Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Monty]

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

[Fisherman]

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.

[Fisherman]

Personal insults Christer, doesn't do you any favours.

The arguments are circular (despite the groundbreaking revelation of Cross's mother's address) and designed to keep you and your theory in the spotlight.

The issues raised many years ago have not been satisfactorily addressed. In short, you rely on speculation rather than fact.

It is a trait with many suspect theorists.

I'll leave you to wallow.

Monty

So once again nil progress on your behalf.

Thanks for leaving, though.

PS. The Mary Ann Street address would have been regarded as groundbreaking by you and any other Ripperologist, had it been tied to, say, Kosminski. Once that Berner Street address on behalf of Woolf K was revealed, I seem to remember you sharing in the champagne sipping. That would have been a few years after your accusation about me and Edward gaining financially from the St Johns event, something that you afterwards have claimed that you apologized about.

Of course, you never did that.

So much for bias, Monty. End of debate.

PPS. I rely on facts AND speculation. Its called a theory.

[Monty]

There has actually been a lot of progress. Naming just one example, Lechmereīs mothers address on the day of the Stride murder has been found to be 1 Mary Ann Street, and not the Cable Street address that was formerly thought to be the correct one.

So saying that there has been no progress says more about you than about the developments as such, I'm afraid. And when it comes to you, that description of yours is quite fitting, it would seem: nil progress.

If the anti-Lechmereians had taken care not to step into these traps, deviced by themselves as it happens, they would stand a better chance in these types of debate.

Personal insults Christer, doesn't do you any favours.

The arguments are circular (despite the groundbreaking revelation of Cross's mother's address) and designed to keep you and your theory in the spotlight.

The issues raised many years ago have not been satisfactorily addressed. In short, you rely on speculation rather than fact.

It is a trait with many suspect theorists.

I'll leave you to wallow.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Pretty much as I stated four/five years ago when the documentary initially came out.

Progression since then has been nil, with circular arguments since.

Good luck in seeking that clarification.

Monty

There has actually been a lot of progress. Naming just one example, Lechmereīs mothers address on the day of the Stride murder has been found to be 1 Mary Ann Street, and not the Cable Street address that was formerly thought to be the correct one.

So saying that there has been no progress says more about you than about the developments as such, I'm afraid.

If the anti-Lechmereians had taken care not to step into these traps, deviced by themselves as it happens, they would stand a better chance in these types of debate.

[Fisherman]

He's an anti-police liar... except when it comes to time. He has that exact.

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.

[Monty]

To be fair, Griffiths relied upon Christer's information, and obviously he understood the program's objective. As Christer himself put it: It was a "one-sided documentary" designed to present Christer's suspect, Lechmere, as Jack the Ripper. It's safe to assume, I think, that Christer provided Griffiths the information with respect to police routes through the area that night. It's not stated that the police presence was increased, only that it prevented Lechmere's escape from Buck's Row upon hearing Paul enter.

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). And I think that's all fair and above board, actually. Clearly this is not a court of law.

I do, however, think Christer is the person who is wrong, and - as you say - obviously so. Especially, after accusing me of "claim(ing) things on (his) behalf that (he's) never said" in reaction to my having asked the following:

"But upon hearing Paul's footfalls as he entered the Buck's Row echo chamber, forty yards off... he suddenly had no choice but to remain in place?"

Christer's contention is that Lechmere CHOSE to stay in Buck's Row because doing so would "feed his narcissism" and psychopathy. But there's a problem. We have Griffiths saying exactly what Christer said I'd invented: "He couldn't run away, having realized there was someone else in the street" with the narrator further elaborating: "...given the heavy police presence and lack of easy escape route, Lechmere had no choice but to cover his tracks and try to bluff things out."

This program is a presentation of Christer's theory. It says that explicitly at the outset. So, unless we have Griffiths and the producers making things up, or basing their comments on information NOT provided by Christer... then the ideas presented therein are his. And IF Griffiths (or Scobie, or Payne-James) is making things up or inaccurate in what he says, then we need to know the bits we are supposed to ignore and the bits were supposed to take as gospel. After all, Christer cites Griffiths involvement and his documentary comments quite often. Clarification of such things may help.

Pretty much as I stated four/five years ago when the documentary initially came out.

Progression since then has been nil, with circular arguments since.

Good luck in seeking that clarification.

Monty

[Patrick S]

>>Pauls exact timing, by the way, is from his paper interview.<<

A newspaper interview with more holes than there are in "Blackburn, Lancashire". Which kinda says it all.

He's an anti-police liar... except when it comes to time. He has that exact.

[Fisherman]

Plus it should be said that since Lechmere afterwards said that he thought that the woman was probably dead, that should perhaps have encouraged him to raise the alarm and secure some sort of first aid from dwellers in the street. But thatīs another matter.

Then again, Lechmere was the only one to claim that Mizen had been told that the carman thought that she was probably dead. Mizen himself only said that the carman had told him that there was a woman lying flat on her back in Bucks Row.
So either Mizen had forgotten all about how the carman told him or the potential seriousness of the errand or the PC lied about it. Those are the only two possibil...
Wait a second.
It just hit me that there is a third possibility too: that the serving PC was actually telling the story exactly the way it had transpired.

But would that not point to..? I mean, surely that would in all probability mean that ...?

Nah. Ab-so-lu-te-ly not! NOT a family man with kids and a steady job. NOT an Englishman, as Queen Victoria so succinctly put it. Must have been a foreigner who dunīit. And who was scared off by the good carman. Yes, that must be it!

[Fisherman]

Plus it should be said that since Lechmere afterwards said that he thought that the woman was probably dead, that should perhaps have encouraged him to raise the alarm and secure some sort of first aid from dwellers in the street. But thatīs another matter.

[Fisherman]

Good point, Dr Strange.

The two carmen together didn't realise this was a murder victim. There would be no reason for Paul to run down the street crying bloody murder, even if he had bothered to inspect the body and not carried on his way to work.

Logical enough. Whether the two carmen together realized it was a murder victim or not is another matter, of course. I do think it belonged to their collected knowledge... What I would warn about is Dr Strangeīs assertion that the carmen decided that it was a case of sleeping rough.

[Harry D]

>>... if Paul raised the alarm and Lechmere had been intercepted by a policeman.<<

Why would Paul raise an alarm?

He was supposedly late for work. No wounds were visible, even on close inspection. There were no signs of murder, just what appeared to be just another down and out sleeping rough.

Good point, Dr Strange.

The two carmen together didn't realise this was a murder victim. There would be no reason for Paul to run down the street crying bloody murder, even if he had bothered to inspect the body and not carried on his way to work.

[Fisherman]

>> ... what we really need to do is to conduct an honest discussion, not the kind of senseless accusations you spend your time dreaming up.<<

Pot, kettle, blacker than Mary Kelly's.

Easy to say, impossible to bolster. Especially when you have merited yourself by claiming that Lechmere could have been thirty or forty yards (or was it fifty, I really canīt remember - all it took for you to reach the conclusion was to cut away half the information available. Some things we like, some we like less) from the body as he stepped out into the street in a Ripperologist article. It is not the kind of stuff that inspires trust.

I want as honest a discussion as possible. You are welcome to participate, but you may find the format trying.

[Fisherman]

>>Why was Nichols the only victim to have her injuries deliberately concealed? This is a crucial element which speaks volumes It's not just the injuries and mutilation which count, it's the fact that they were CONCEALED.<<

How do you know the wounds were deliberately concealed?

An interrupted killer could easily have been holding up the skirt with one hand, inflicting wounds with the other. On being disturbed they simply drop the skirt and leave.

You are approaching the case with a bias, keep an open mind.

Some things we like, some we like a lot less ... The wounds WERE covered, and that only happened in the case where Lechmere was found on the site. In the other cases, the killer seems to have been outright disinclined to cover them. Hellbent on showing of, more likely, than on concealing.

Maybe he dropped the sheet over Kelly and missed, I donīt know.

[Fisherman]

>>... if Paul raised the alarm and Lechmere had been intercepted by a policeman.<<

Why would Paul raise an alarm?

He was supposedly late for work. No wounds were visible, even on close inspection. There were no signs of murder, just what appeared to be just another down and out sleeping rough.

The two men opted for a verdict of probably dead, or so Lechmere said.Thatīs a tad more sinister than to be sleeping rough.

Some details we like, some we like less...