Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Elamarna]

I never said it was. I said it sounded like it.

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


Steve

[Fisherman]

If Griffiths stated that Lechmere had "no choice" but to stick it out, then he was gravely misinformed by the producers of the documentary.

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

So it becomes a question about whether we have a case of a seasoned murder investigator using his experience to judge what he thinks Lechmere would have done, or a case of a film crew lying through their teeth.

And we have a choice of how we want to do our Ripperology. Each and every one of us.

[Elamarna]

So "not limited" and "unlimited" are two different things. I see.

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

[Fisherman]

>>Yes it was me who said that. And I would also say that anyone who is willing to compare the issue of the blood (where the facts support the single paper) to the propping up business (where there is no factual support at all for the single paper) should be ashamed of himself.<<

There you go with those "facts" again. There are no "facts" on either of those issues, only opinion. You keep trying to muddy the waters but the rest of us remain focused.

There are facts that support that Mizen spoke of the earlier occasion. End of story. But you are indeed focused, I will give you that. So am I. We just focus on different matters.

[Elamarna]

There are those who have claimed that Lechmere was 150 yards from the body as he saw it - and that the carmen could not see any blood since it was too dark. There's silly for you. But anything goes out here in the battle against Lechmere.

Yes a taller house will throw a larger shadow than a lower construction. But they will both obstruct the light. Wood, you see, is not transparent. Other things are, though.

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

[Fisherman]

>> Which I have acknowledged another zillion times. But it has no bearing on the viability of Lechmere being the culprit, something that has falsely been led on a third zillion times, creating the myth that people who donīt hover right over a body is probably not the killer.<<

Another classic Christer avoidance. Where have you corrected your shows mistakes outside of here? To those who don't know it was wrong?

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. You, on the other hand, start every conversation by saying that you got the doors wrong in Broad Street, that you had Lechmere in the wrong spot by a country mile in Bucks Row, I take it?

What a rot, Dusty. How cheap and how low.

[Fisherman]

>>Paul says "exactly 3.45". None of the others claim an exactitude.<<

Since your ideal evidence is dodgy newspaper articles, you'll be sad to know that the Daily Mail says the case has been solved!

The rest of us prefer some more substantial facts.

I know that "substance" well; I have frequently dealt with it.

[Fisherman]

>> Paul said exactly 3.45, he bolstered it at the inquest and the police opted for that time in their later report, plus it works with the facts to a large degree. You are quite welcome to think that the 3.40 time is likelier, but less welcome to portrait yourself as the logical one and me as a theory-ridden, slightly delusional fantasist. It is a shameful approach.<<

Since your timing theory has been well and truly debunked and you've consistanly avoided addressing the issues it's raised, this is just a bit of grandstanding on your part.

Which of the points I make do you think are wrong?

That Paul said 3.45 exactly to the paper?

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

That it works with the facts to a large degree, for example with the short distance to Llewellyns practice?

Debunked indeed!

[Fisherman]

>> Then again, Llewellyn knew this too. And he nevertheless opted for the abdomen first, going on the medical evidence.<<

Facts Christer, facts.

There is no "medical evidence" that the abdomen was cut first. No report we have from Llewellyn specifically states that the abdominal wounds came first.

All we have is a very vague reference from Baxter,

"Dr. Llewylln seemed to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were inflicted first."

A fact would be, Dr Llewellyn stated that the abdominal were inflicted first. Baxter isn't sure what Llewellyn thought as evidenced by his use of the word seemed.

In fact, "seemed to incline" suggests some hesitation on Llewellyn's part, does it not?

It is not Llewellyn who says that he "seems" to incline that the abdominal wounds came first. It is a coroner who is very unhappy about Llewellyns stance, and who is trying to do his best to impose another turn of events on the inquest. So we have no indication t all of any hesitation on Llewellyns behalf, only a lack of will to live with it on Baxters behalf. Much like you, come to think of it.

[Elamarna]

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. It isn't any harder than that. Which is also the likely reason for why Griffiths said he would not have run.

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

[Busy Beaver]

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.

[Fisherman]

>>Calling upon somebody to come and look at a body is no control exhibiting, following that same person out of the street in search of a PC is no control exhibiting, taking the leading role and speaking to the PC is no control exhibiting and so on. Itīs good that you pointed that out to those of us who look upon these matters as very clear indicators of a controlling personality!<<

A classic Christer post, totally avoided what we were talking about and a sarcastic comment to try and dismiss the issue.

What we wrote about was the lack of control Cross exhibited during Paul's investigation of the body. What we wrote about was Cross's lack of supposed sense of invulnerability in dealing with Mizen.

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.

[Fisherman]

>> But Lechmere was nevertheless able to discern a body lying there from fifty feet away...?<<

Pleased to read you finally acknowledging Cross claim of where he first saw the body.

Am I to take it you've never been outside at night? You don't understand the concept of light and shade? Then let me help you.

Paul could see a man standing in the road, but he couldn't see the body properly even when he was examining it, that's light and shade.

Where would cheap horror movies be without killer's emerging from the shadows? Where would Caravaggio or George de la Tour be without chiaroscuro?

Seriously, sometimes you just post for the sake of it. Think before you type.

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

[Fisherman]

Surely you can’t think that Lechmere would have stuck around if Paul was so far away?

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.

[Fisherman]

RD,

Its not that easy,
For instance despite what you may have read we do not know the exact beat for Neil.
Some(pro Lechmere) make it very short, come up into Bucks Row from Thomas St (south).
Others have it going to Bakers Row and turning along Buckrow from there.
The only written account we have is a newspaper account Echo 21st sept, which says it includes all the above plus the northern section of Thomas st and queen anne st.

Of course we can assume that he knew the beats, but that is a big assumption in my view. There is nothing to suggest he was aware of Neil's beat, it is just ideas that have been repeated over and over.
Neil is the only officer to patrol Bucks Row, once approx every 30 minutes.
Thain and Mizen, pass either entrance again once every approx 30 minutes.

Indeed when the carmen see Mizen he is exiting from Old Montague st, he would not have seen anyone leave Bucks Row from there. Not did he stop Lechmere or Paul, they approached him.

Thain did see two men, we assume men out for legitimate reasons. He did not stop them.

If the killer passed Neil at say the start of Bucks Row or at the bottom of Thomas St (south) would it really matter?
Would Neil have taken enough notice to be able to ID him later.
He would have no reason to stop him, if the killer was walking normally

There are 50 minutes at least each hour where it is clear of any police presence, it's NOT heavily patrolled at all.

I therefore suggest that just the possibility that the killer could have bumped into a police office is not sufficient reason to say the route is not viable.

Of those 23 routes , 5 can I feel be discounted, as either too dangerous or maybe not possible.

The southern routes, Woods buildings, Court and Thomas street are probably the most obvious, as they are the quickest, and get one out of sight from the east end very quickly.

Yes we can exclude a route eastwards down Bucks Row, and such is not included in that 23.
However back East along Winthrop cannot be discounted.
Of into any of the nearby buildings.


Steve

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. It isn't any harder than that. Which is also the likely reason for why Griffiths said he would not have run.