Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Abby Normal]

It really is becoming clear that Griffiths opinion counts for very little (as we’ve been suggesting for a while now.) He’s almost viewing Lechmere as a cornered animal. Someone that had no choice but to stay and try and talk his way out of the situation. This just wasn’t the case. Yes I’m repeating myself here but it’s important. He was faced with two choices. Are they remotely close or debatable. Was it a difficult decision to make? Of course it wasn’t. It was a no-brainer:

Either stay, possibly with blood contamination and definitely with the knife, and call over a complete stranger the result of which conversation would almost certainly lead to a confrontation with a Constable (again possibly with blood on him and crying the knife on him.)

or, walking away knowing that by the time Paul reached Nichols (if he didn’t just pass by) and he’d deduced that she was dead he would have been at the end of Buck’s Row, in the dark, and safe. Even if Paul stands yelling at the top of his voice a policeman wouldn’t have been able to connect a passing Lechmere with the guy shouting. It’s as near to risk free as you could get.

id even suggest that running was an option. How would it have been an issue? From 40 yards away Paul hears a man running. Does he shout ‘murderer’ straight away? Of course not, he probably thinks it’s someone leaving one of the cottages late for work. Again, by the time he sees the body and susses that she’s dead Lech is two streets away.

Lechmere had a fairly simple choice between almost suicidal risk and almost certain escape to freedom. It’s no choice.

Hi herlock.
love you buddy but your wrong on this one. I had a similar thing happen to me. I surprised someone who had just knocked a dude out in a dark parking lot, and he acted like he was helping him out and asked me to go get help. When i got back with a cop the knocked out dude was waking up and had been robbed by the other guy. The guy could have run away, i was about 25 yards away when he noticed me, but he chise to bluff it out. Now he didnt go wit me to find the cop, but he didnt run away right away either.

[Fisherman]

Above bold.

No. We are not discussing any feigning versus calling things idiocy. If anything, we are discussing the case.

[Patrick S]

Nope. I am perfectly happy to discuss the case, but that´s it. That should be enough to evaluate the theory. No mudslinging.

Except by you. Those are the rules as you've established them. Got it.

[Patrick S]

No accusations of me feigning anything, so okay:

Got it. My suggesting you may have "feigned" something is far more out of bounds than you calling me an idiot who dreams up senseless accusations and cannot conduct honest discussion. Noted.

I don´t think that being aware that the interview is misrepresenting and skewing the truth means that the 3.45 timing must be wrong. It is a timing I believe more logical than the 3.40 one for reasons given, and I cannot see why Paul would lie about it.

Why would Paul lie about talking to Mizen himself? Why would Paul lie about going off for a PC alone? I'm not claiming Paul was a liar. You are. I'm simply pointing out that you view him as entirely reliable when it comes to the time, while accusing him dishonesty... in pretty much everything else he said. As for me, I think Paul probably didn't have the 'exact' time just like I don't think anyone involved who gave time had 'exact' time. Therefore, pretty much all the times become general because we don't have an 'exact' time to start from or compare with.

Furthermore, as I have already stated, it jibe with his inquest testimony and it jibes better than 3.40 with Thains fetching Llewellyn plus Swanson opts for that time in the last report we know of.

Again, I don't believe anyone gave exact times. There all estimates. I'm not saying everyone's watch was wrong, although likely they all read differently. I'm just saying that I doubt any of them were keeping time of the proceedings on their watches. More likely they looked at their watch at some point before, during, after the proceedings and estimated from that.

Before you claim on my behalf that I would in any way would have hinted at this being a fact, I would like to add that it is not. It is the sequence of event I find likeliest. And it remains that Paul was the only one not to leave himself open to speculations about a mistaken time. It need not be correct, but it was claimed to be, and that carries weight.

Fair enough. I do find it ironic that you tout Paul a liar (among other things) in most areas in order to aid other aspects of your theory, but trust him above all others when it comes to his "exact" timings to aid other areas of your theory, and asking, in all seriousness, "Why would he lie?"

Above bold.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It really is becoming clear that Griffiths opinion counts for very little (as we’ve been suggesting for a while now.) He’s almost viewing Lechmere as a cornered animal. Someone that had no choice but to stay and try and talk his way out of the situation. This just wasn’t the case. Yes I’m repeating myself here but it’s important. He was faced with two choices. Are they remotely close or debatable. Was it a difficult decision to make? Of course it wasn’t. It was a no-brainer:

Either stay, possibly with blood contamination and definitely with the knife, and call over a complete stranger the result of which conversation would almost certainly lead to a confrontation with a Constable (again possibly with blood on him and crying the knife on him.)

or, walking away knowing that by the time Paul reached Nichols (if he didn’t just pass by) and he’d deduced that she was dead he would have been at the end of Buck’s Row, in the dark, and safe. Even if Paul stands yelling at the top of his voice a policeman wouldn’t have been able to connect a passing Lechmere with the guy shouting. It’s as near to risk free as you could get.

id even suggest that running was an option. How would it have been an issue? From 40 yards away Paul hears a man running. Does he shout ‘murderer’ straight away? Of course not, he probably thinks it’s someone leaving one of the cottages late for work. Again, by the time he sees the body and susses that she’s dead Lech is two streets away.

Lechmere had a fairly simple choice between almost suicidal risk and almost certain escape to freedom. It’s no choice.

[Fisherman]

That's okay. I think I - and those reading - have the answers well enough.

Not to get to deeply into this. But, it is comical in way......Recall, Christer, that you accused me of idiocy, being horrifically insulting, and having a pitiable amount of cynicism. You also accused me of not conducting honest discussion, and dreaming up senseless accusations. And that was one relatively brief post.

Honestly, I'm having a pretty outstanding day and I hope you are too... but how you can post the types of personal insults you post... and then pick out one word or phrase and begin stamping your feet in outrage before taking your ball and going home.... is beyond me (probably because of my idiocy and dishonesty...beat you to it).

Nope. I am perfectly happy to discuss the case, but that´s it. That should be enough to evaluate the theory. No mudslinging.

[Patrick S]

No, sorry, I am not responding to post claiming that I feign moral indignation. Try again.

That's okay. I think I - and those reading - have the answers well enough.

Not to get to deeply into this. But, it is comical in way......Recall, Christer, that you accused me of idiocy, being horrifically insulting, and having a pitiable amount of cynicism. You also accused me of not conducting honest discussion, and dreaming up senseless accusations. And that was one relatively brief post.

Honestly, I'm having a pretty outstanding day and I hope you are too... but how you can post the types of personal insults you post... and then pick out one word or phrase and begin stamping your feet in outrage before taking your ball and going home.... is beyond me (probably because of my idiocy and dishonesty...beat you to it).

[Fisherman]

There are, of course, many SERIOUS questions. I think you should re-read this thread to discern where the hostility and insults came from, Christer. Your last post to me was full of insults. I'd insulted you in no way to that point but you perceive disagreement and - frankly - questions, as insults.

Nope, sorry, I am not discussing this. Keep to the case, please.

[Monty]

Yes, it always "touches a nerve" in me when somebody misrepresents me from start to finish.

Anyone interested in discussing the case instead?

The hypocrisy.

I believe Patrick has raised some very valid points (most of which I raised many years ago) along with Dr Strange, who also makes the observation that you tend to get personal when the arguement doesn't go your way.

Monty

[Fisherman]

The anti-police bit is irrelevant here, as I suspect you know. The liar bit is with respect to his representation of his interaction with Cross, isn't it? Because if Paul's statements are true... then Paul did all the talking to Mizen. Remember, you said that Paul had "big-upped" himself, talking to Mizen, not mentioning Cross beyond him telling him (Paul) to "come see". The reader is left to believe Paul left Cross in Bucks Row and that he went on alone and would "send the first PC he found". If its true that Lechmere killed Nichols, bluffed it out with Paul, and then scammed Mizen.... ... then Paul lied... or at the very least he got the details very wrong. EXCEPT with respect to the times. You want those to be exact. So.....he got those exact.

No accusations of me feigning anything, so okay:

I don´t think that being aware that the interview is misrepresenting and skewing the truth means that the 3.45 timing must be wrong. It is a timing I believe more logical than the 3.40 one for reasons given, and I cannot see why Paul would lie about it. Furthermore, as I have already stated, it jibe with his inquest testimony and it jibes better than 3.40 with Thains fetching Llewellyn plus Swanson opts for that time in the last report we know of.

Before you claim on my behalf that I would in any way would have hinted at this being a fact, I would like to add that it is not. It is the sequence of event I find likeliest. And it remains that Paul was the only one not to leave himself open to speculations about a mistaken time. It need not be correct, but it was claimed to be, and that carries weight.

[Fisherman]

I suggest we focus not on what I've put in italics since that's simply foolishness in response to you strategy of indignation, name calling, feigned outrage, and pretense that someone's insulting Griffiths or anyone else. The fact is that I - and others, I think, are INTERESTED in what Griffiths might make of the idea that Lechmere stayed voluntarily, rather than - as was presented - that he stayed because he COULD NOT go.

But, I agree. This, Christer, is really, really sad. "Pure idiocy", one might say. But, I do pity you, as well. But for different reasons. Anyway, I think you'll find a lack of such commentary directed at you in my posts. Try and extend the same courtesy. I'll try and get back to ignoring them and focusing on actual debate.

Your yourself call the documentary "one sided" and as advocating Lechmere as Jack the Ripper and now feign moral indignation that anyone may suggest that very thing and what Griffiths role in it most clearly was. He was NOT THERE to poke holes in your theory. HE WAS NOT THERE to ask you tough questions. This is no insult against the man. It's simple logic in agreement with what YOU, YOURSELF have said. That this was a one-sided docu, of which there are thousands and as I've said, I consider it's presentation and the experts' comments therein completely ABOVE BOARD. Comments you omitted because it would affect this feigned outrage routine.

You've been on these boards for years quoting Griffiths, citing him as a supporter of your idea. And now your saying that, in some instances, he gave "entirely his own view". No one is suggesting Griffiths "echoed you're view no matter what it was". No one suggested that he said only what you told him to say. Let's stop the game of turning anything and everything into a "horrific insult" against Griffith, Scobie, Payne-James, whomever. It's a silly game you play. It's absurd.

The point is a simple one. Griffiths based his commentary on your interpretation of the events surrounding the Nichols murder and Lechmere's actions and motivations as you perceive them. Yet it seems he didn't know that you're idea was that he stayed put for reasons other than that he simply couldn't have escaped. You say here clearly, with respect to Lechmere having "stayed put" as opposed to running, that you'd never discussed it with the man. This proves the point: Clearly, Griffiths - based on his experience - assumed a man who had just killed a woman would only "stay put" had he no choice. That is why he STATED that Lechmere HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO STAY IN BUCK'S ROW! Clearly, it didn't occur to him that Lechmere had a choice... and chose to stay because he liked the risk as it fed his narcissistic psychopathy. And rather than just walk away he chose this "bluff" with Paul.

I have always regarded Lechmere's "bluff" with Paul as one of the most absurd aspects of your theory. You've defended the idea, as you should, and I've attacked it. You post here often citing your documentary, the people who now believe in your this theory because of it, AND you cite the experts involved in it. You've cited Griffiths' comments many times and I, and others, I think, have gained an impression that he agreed with the motivations you ascribe to Lechmere for his "staying put" and "bluffing his way out" with Paul. Now you are saying that Griffiths knew nothing about your idea that Lechmere chose this "bluff" over flight because it appealed to him as a narcissist and psychopath. And clearly, a close viewing of the documentary makes plain that Griffiths believed Lechmere COULD NOT have walked on because of the police presence and the fact that "someone else was in the street", and you didn't disagree. Yet, you stated on this thread (in response to Harry) that you have NEVER believed or stated that Lechmere COULD NOT have walked on.

I'm left to wonder what Andy Griffiths would make of the idea that Lechmere stayed not because he couldn't have escaped Buck's Row but because his belief that he could not is STRESSED:

“ANDY GRIFFITHS states that given the heavy police presence and lack of easy escape route, Lechmere had no choice but to cover his tracks and bluff things out.”

Followed by Griffiths himself saying on camera:

“Certainly, I think he COULDN’T run away, having realized there was somebody else in the street.”

No, sorry, I am not responding to posts claiming that I feign moral indignation. Try again.

[Fisherman]

Well seeing as I was initially addressing Patrick, and you saw the need to ride right on in, it seems my point has touched a nerve.

Yes, back to the Christer show. Don't forget to buy the book. If it ever happens.

Monty

Yes, it always "touches a nerve" in me when somebody misrepresents me from start to finish.

Anyone interested in discussing the case instead?

[Patrick S]

And there we are, once again the Lechmere discussion is transported into manure-spreading country, thanks to the usual clique. I'm happy to answer any SERIOUS questions and offer my view, should there be such an interest around.

I cannot get enough of the "spotlight" (or is that "spitlight"?), see.

There are, of course, many SERIOUS questions. I think you should re-read this thread to discern where the hostility and insults came from, Christer. Your last post to me was full of insults. I'd insulted you in no way to that point but you perceive disagreement and - frankly - questions, as insults.

[Patrick S]

He did not offer that time to a policeman, though, did he? It was given in a newspaper interview, and it was subsequently reinforced by his inquest testimony.

As an aside, being anti-police is not the equivalent of always lying to the police. It denotes a disregard for the police, not a decision always to lie to them.

The anti-police bit is irrelevant here, as I suspect you know. The liar bit is with respect to his representation of his interaction with Cross, isn't it? Because if Paul's statements are true... then Paul did all the talking to Mizen. Remember, you said that Paul had "big-upped" himself, talking to Mizen, not mentioning Cross beyond him telling him (Paul) to "come see". The reader is left to believe Paul left Cross in Bucks Row and that he went on alone and would "send the first PC he found". If its true that Lechmere killed Nichols, bluffed it out with Paul, and then scammed Mizen.... ... then Paul lied... or at the very least he got the details very wrong. EXCEPT with respect to the times. You want those to be exact. So.....he got those exact.

[Patrick S]

"I view Griffith as simply someone with experience and resume, included to repeat the details Christer provided him and offer agreement and some personal perspective, so long as it's not at odds with the program's objective (i.e. Lechmere was Jack the Ripper)."

You have just been told that this is not correct, but it seems to have had little effect on your reasoning. You are basically making the claim that Griffiths (and presumably Scobie and the rest of the experts in the docu) were enlisted to echo my views and "offer agreement". As I very clearly pointed out, when Griffiths said that he would not have run, that was HIS view and not mine. De facto, when he said this, it was in direct response to me saying that many people rejected Lechmere as a suspect on account of how they thought that he would never have stayed put. And before this stage, me and Griffiths had not discussed the matter at all, so the view he gave was entirely his own, and the only Griffiths had been told to accept and reinforce anything I said, regardless of what it was.
If you think that is how he functioned and how the docu was made, I can only pity you for the level of cynicism such a thing would involve.

It is pure idiocy to say that regardless of what the experts say, we should accept that the ideas presented in the docu are all mine, on account of how it is my theory that is presented. Experts are used because they have extensive knowledge of their respective fields of research and they can therefore ADD material that others cannot, me included. I had no idea that Scobie would be involved, and I had no idea that he would make a case for how the material would be sufficient to take to trial, for example. Nor had I ever argued that the killer was likely to be in his late thirties or low forties on account of how the murders were matters that would have taken a long time for the killer to shape in his mind. Nor had I pondered the blood issue in the way Griffiths did, pointing to how the blood could have been harder to see when Paul was in place then when Neil and Mizen were; it was his own take on things, and new to me.

But of course - your objective remains what it always was: to try and come as close as you possibly can to a nullification of the value of the material pointing to Lechmere. If that takes making up stories and putting words in my mouth that I have never said, then so be it.

That is just sad, Patrick. Really, really sad. I hope I will not have to spend any more time on it, because what we really need to do is to conduct an honest discussion, not the kind of senseless accusations you spend your time dreaming up. Yes, the docu was aimed at pointing out Lechmere as the best Ripper suspect ever. No, the experts were not a flock of sheep, echoing my view. The mere idea is a flat out horrific insult. End of story.

I suggest we focus not on what I've put in italics since that's simply foolishness in response to you strategy of indignation, name calling, feigned outrage, and pretense that someone's insulting Griffiths or anyone else. The fact is that I - and others, I think, are INTERESTED in what Griffiths might make of the idea that Lechmere stayed voluntarily, rather than - as was presented - that he stayed because he COULD NOT go.

But, I agree. This, Christer, is really, really sad. "Pure idiocy", one might say. But, I do pity you, as well. But for different reasons. Anyway, I think you'll find a lack of such commentary directed at you in my posts. Try and extend the same courtesy. I'll try and get back to ignoring them and focusing on actual debate.

Your yourself call the documentary "one sided" and as advocating Lechmere as Jack the Ripper and now feign moral indignation that anyone may suggest that very thing and what Griffiths role in it most clearly was. He was NOT THERE to poke holes in your theory. HE WAS NOT THERE to ask you tough questions. This is no insult against the man. It's simple logic in agreement with what YOU, YOURSELF have said. That this was a one-sided docu, of which there are thousands and as I've said, I consider it's presentation and the experts' comments therein completely ABOVE BOARD. Comments you omitted because it would affect this feigned outrage routine.

You've been on these boards for years quoting Griffiths, citing him as a supporter of your idea. And now your saying that, in some instances, he gave "entirely his own view". No one is suggesting Griffiths "echoed you're view no matter what it was". No one suggested that he said only what you told him to say. Let's stop the game of turning anything and everything into a "horrific insult" against Griffith, Scobie, Payne-James, whomever. It's a silly game you play. It's absurd.

The point is a simple one. Griffiths based his commentary on your interpretation of the events surrounding the Nichols murder and Lechmere's actions and motivations as you perceive them. Yet it seems he didn't know that you're idea was that he stayed put for reasons other than that he simply couldn't have escaped. You say here clearly, with respect to Lechmere having "stayed put" as opposed to running, that you'd never discussed it with the man. This proves the point: Clearly, Griffiths - based on his experience - assumed a man who had just killed a woman would only "stay put" had he no choice. That is why he STATED that Lechmere HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO STAY IN BUCK'S ROW! Clearly, it didn't occur to him that Lechmere had a choice... and chose to stay because he liked the risk as it fed his narcissistic psychopathy. And rather than just walk away he chose this "bluff" with Paul.

I have always regarded Lechmere's "bluff" with Paul as one of the most absurd aspects of your theory. You've defended the idea, as you should, and I've attacked it. You post here often citing your documentary, the people who now believe in your this theory because of it, AND you cite the experts involved in it. You've cited Griffiths' comments many times and I, and others, I think, have gained an impression that he agreed with the motivations you ascribe to Lechmere for his "staying put" and "bluffing his way out" with Paul. Now you are saying that Griffiths knew nothing about your idea that Lechmere chose this "bluff" over flight because it appealed to him as a narcissist and psychopath. And clearly, a close viewing of the documentary makes plain that Griffiths believed Lechmere COULD NOT have walked on because of the police presence and the fact that "someone else was in the street", and you didn't disagree. Yet, you stated on this thread (in response to Harry) that you have NEVER believed or stated that Lechmere COULD NOT have walked on.

I'm left to wonder what Andy Griffiths would make of the idea that Lechmere stayed not because he couldn't have escaped Buck's Row but because his belief that he could not is STRESSED:

“ANDY GRIFFITHS states that given the heavy police presence and lack of easy escape route, Lechmere had no choice but to cover his tracks and bluff things out.”

Followed by Griffiths himself saying on camera:

“Certainly, I think he COULDN’T run away, having realized there was somebody else in the street.”