Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Fisherman]

>> 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.

Debunked does. not mean challenged in vain, you know. Debunked means dismissed factually.

[Fisherman]

>>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.<<

Gee, watch out Christer, all this back peddling, you might run into something!

If you think it's not important, why did you invent such a stupid story and spend so much time here and on TV promoting it?

I did not invent the timings, the participants of the drama did. There's stupid for you.

[Fisherman]

>>So suggesting that either set of facts can make or break the theory is false<<

Nobody has suggested these to stories, they definitely aren't facts, make or break the theory that Lechmere was the killer.

Yet again, you've just made something up. If I'm wrong show us the posts where anybody said it.

So nobody is claiming that the theory has been in any way debunked? I see.

But I am happy to see that you admit that the criticism you offer cannot shake the theory, let alone debunk it. That was an aim of mine, so thanks for your kind assistance.

[Fisherman]

Your avoidance and lack of honesty with us is becoming very embarrassing.

Actually, I am more embarrassed to share an Internet forum with you, seeing your level of insights. But I am willing to stick it out. And when it comes to honesty, I have many, many names that I am more likely to turn to than you. No offense.

[Fisherman]

Aaaahh. Fresh air. This thread is time-consuming, cleaningwise.

Bye for now.

[Elamarna]

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?

So when Neil says at 3.45 he is not exact?

I see nothing to downgrade his timing there is no about or around included.

Who is saying it absolves Lechmere?
What I am saying is that the case made against him, the supposed 9 minute gap, in all probability does not exist. That does not absolve him, but it greatly diminishes the case against him.

Steve

[Elamarna]

I have already answered this and told you that it was my final answer.

And that means I cannot/may not counter it, because you say so?
Really?

That's not how it works.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Personally, I find it very important to tell facts from suggestions. If you disagree, THEN we are talking disingenuous.

Which of course is not what you do at all.
Most of the case against is based on suggestions, more importantly it is based on inaccurate factual representations.

Steve

[Elamarna]

I would be the first to celebrate that day if it ever comes along. Since you will go down in flames that very same day, I find less reason on your part to do so.

What can one say to such a nonsensical post.

The sad truth is that "factual" left the majority of your posts a very long time ago.

Steve

[Elamarna]

But there is no such controversy here - nobody says the PC:s were sure of the 3.45 timings. Only Paul said he was sure. That is not to say that he must have been correct anyways, only that there is no "direct contradiction", as Steve would have it.

He is not sure under oath, his comments then are not as pricise as those of Neil.
And are no better than those of Thain and Mizen.

That you seek to present the Lloyds Weekly article has being beyond reproach and equal to statements under oath is the issue.

Steve

[Elamarna]

As I said, I did not check it in detail, I only know that you gave a number based on cutting information away from the material you used, and that the result was ridiculous. Accordingly, no-one has latched onto it.

Christer,
The figure Dusty gave from inquest reports.

While I see possible issues with it, only one clear report, and 2 others giving same detail but having body on wrong side of the road , it is far from ridiculous!

It however clear demonstrates issues that may arise when using only a single source, such as Lloyds Weekly for instance.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

>>... 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.

hi strange

I have no idea what your talking about. Paul said he entered bucks row at 3:45 and lech was standing near the body. lech said he left home at 3:20 or 3:30 either way hes in bucks row for some time before Paul arrives. the question is-how long was he in bucks row? seems to me he was there longer than his story of finding the body would allow. and easily long enough to be pollys killer.

as for the lech being Pollys killer and or the ripper theory, and comparing it to crackpot theories like Van Gogh-its patently ridiculous comparison. Lech is exactly the type of person we should be looking at.

[FrankO]

I never had you down as anything as honest, frank, so no probs. What I am saying is that I think it is reasonable to accept that Lechmere will have heard Paul from 130 yards away if he was kneeling by the side of Nichols - as he entered the street, that is. But of course I cannot prove it as such, and I cannot exclude that Lechmere may have been in a bubble (we've been here before, I know) as he cut into Nichols, perhaps delaying his noticing Paul. Heart pounding and all that.

Ok, I've got it clear again then, Christer. Because of your remark in post #243 I thought you no longer found the "bubble" scenario very credible, especially since you wrote "I keep saying…", but it turns out that your stance has remained the same: you leave all options open. No problem there.

What I am definitely saying is that if he was the killer, then he took a very conscious decision to stay put, since he took care of a lot of things before Paul arrived within sight - the hiding of the wounds, the stashing of the knife, the movie away from the victim. In my world, he never really considered flight all that much, if at all.

Well, of course, if Lechmere wasn’t the killer, then the actual killer will have stashed the knife and moved away from the body, too. So, the only thing that remains is that the abdominal wounds were covered. But even the actual killer may have done that if he heard Lechmere just before entering Buck’s Row. Just to stall a bit. I see no reason why he couldn’t have wanted that, knowing that Lechmere would arrive at the crime scene within a minute or so.

Does that make sense? Or do you want to nail me to the mast as having said that Lechmere MUST have heard Paul from an exact given distance?

I have no wish whatsoever to nail you to the mast as having said that Lechmere MUST have heard Paul from an exact given distance. It just seemed to me that you changed your preferred view on this subject. Whether it makes sense or not is another matter. I know that it does to you and why (because narcistic psychopaths can behave like that). I - as you know - just don’t concur with your view that Lechmere never would have considered getting away from the scene, especially not if he heard him entering Buck’s Row from Brady Street. But I also know that we are never going to see eye to eye on this, but I’m as fine with that as you are.

All the best,
Frank

[Elamarna]

hi strange

I have no idea what your talking about. Paul said he entered bucks row at 3:45 and lech was standing near the body. lech said he left home at 3:20 or 3:30 either way hes in bucks row for some time before Paul arrives. the question is-how long was he in bucks row? seems to me he was there longer than his story of finding the body would allow. and easily long enough to be pollys killer.

as for the lech being Pollys killer and or the ripper theory, and comparing it to crackpot theories like Van Gogh-its patently ridiculous comparison. Lech is exactly the type of person we should be looking at.

Abby

Let's go on the inquest statements, rather than going over and over the reliability of the Lloyds report.

Lechmere is reported in the main as saying "around" or "about" 3.30.

This must be seen as just that, a range.

According to the time he is using he leaves home at approx 3.30, with a range of up to 2-3 minutes each way.
That means say 3.27-3.33

Let's accept Christer 7 minutes walking.

That gives us a range of arriving in Bucks Row from 3.34-3.40.

I discount the 3.20, as this appears to be a corruption of the time he normally left.

We now come to Paul.

His inquest report says just before 3.45.

So it's all back to:

1)The accuracy of Paul's time.
Which I continue to say, dispite the views of others , is contradicted by the 3 police officers.

2) the syncronizied time of all involved.

It is possible all gave what they believed to be accurate times, but they were not syncronizied,

That is Paul's 3.45, assuming it is based on a time piece, could be the same as Lechmere's 3.40.

It is actually far more likely that the times are not syncronizied and that 3.45 for one is not 3.45 for another.

I honestly believe there is no larger gap between Paul and Lechmere than 30 or so seconds, maybe a little longer but we'll under a minute.


I have no issue with him being the type of person, local, basically invisible.
He is far, far better than many of the crackpot ideas.

I simply do not see the evidence, such as it is points towards him.


Steve

[drstrange169]

Re your claim,

"There are those who have claimed that Lechmere was 150 yards from the body as he saw it..." Post 383

You've been asked twicewho were the "those" you were referring to. Instead of answering you said you made a mistake that the "those" in fact claimed 150 feet not yards, but you still didn't say who "those" were.

When asked again, you still avoided answering the question. Instead posting this non-sequitur.


>>As I said, I did not check it in detail ...<<

Are we to understand you made up the "those"? Or are you falsely claiming I said 150 feet/yards?

Could you actually answer the question, so we know the quality of what you are putting in your posts?


>>I only know that you gave a number based on cutting information away from the material you used, and that the result was ridiculous. Accordingly, no-one has latched onto it.<<

Just so I understand, you invented a set of ridiculous figuresout of nowhere and now you are complaining about people who you think might do that sort of thing?

Good work Christer!

Now straight answer please, who are the those you keep referring to and where did they make this claim?