Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Elamarna]

thanks el.

"No Neil says he finds the body at 3.45.

Thain says he see Neil at 3.45."

well they contradict each other-so theres an issue right there with their accuracy.

Not at all.
There is no reason to believe that both events could not have occurred within a minute of each other.
Reading the testimonies it seems perfectly possible.
And of course that assumes the times are Syncronizied.

"And maybe more importantly Mizen says he meets Lech and Paul at 3.45."
does he say exactly 3:45 like Paul did?
also, if im not mistaken, you lean toward mizen being mistaken about what him and lech said about being wanted by another cop in bucks row, no?
but now you seem to take him as being more accurate in this case on time?

Paul only says "exactly" in a highly questionable press report Abby.

I do not think Mizen is mistaken about what was said, I believe he told a white lie, to protect himself from a fear he perceived, which had no effect on the actual murder.
Evidence to support such is in the forth coming book, if people accept such once they read it is their choice.

However such should not be seen as diminishing his time report , he was after all knocking up at one presumes a set time.

And again the 3.45 should not be seen as being gospel, there is no way of knowing how it was synchronised to the times of all others involved.
However the relative timings work well for the carmen arriving at Mizen at approximately the same time that Neil finds the body,

look, we have the person himself, who was the one who actually walked into bucks row, saying it was exactly 3:45. and apparently that's backed up by him corroborating that he left his house shortly before 3:45. when witnesses seem sure of themselves (like long in goulston street about the apron/GSG) theres usually a reason for it.
Paul was the one who was commenting on himself, what he was doing and when it was, and he apparently had no doubt, cooroberates himself, and also marks it with something that just happened moments before(leaving home).

You cannot corroborate yourself Abby, thats the whole point of corroboration; it must be done by another or proved by indisputable evidence. Here it is his limited evidence at the inquest against his press account, how can such be seen has an form of real corroboration?

You say he appears sure, he may do in the press account, but it has very serious issues, and should in my view only be accepted when corroborated by at least one of the other two involved, Lechmere and Mizen.
He is nowhere near as sure of anything in his inquest testimony. Indeed he assumes a very different role and attitude to that of the Lloyds Weekly article.

"And I doubt ANY of them are spot on at 3.45 GMT."

agree with you there, but IMHO paul has the greater claim to accuracy here.

Based on what Abby?
His own comments, which ARE contrary to the others involved in the events.
We must surely go with evidence, and the weight of that argues against him.

But we see it differently So no problem my friend.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

Not at all.
There is no reason to believe that both events could not have occurred within a minute of each other.
Reading the testimonies it seems perfectly possible.
And of course that assumes the times are Syncronizied.



Paul only says "exactly" in a highly questionable press report Abby.

I do not think Mizen is mistaken about what was said, I believe he told a white lie, to protect himself from a fear he perceived, which had no effect on the actual murder.
Evidence to support such is in the forth coming book, if people accept such once they read it is their choice.

However such should not be seen as diminishing his time report , he was after all knocking up at one presumes a set time.

And again the 3.45 should not be seen as being gospel, there is no way of knowing how it was synchronised to the times of all others involved.
However the relative timings work well for the carmen arriving at Mizen at approximately the same time that Neil finds the body,




You cannot corroborate yourself Abby, thats the whole point of corroboration; it must be done by another or proved by indisputable evidence. Here it is his limited evidence at the inquest against his press account, how can such be seen has an form of real corroboration?

You say he appears sure, he may do in the press account, but it has very serious issues, and should in my view only be accepted when corroborated by at least one of the other two involved, Lechmere and Mizen.
He is nowhere near as sure of anything in his inquest testimony. Indeed he assumes a very different role and attitude to that of the Lloyds Weekly article.




Based on what Abby?
His own comments, which ARE contrary to the others involved in the events.
We must surely go with evidence, and the weight of that argues against him.

But we see it differently So no problem my friend.

Steve

yes we do and no worries. looking forward to your book. when is it coming out and how will it be available?

[Elamarna]

yes we do and no worries. looking forward to your book. when is it coming out and how will it be available?

Next four weeks, I hope.
Will circulate details Abby.

Steve

[GUT]

Abby you say when witness are sure if themselves there is usually a reason for it, (paraphrase) I can assure you that as often as not they are wrong. No idea how many Cross examinations I’ve done in my life, must be thousands, I guess at least 50-75% if those are are sure about something and most of the time another witness is just as sure the opposite way, both can’t be right.

[The Rookie Detective]

Based on the clear discrepancies with timings, is there a scenario which could implicate BOTH Lechmere/Cross AND Paul?

If even the basic premise if Nichols being a JTR victim in the first place, then it's not beyond the realms of possibility that BOTH men were responsible for the demise of Nichols.

This would mean they worked together and upon exiting the crime scene, they inadvertently bumped into Mizen

My point is that after all this time passing, virtually any scenario is possible because it can't be disproved.


Probability and circumstance are the only real tools we now have as investigators and enthusiasts.


TRD

[Elamarna]

Based on the clear discrepancies with timings, is there a scenario which could implicate BOTH Lechmere/Cross AND Paul?

If even the basic premise if Nichols being a JTR victim in the first place, then it's not beyond the realms of possibility that BOTH men were responsible for the demise of Nichols.

This would mean they worked together and upon exiting the crime scene, they inadvertently bumped into Mizen

My point is that after all this time passing, virtually any scenario is possible because it can't be disproved.


Probability and circumstance are the only real tools we now have as investigators and enthusiasts.


TRD

Hi TRD,

We can use the evidence we have, of which there is a fair deal and apply probability.

We can use relative timings, cover in great depth in the up coming work, to show what is possible and what is not.

For instance Neil simply cannot find the body of Nichols seconds after the carmen leave.

We know they did not see him, so we can make estimates of where he was, this is not helped by his beat being unsure. However we can use probable points from each possible beat, and given we know the average police beat pace (2.5mph) we can estimate the probable CLOSEST point he was when the carmen pass any given point, and thus his likely arrival time.
It's around 3minutes by the way.

We can also estimate, although not as securely the time it took the carmen from the time they leave Nichols, until they meet Mizen. We have a quickest time of just over 2 minutes up to about 3.5 minutes.
Between 2.5 and 3 seems the most probable from the statements.

Yes they could have worked together, but there is nothing to suggest such in any source material.

That there are very clear , almost identical, similarities between the wounds to Nichols and Chapman(the abdomen wounds for Nichols are almost certainly far more extensive than most seem to think) it seems high improbable that it is not the same killer.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

Next four weeks, I hope.
Will circulate details Abby.

Steve

awesome. looking forward to it!

[drstrange169]

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

But, I can't find any reference to anybody says 150 feet either.


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

But, it seems to be only you mentioning these distances.

Once again, where is your information that people have said this?

[drstrange169]

>>Dusty claimed that Lechmere saw her from a very long distance away. <<

Once again, I don't claim anything, I'm only repeating the inquest testimony, you know the evidence available.


>>if he could do that, then why would the shadows conceal a fleeing killer?<<

If Xmere was the killer, why didn't Paul see him with the body? Because, according to you, he moved away before Paul noticed him.

You seem to grasp that concept when it suits you, but have difficulty understand the very same concept when it doesn't suit you.

[drstrange169]

>>... if lech left at 3:30 or 3:20 then he would have entered bucks row well before 3:45. According to his description of finding the body then apparently he was only hesitating a few seconds before Paul arrived. so to me it doesn't add up. either lech dilly dallied somewhere before entering bucks row, gave the wrong time when he left his house (and it was later than he said), or he was in bucks row earlier and for more time than can be gained from there statements.<<

Hello Abby,

Christer's little story is deader in the water than William Holden's character in Sunset Boulevard.

Since Christer runs away every time I ask this, perhaps you can answer this simple question?

How do you know Lexchmere's leaving time was in sync with Paul's 3:45 time? The internet, the radio, the TV, the talking clock?

C'mon, let's get serious about the subject. Christer's story belongs with the hidden clues in Van Gogh's pictures and the ripper anagrams in Lewis Carrol's books.

If you can't sync the two then how can you possibly claim there is a time gap? It's nonsense of the first order to compare two totally unrelated things and claim a comparison.

[Fisherman]

well, to me if its written record that paul said he entered the street at exactly 3:45, (saying exactly sounds pretty sure of himself to me)and another source that corroborates that where he says he left home shortly before--- then its up to those disputing it to disprove it somehow, or theyre just flatly going against the evidence for no good reason. and given the evidence we have I don't see how one could possibly disprove he lied or was wrong.

It cannot be done, no. That, however, does not stop people from claiming that it HAS been done, on this case Dr Strange, who claims that the 3.45 timing has been "debunked". He has nothing to show for the suggestion, but that is a very minor concern in his case.

The really interesting thing about the timings is another matter. It has a direct parallel in the distance issue, the one about how far from the body Lechmere was when he was found in the road by Robert Paul.

The impression the ones opposing the theory is trying to make is that these two questions would have an influence on the question of a possible culpability on behalf of Lechmere. The picture painted is:
Either I am correct or they are correct, and if they are correct, Lechmere was not the killer.

But this is not the case, and it never was. It does not matter much whether Lechmere was found by Paul at 3.40, 3.43 or 3.46 - he is nevertheless a person who has been found alone with the victim in close proximity the point of death and therefore a person if interest in this respect. The known facts of the case are in line with the suggestion of Lechmere being the killer. End of story.

It is the same with the distance. Whether he was two, eight or fifteen feet away from the body is immaterial. The odds of him being the killer will not diminish with an expanded distance (that can in any way never be proven as such). What matters is that he was found in close enough a distance to allow for him to have been the killer. The known facts are once again in line with the suggestion that he was the murderer.

Neither set of facts PROVES that he was the killer, but then again, nobody has ever said they do - what is said is that there is a long list of matters that are in line with Lechmere being the killer, and these are amongst them.

No matter how the times are shifted and no matter how the distance is stretched, this remains.

So suggesting that either set of facts can make or break the theory is false, a complete smokescreen as it were. The facts are of a character that does not allow for any suggestion of them NOT being in line with a suggestion of Lechmere being the killer.

Now, as usual, somebody will probably say "Ah, but they are NOT ins line with Lechmere being the ONLY possible killer!" - which nobody has of course said either. But that is the kind of argumentation that is all that can be offered up when it is suggested that the carman was the Ripper. No rational argument is at hand that in any way absolves him or even makes him less likely a killer. The ONLY thing that CAN absolve him is if there was ANOTHER man present at some stage who was the real killer. That is then person I refer to as the Phantom killer, since no-one can point to a single trace of him, whereas Lechmere is placed on the scene, has a timing that is not in line with the proceedings, is recorded as having told Mizen a story that is perfectly - PERFECTLY! - in line with attempting to get away with murder unchallenged and unstarched, has a working trek that passes through the killing fields at the approximate times of the murders and so on.

Once again, it could seem that there is a make or break choice here too - and once again, that suggestion is flawed, the reason being that we have Lechmere, a person of flesh and blood and with a number of anomalies surrounding himself, and then we have: nothing.

It is not as if there is another bid, based on the case evidence. To claim another bid, we have to accept the Phantom killer. We must make up and accept that somebody else was there. And the takers come thick and fast: it was Kosminski! No, Druitt did it! Levy, I tell you, HE was in Bucks Row that night!! Baloney, it was Feigenbaum, HE was there! No, no, no, you are all wrong, it was Robert Mann! Are you mad? Its Tumblety, clear as the day!

It is threehundred examples of a fools hope against one actual and vert real suspect. Who may have been there at 3.42 or 3.46, and who may have been five or fifteen feet from the body as Paul saw him, and it won't make any difference at all for his viability which applies.

[Fisherman]

It can do, it does not mean it does.



Dusty , suggested 50 yards based on a newspaper report. That is only a little more than he claimed to see the moving figure of Paul, it is not a problem.

But again you avoid the issue,
We are talking of different shadows, that directly infront of tge Board school, as opposed to a single story at most wooden gate.
And at a different distance, The Board School being another 40 yards further on.

You really do struggle on these matters


Steve

No, Steve, I really donīt. But you like to try and make out that impression.

[drstrange169]

We've been through all this before, but lets go again.

Robert Paul gave an interview to Lloyd's Newspaper, in it he said,

"It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row"

Christer has cherry-picked this one sentence out of the context. Let's look at it back in context. Paul tells us,

"I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw."

He claims he went alone to Mizen, is this true?

He then says,

"... I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come,"

Is this true?

"I had told him the woman was dead."

Is this true?

Then,

"... she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her".

Is this true?

So what we have is an interview full of inaccurate bravado and this is what Christer chooses to cherry-pick from.


As already stated, without sync the Paul's time is meaningless, but let's check it out anyway because even that doesn't add up.

At 3:45 Paul should have seen Thain walking up Brady Street, so Thain must have been wrong.

At 3:45 Paul should have seen Neil examining the body, so Neil must have been wrong.

Mizen said he saw the two men at 3:45, so he must have been wrong.

Remember these three policemen had to walk at a regulation pace. They were spied on by sergeants, to check they were keeping to time, in fact Sgt. Kirby had just checked on Neil.

It was their job to keep an eye on the time. In 1888 Edward Rodgers even wrote a hugely popular music hall song, "If you want to know the time ask a policeman".

Mathematically Lechmere could not get to Broad Street by 4 o'clock.

At the inquest, once times have been established by four more reliable witnesses, Paul mentions nothing about exact times, instead,

"He left home about a quarter to 4" or "...just before a quarter to four".
(My emphasis)

So, how did Paul not know the exact time he left home yet knew the exact time he entered Buck's Row? Because he made it up just like the rest of his Lloyd's interview.

Every way you look at it, Christer claim falls badly apart. There is nothing to recommend it.

[Fisherman]

And that time is directly contradicted by 3 police officers.


Steve

No, it is not. Nobody says "Not was NOT 3.45". THAT is a direct contradiction, and such a contradiction never occurred. The PC:s gave timings that were not in line with what Paul said, but none of them said that they were giving exact timings, and they may well have given approximations that were off a few minutes only, making their bids quite legal and in no way any breaching of their sworn testimony.
The real point is that REGARDLESS if Paul was correct or not, Lechmere cannot be absolved on basis on that. And we certainly would not want to create an impression that he could, would we?

[drstrange169]

>> Dr Strange, who claims that the 3.45 timing has been "debunked". He has nothing to show for the suggestion, but that is a very minor concern in his case.<<

Since the evidence is here on the boards, lately this thread and very recently on the "Mizen" thread and can be checked by anyone, sadly, there is no way to describe the above as a flagrant lie by Christer.