nichols is likely - although certainty is a different metric - to have been a victim.

Nichols was strangled in the first instance to stop her blood flow, before being mutilated
Lechmere was EITHER the killer OR the last person to see Nichols BEFORE the real killer escaped


I think that's generally agreed upon. Although, again, I'm not sure you'd get unanimity on that.


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

Nichols was seen alive at 230am and found dead at around 345am. We have no blood evidence. We have no firm time of death. Therefore, we don't know how long she lay on the pavement. And we don't know if others may have walked past her thinking her drunk... or even a tarpaulin.

I don't agree that those types of values can be applied. There's simply so much that isn't known and, ultimately, cannot be known. Some I've listed here, but there are countless others as pertain only to Nichols.

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

I don't completely discount Lechmere just as you cannot completely discount ANY "suspect" short of proving they were physically in another place at the time of the murders. Just as some don't believe in Jack, I don't really believe in "suspects". You'll find I use that word in quotations quite often. The only allowance I make is for the likes of Kosminsky, Druitt, Trumblety, Ostrog, Champman, perhaps. Poor candidates for Jack some may be, these men were considered suspects by at least one contemporary official investigating the crimes. Thus, I think it's fair to call them suspects. As, at one time or another, at a remove much closer to the events than ours, considered suspects by those with knowledge and authority to consider them as such.

Not that i believe he was, but those are the statistics which are there for all to see.

Do we agree that Lechmere if innocent was the LAST person to see Nichols BEFORE JTR escaped?

I think it's likely he was. I don't think we can know. We do know that no one came forward claiming they'd seen her earlier.


Unless of course it was Paul who murdered Nichols and went EAST along Buck Rows BEFORE Lechmere arrived. Paul then may of heard Lechmere approaching and quickly hid in the shadows to allow Lechmere to pass him and then after a few minutee Paul then retraced his steps WEST to intercept the innocent Lechmere. If is was Paul then going back to the body would have been a perfect alibi as Lechmere would have testified he got the body first...

Yes. But... let's not do that.

BUT i don't believe ANY of that... just another random theory...

regardless of theories, if Lechmere was innocent, then he WAS the last person to see Nichols BEFORE JTR escaped.


50 / 50


You decide?



The Rookie Detective

An interesting perspective. My thoughts above bold.

[The Rookie Detective]

So with regards to my initial query at the very beginning of this thread; we can't be sure if there was time.

We can't be sure of Nichol's actual TOD
We can't be sure exactly of any of the police patrols with regards to routes and timings
We can't be sure which injuries were inflicted first
We can't be sure exactly what Lechmere/Cross said to Mizen i.e. whether he specified if there was a policeman already with the body
We can't be sure of the accuracy of the coroners interpretation of the evidence
We can't be sure how long it took for Nichols to bleed out
We can't be sure exactly where Cross/Lechmere was standing when Paul saw him as their accounts differ
We can't be sure which escape route the killer took of over 20 plus viable options
we can't be sure the exact timings for any of the events for the sequence of events for the night in question
We can't be sure of the reason why Lechmere gave the name he had used 2 decades previously to the inquest
We can't be sure whether the killer was interrupted due to the abdominal wounds being seemingly covered
We can't be sure whether Nichols was the first victim of JTR
We can't be sure of what Nichols movements were between 2.30am - 3.45am
We can't be sure of the accuracy of any of the police/ witness statements
We can't be sure of the accuracy of the newspaper reports


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

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.

Not that i believe he was, but those are the statistics which are there for all to see.

Do we agree that Lechmere if innocent was the LAST person to see Nichols BEFORE JTR escaped?


Unless of course it was Paul who murdered Nichols and went EAST along Buck Rows BEFORE Lechmere arrived. Paul then may of heard Lechmere approaching and quickly hid in the shadows to allow Lechmere to pass him and then after a few minutee Paul then retraced his steps WEST to intercept the innocent Lechmere. If is was Paul then going back to the body would have been a perfect alibi as Lechmere would have testified he got the body first...

BUT i don't believe ANY of that... just another random theory...

regardless of theories, if Lechmere was innocent, then he WAS the last person to see Nichols BEFORE JTR escaped.


50 / 50


You decide?



The Rookie Detective

[Patrick S]

Yes, it is. But it is more unrealistic - and extremely taste- and respectless - to suggest that an expert with any self-respect would mould his thinking to fit any other thinking than his own.

This is a lie. And you know it. I've done no such thing. Alas, even you conceded that the program was "one sided" and "aimed to present Lechmere as the killer". YOUR words. ON THIS THREAD. Having said that its obvious Griffiths (and Scobie, and Payne James) wasn't there to DISAGREE with you. And that's Steve's point. This is no mark against the man's integrity.

An expert will give his - NOT MY! - view, and then the film team will use the material the way they think is best fit to make their case. If an expert freely offers material that is in line with the case, then that material will be used. If he constantly says "No, you are dead wrong, your take is deluded and I am all against it", chances are that he will not appear at all in the docu.

This is the entire point, obviously. He GAVE his view (that Lechmere could not leave Buck's Row.. that he had NO CHOICE but to stay). He GAVE REASONS for this view (heavy police presence and Paul in Buck's Row). You then - again on this thread - conceded that these were HIS THOUGHTS ALONE and that you're thought was that he COULD have gone but CHOSE to stay. But then, again ON THIS THREAD, you say that Griffiths really DOES agree with you... but that he was speaking colloquially. THIS. IS. LAUGHABLE.

Those are the simple and common rules of the game, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as we are all aware of this rather uncontroversial fact. What is VERY wrong is when it is hinted at that the experts have been lied to and misled because what they say cannot be stomached by some.

No one suggested they were 'lied to' or 'misled'. The only suggestion even close to that is that they were given a finite amount of information on which to base their opinions WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE DOCUMENTARY. You admitted that YOU provided that information, as one would expect. That's wholly appropriate in that - again YOUR WORDS - the program was ONE SIDED and AIMED AT PRESENTING LECHMERE as the killer. Which... I WILL SAY THIS AGAIN.. is perfectly FAIR AND ABOVE BOARD. You're simply being dishonest with all this foolish outrage. It's embarrassing.

IF that was the case, and IF these experts were misrepresented and lied to, then the film makers would have taken a massive risk, perhaps putting themselves out of business when/if the experts realized how they had been abused. Does anybody odd really think that a film company of Blink Films standing and caliber would be willing to take that risk? I mean, really?

No one suggested they were lied to. No one suggested anyone misrepresented. THEY. REPRESENTED. YOUR. THEORY..... PERIOD. Again! All fair. Above board. Not out of bounds. You can't have it both ways. You cannot concede this is a one sided documentary produced to present Lechmere as the killer and then go around trying to present this a balanced investigation of the merits of your theory. This is just silly, obviously.

The idea is unsavoury. I honestly cannot find any other more fitting term for it. Then again, it has been claimed out here that I have no honesty, that I "imply" things when I say my true meaning, that I took part in the St Johns event back in 2012 to make money from grieving relatives of the Bethnal Green Tube disaster, that I mislead, that I am a lousy journalist and - not to forget - that I am paranoid. Plus a whole lot more.

For me, I've never accused you of dishonesty. Until now. I find this entire line of discussion UNSAVORY and I find your responses dishonest.

Such is the strength of the Lechmere theory. When no factual criticism helps, then the time has come for burning the theorist alive. Personally, I believe that there is a very special little part of Hell reserved for those who engage in such antics.

Ah! So, those who disagree with this ever changing charade are going to hell? Frankly, Christer, you need to grow up. There are more insults in your post than anyone has aimed at you. But, we've all come to expect it, so we let it go and treat you with kid gloves because of your penchant for the odd dramatic departure, the "I won't respond to you anymore", and woe-is-me-why-must-I-be-persecuted-so act.

And that, my friend, is all I have to say for now.

Some helpful advice... Ask yourself this: How many other posters do I have these types of exchanges with? How many other posters does Steve? Abby? Herlock? And with how many do YOU have such threads running, all at once, hurling insults, crying foul, reserving spots in Hell? No one is out to get you. Acting like an adult is good first step in the right direction. You make this ENTIRE discussion personal. Always. Every time. And when that comes back at you... You become Christ on the Cross.

I've said enough. I've been dragged down into it and, to those reading it, I'm sorry for that. Christer, please post your missive again impugning my integrity, calling me dumb, dishonest, unsavory. Include your moral outrage at not being placed on a pedestal and adored by those you insult. I won't respond. We'll call you the smartest, wittiest, hardest working, best looking, and most likely to have solved the case. But, that won't preclude me from pursuing any line of inquiry I wish with respect to you theory. Last bit of advice: If you want respect, give it. If you want to be treated courteously, treat others courteously. I wish you the best.

[Abby Normal]

I really don't see the big deal here. Griffiths thinks in that situation the killer would have stayed to bluff it out. so what? Is that so hard to imagine?Sure, IMHO I think the killer would run away, but who knows?
put yourself in lechs shoes (if hes the killer). hes just killed polly. he hears someone approaching-he backs off her and a man appears down the street. uh oh? what to do? fight or flight? and or perhaps he freezes in a moment of uncertainty. what did the man see? will he shout bloody murder and now im running being chased? too late hes on me. need to stick it out.

yes, a less likely scenario, but surely possible. Ive seen in person (to a lesser extent) and Ive seen similar bluff it out scenarios with real life serial killers.