Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Patrick S]

There are other posters out here who I personally feel are better suited to handle terms like "dishonest" than you, Patrick.

Your aim is to claim that whatever an expert says in a docu like the one we are discussing is useless in terms of viability, since every expert is ready to sell out his integrity in favor of endorsing whatever the person presenting a theory says.

That is as dumb as it is disrespectful. And very transparent.

Just like you say, it is good to have some matters presented out here, since it tells a story about the one who presents it.

Dumb. Disrespectful. Transparent. Perfect. For those keeping score at home: When Christer takes a day or so off the boards to craft his next moves, and comes back with an insult or two more than his usual quota, he's obfuscating, diverting attention from something embarrassing or damaging to his theory. When he adds a dose or two of moral indignation and feigned outrage..... Well... you almost feel sorry for him. Almost.

Of course, anyone reading this thread knows that no one questions Griffiths' integrity, ability, experience, or intellect. He based his comments on the the information he was provided and one must understand his exposure to the Nichols' killing, the Whitechapel murders, and Lechmere was extremely limited. One's expectations of the man must be realistic and these things must be taken into account. Of course, none of this has ever been the point. The point is a simple one, one which you continue to avoid: YOU represent Griffiths comments one way when you feel they aid your position, you run from them when you feel they don't, and then you say he didn't mean what he said very clearly because he was speaking in colloquialisms.... when you're caught in a fib.

Dumb. Disrespectful. Transparent... sounds about right.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, of course I can, Herlock! And very much so! What I find you constantly fail to take into account is the psychology of a psychopath, who may well WELCOME this kind of thing. "Wow, there's somebody coming, that should be fun!" is by no means any impossible line of thought for such a person. I keep saying over and over again that we are sorely mistaken if we choose to think that a serial killer who is ready and willing to cut out innards from his victims in the open streets will reason the way we will. If we are dealing with a psychopath and a narcissist (and I know that it is not proven, but PLEASE understand that it is a VERY likely thing), then we are dealing with somebody who WANTED to participate in an exchange with society about what he did, and who quite likely did not identify staying out as much of a risk at all.

We are so far from each other on this that I fear that you regard such a proposition as ridiculous, I am well aware of that. I can only point you to research done on these kinds of characters, and that is what I do right now.

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.

[Elamarna]

There is a large difference. I genuinely thought that you were passing yourself of as Mr Know-it-All, and so I "implied" nothing. if I had thought that you were being your humble self and decided to use the ambivalent wording to damage you, THEN I would have "implied" something. But I didn't.

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

[Elamarna]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

Christer

What could you be talking about "burning the theorists alive"?


Steve

[Elamarna]

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

Nichols was lying g quite close to the yard gate, and if there was a light behind it, the height of the gate was more than enough to shroud the body in shade. If the light came from the other side or from above, neither the gate nor the buildings would play any role.

How you come yup with these "points", I don't know.

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

[Fisherman]

It is unrealistic to suggest that a tv programme, with an aim to suggest a named person as the killer, would ever include comments from an "expert" that did not match their agenda.

Steve

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

[Busy Beaver]

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?

[Elamarna]

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

If Thain had heard somebody yelling "there's a cut up woman lying here" from up Bucks Row, could that have changed his course of action?

We should not be surprised that PC:s don't stop passing working men on a regular basis, just in case there is a murder victim lying around in the vicinity. But once they KNOW that there is, surely that puts rather a different slant on things?

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

[Fisherman]

Agreed, you implied it, has I said in my post.


Steve

There is a large difference. I genuinely thought that you were passing yourself of as Mr Know-it-All, and so I "implied" nothing. if I had thought that you were being your humble self and decided to use the ambivalent wording to damage you, THEN I would have "implied" something. But I didn't.

[Elamarna]

Don't be that sad, Steve. Go back and look at what I have written over the years, and you will find that I have always said that it cannot be ruled out that the killer, if not Lechmere, could have escaped via one of the routes leading to and from the murder site.

If you had had the decency to acknowledge that, we could perhaps have discussed this in a less inflamed manner.

But you choose not to. You choose to claim, with no substantiation at all, that I want to imply that there were not enough routes for a killer to escape. You thereby opt for tarnishing me with nothing at all to bolster that take, instead of accepting how I have always said that there were escape options.

Why? Why do you do that?

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


Steve

[Fisherman]

Pray tell me who says he was 150 yards from the body?

You now admit that a more robust building will throw a larger shadow, yet attempt to now argue on how solid a wooden gate was, answer unknown.

But of course it is still irrelevant to the original point, which was there was greater shadow by the board school.
The murder site was not even mentioned, apart from by you in an apparent attempt to muddy the waters

Steve

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

Nichols was lying g quite close to the yard gate, and if there was a light behind it, the height of the gate was more than enough to shroud the body in shade. If the light came from the other side or from above, neither the gate nor the buildings would play any role.

How you come yup with these "points", I don't know.

[Fisherman]

Bumping into a police officer would not be an issue.
This has been pointed out by Dusty and myself already.
There would have been no reason for the police to stop anyone unless the alarm had been raised and it had not.

Thain saw two and did not stop them.
And there is no indication that Mizen would have stopped Lechmere or Paul.

Once again the post misses the issue.


Steve

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

If Thain had heard somebody yelling "there's a cut up woman lying here" from up Bucks Row, could that have changed his course of action?

We should not be surprised that PC:s don't stop passing working men on a regular basis, just in case there is a murder victim lying around in the vicinity. But once they KNOW that there is, surely that puts rather a different slant on things?

[Fisherman]

JTR would not have done things that would have attracted any unwanted attention. His aim was to murder and get out as quickly and as safely as possible without being seen or etched into someone's memory.

Are you aware of how a large number of serial killers have made very far-reaching efforts to have their deeds acknowledged? I hope you are. Rader got caught for not being able to stand having his work diminished in the press, for example. He released how much of a narcissist he was when taking the bait the police offered.

Of course, it is reasonable (although not necessarily a fact) to think that the killer wanted to stay uncaught. But please note how many serial killers are caught late in the process when they get more and more slack in the safety thinking, believing that they are invincible and don't need to worry about being caught.

Apply this to the picture, and what happens? "He would have run"? Or?

[Elamarna]

There are other posters out here who I personally feel are better suited to handle terms like "dishonest" than you, Patrick.

Your aim is to claim that whatever an expert says in a docu like the one we are discussing is useless in terms of viability, since every expert is ready to sell out his integrity in favor of endorsing whatever the person presenting a theory says.

That is as dumb as it is disrespectful. And very transparent.

Just like you say, it is good to have some matters presented out here, since it tells a story about the one who presents it.

It is unrealistic to suggest that a tv programme, with an aim to suggest a named person as the killer, would ever include comments from an "expert" that did not match their agenda.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Christer, indeed they are, happy to teach you the correct use of the English Language.

But of course you know that, it is a poor attempt on your part to imply there were few, and according to the documentary, no easy escape routes


Steve

Don't be that sad, Steve. Go back and look at what I have written over the years, and you will find that I have always said that it cannot be ruled out that the killer, if not Lechmere, could have escaped via one of the routes leading to and from the murder site.

If you had had the decency to acknowledge that, we could perhaps have discussed this in a less inflamed manner.

But you choose not to. You choose to claim, with no substantiation at all, that I want to imply that there were not enough routes for a killer to escape. You thereby opt for tarnishing me with nothing at all to bolster that take, instead of accepting how I have always said that there were escape options.

Why? Why do you do that?