Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Window of Time for Nichols murder

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
    >>She bled as Mizen saw her too ..<<

    No, it's your theory that Mrs Nichols bled when Mizen arrived, based on your interpretation of one variant newspaper report that differs from the main reporting, which in turn has Mizen seeing blood leak when she was lifted on to the ambulance. To be of value, we need to be precise, otherwise new people will get an inaccurate view of what we actually know verses pet theories.
    A little lesson for a self-proclaimed simple man.

    To begin with, it is kind of strange to write "No" when the commented phrase is "She bled as Mizen saw her too". Because we have it in record that she did, it is a proven thing that the PC claimed this.

    So why would anyone say "No"...? It is refusing to accept the facts.

    What you should have said, Dusty, is "Yes". "Yes, she bled as Mizen saw her, but I think that he may not have seen that blood until half an hour later", THAT is what you should have said. Instead, you allowed your dislike for the Lechmere theory get the better of you, and misrepresented the facts rather badly.

    That's the first part of the lesson.

    The second is when you say "It is your theory that Mrs Nichols bled when Mizen arrived". It is of course not my theory at all, but instead something that is written in the sources. We have it on record.
    A theory is a suggestion about how to fill in the blank spaces inbetween the facts we have, and not the facts as such. They form the connecting points of the theory. My theory is that Lechmere was the killer of Nichols and the Ripper and Torso killer in the same person, and I use the facts to connect the dots and form a theory.

    There are sources that suggest that Mizen saw the blood as he arrived the first time to Bucks Row, minutes only after the carman had left. And there are sources that seemingly suggest that Mizen saw blood running half an hour after the carman had left, that is to say after Mizen himself had fetched the ambulance.

    Only one of these suggestions will be correct. The key to understanding which one of them is that Mizen said that the blood was STILL RUNNING and LOOKED FRESH as he saw it.
    "Still running" implicates an ongoing process to which there had been no halt. Mizen was of the meaning that Nichols had bled since she was cut up until the moment when he saw and described the blood flow. Did he think that she had bled for half an hour and kept bleeding as he helped lifting her onto the ambulance? Only if he too was a simple man, I´d say. Did he think that the blood would be fresh at that stage, half an hour after she was cut? Only if he was a simpleton, I´d say.

    And why did he feel it was relevant to offer the information that the blood was "still running" as she was lifted onto the ambulance? Because it could help narrowing down the time when she had been cut? Only if he was a simple man.
    However, if he described the FIRST occasion (and let's be frank, he did), then he is offering vital information that could help narrow down the time window we are looking for 131 years after the murder.

    Last lesson: Am I saying this because I want to dupe people into believing that Lechmere was the killer? No, I am saying it because it represents what I think everybody but the simplest of men can understand to be the truth. In fact, to fit with what Jason Payne-James said, it would be better if she did NOT bleed as Mizen arrived, but had bled out in the 3-5 minutes that involved the leaving of the carmen and the arrival of Neil. If we go on those timings, we get a clear picture in which no other killers than Lechmere and Paul are possible, and Paul was second to Lechmere on the spot.

    So it is not about trying to deceive people or entice them into Lechmere land. It is about correctly and honestly representing what I believe to be the truthfullest and likeliest description of the events. You may find that a hard concept to understand, though, simple man that you tell me you are.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 04-14-2019, 04:20 PM.

    Comment


    • #62

      >>To begin with, it is kind of strange to write "No" when the commented phrase is "She bled as Mizen saw her too". Because we have it in record that she did, it is a proven thing that the PC claimed this.<<

      Nothing strange about it, your posts #19 and #32 make it clear you were stating as fact that Mizen saw the blood, before he went for the ambulance, that is NOT "a proven thing".

      My post makes it quite clear that I was differentiating between bleeding and leaking or are you saying she could have still been bleeding when Mizen came back with the ambulance?


      >>What you should have said, Dusty, is "Yes". "Yes, she bled as Mizen saw her, but I think that he may not have seen that blood until half an hour later", THAT is what you should have said. Instead, you allowed your dislike for the Lechmere theory get the better of you, and misrepresented the facts rather badly.<<

      And in my own words that's exactly what I said. You however stated your theory as fact and that is where the problem lies.


      >>The second is when you say "It is your theory that Mrs Nichols bled when Mizen arrived". It is of course not my theory at all, but instead something that is written in the sources. We have it on record.<<

      You clearly have a problem what "on record" means. No where in any report does it say Mrs Nichols bled when Mizen arrived. Why do have difficulty understanding what is written in the papers? If I'm wrong, show me the report that states that and I'll happily and profusely apologise.

      Instead we have a newspaper that leaves out the part about Mizen coming back with the ambulance and skips to him seeing the blood. I restate (accurately) that it is your theory that Mizen saw bleeding when he arrived.

      Echo: Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.

      The Star: "... witness went for the ambulance. He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed."

      I've enboldened the sentence missing from the Echo story.

      Now, you have a theory that the Echo is more accurate, that's fine, that's your right and nobody is denying your right to have it. What I was pointing out is that it is only a theory not a fact as you stated it.

      Even in your latest post you are still claiming that "we have it on record that Mrs Nichols bled when when Mizen arrived", but NO newspaper explicitly said "when Mizen arrived. It is a record of fact that when reading ALL the newspapers it is unclear when he saw the blood.


      >>A theory is a suggestion about how to fill in the blank spaces inbetween the facts we have, and not the facts as such.<<

      Precisely the point I'm making and you are ignoring.


      >>There are sources that suggest that Mizen saw the blood as he arrived the first time to Bucks Row, minutes only after the carman had left. And there are sources that seemingly suggest that Mizen saw blood running half an hour after the carman had left, that is to say after Mizen himself had fetched the ambulance.<<

      Bingo!!! You've finally used the word "suggest", that was all that was needed from the begining, not pseudo statements of "facts" or "records".


      >>Only one of these suggestions will be correct. The key to understanding which one of them is that Mizen said that the blood was STILL RUNNING and LOOKED FRESH as he saw it.<<

      Oh dear here you go again. There are different versions in different newspapers, one states the blood was congealed. One version can read "running" as past tense. There is no definitive answer, your just pretending there is, again.


      >>to fit with what Jason Payne-James said, it would be better if she did NOT bleed as Mizen arrived, but had bled out in the 3-5 minutes that involved the leaving of the carmen and the arrival of Neil. If we go on those timings, we get a clear picture in which no other killers than Lechmere and Paul are possible...<<

      And so you go again with the definitive statements. Lots of things are possible, including as I've already mentioned, the killer cutting Mrs Nichols throat after the pair left.

      dustymiller
      aka drstrange


      "Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
      Fisherman

      Comment


      • #63
        Thread wants to avoid distractions

        People talk about drains

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Harry D View Post
          Thread wants to avoid distractions

          People talk about drains
          Then Dr Strange provided the exact thing, did he not? Another post drained of all insight, a gem of a sewer system contribution.

          Half a novel about how I would have claimed that there is a definitive answer to the question about when Mizen saw the blood, when what I have done is to point out that only one answer fits all the evidence is precisely that - a pile of crap.

          Comment


          • #65
            Just having a look at some of the inquest testimony (unfortunately, the official Nichol's inquest papers are lost, and in the police files they have the report as published in The Times, 3rd Sept, 1888 page 12, according to The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion by Evans and Skinner, 2000. This has the details, verbatim, of all of the information in the official police files; excellent source material.)

            We know that Nichol's was alive at 2:30 am as she was seen by Ellen Holland at Osborn Street and Whitchappel Road, and Ellen had tried to convince Mary Ann to stay with her, but to no avail. She was sure of the time because, apparently, she specifically mentioned it in trying to get Mary Ann to come with her.

            PC Neil states he found the body (After Paul and Cross) at 3:45, and that he had been there about 30 minutes earlier. He reported seeing blood "oozing" from her neck (oozing is not my choice of descriptive, it is the word reported in The Times coverage of the inquest).

            Dr. Llewellyn states he was called upon at 4:00 am, and then went to Buck's Row. His testimony does not mention any blood flow, but he describes her hands and wrists as cold, but lower extremities warm, and based upon this estimates she was dead no more than half and hour (we now know that estimation of time of death by touch is highly inaccurate, so we can't put much stock in that estimate with regards to narrowing down our 30 minute window). After this cursory examination, the body was removed to the mortuary. Inspector Spratling was called upon at 4:30, and when he arrived the body had been removed by that time.

            Cross and Paul indicate that they reported finding her to a police constable (Mizen). Mizen reports that this occurred at 4:15, but Cross indicates he arrived at work at 4:00 am, and Robert Paul (who's name was mis-spelled as Baul in The Times) testifies that not more than four minutes had passed between the time they left the body and found PC Mizen. This suggests that PC Mizen's time of 4:15 is probably in error, as Cross and Paul must have left before PC Nell arrived at 3:45, and so 4 minutes would put the latest at 3:49 for their meeting PC Mizen (but that requires them to be leaving when Neil arrives, clearly not possible). Unfortunately, I can't find anything else that indicates the time Mizen arrives at the scene. But, if we give Cross and Paul 4 minutes to find Mizen, and give him 4 minutes to reach the scene (they didn't say they found a dead woman, only that he was wanted there), and we know Mizen arrives after PC Neil has had time to find the body, summon help from Constable Thain (mis-reported as Phail in The Times), who had passed the end of Buck's Row previously at 3:15. Thain reports the body was taken to the mortuary by Sergent Kerby, PC Neil, and "an officer from H division". Mizen was of H division, so this is presumably him. Now, given that it appears he was involved in removing the body to the mortuary, it is starting to sound like he arrived at the scene at 4:15 rather than his encounter with Cross and Paul occuring at 4:15.

            Constable Thain testifies he saw one or two men on their way to work heading in the direction of Whitechappel Road shortly before being called by Neil. This almost sounds like he saw Cross and Paul leaving the scene on their way to find Mizen.

            If that is the case, given that PC Neil did not see Cross or Paul leave the scene, if Thain was called to Neil's aid shortly after seeing them, let's say shortly means a minute or two, then clearly, someone other than Cross could have easily killed Nichols and left shortly before Cross arrived and Cross could be none the wiser. If Cross and Paul left the scene at 3:42, giving 3 minutes for PC Neil to find the body at 3:45, and if they had spent 5 minutes (and that is being overly generous I think) at the scene, then they could have arrived at 3:37, and we still have 17 minutes since Neil's prior patrol for Nichols and Jack to arrive together. Shorten the duration of the Cross and Paul time at the body, and from their accounts I don't think they were there more than a minute or two, and that time window just gets longer.

            Basically, there's ample opportunity for someone other than Cross to have killed Nichols and left the scene unnoticed.

            Doesn't mean they did, for those who like Cross as their suspect, but it doesn't mean it had to be Cross either.

            - Jeff

            Note, I'm speculating on it being Cross and Paul, obviously. Thain indicates he was coming up Brady street, and I get the feeling that might be the east end of Buck's Row, which would be the wrong end to spot Cross and Paul. He does say he saw Neil signalling "some way down Buck's Row", which would make sense if he was at the eastern end. If that's the case, it's unlikely that the men he saw were Cross and Paul as they would have left via the west end of Buck's Row on their way to find Mizen.
            Last edited by JeffHamm; 04-15-2019, 11:47 AM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              .....the explanation for him not noticing any blood is that there was just a small pool of blood under Nichols´ neck, and it would have been hidden from those looking at her from above, plus the wounds to the abdomen had had her dress pulled down over them, effectively hiding them from sight. The scene was a surprisingly unbloody one, taking into account the horrific damage she had suffered. That is how we explain why Paul saw no blood.
              I think it's clear that the primary reason Paul didn't notice blood or Nichols' wounds was the darkness. We know the nearest lamp was some distance off from the spot on which they found her. Neil remarked at the inquest, "It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row." Paul said in his "remarkable statement", "It was too dark to see the blood about her." While it's accurate to say that the blood had collected beneath Nichols' body. However, Neil noticed the throat wound immediately "with the aid of (his) lamp".



              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                Was there no drain of any sort there ?! Are you sure of that, or this is just what you think ?!

                For a moment, you have mentioned that there are too many certainties on the board.

                If he didn't get rid of the weapon, then for me at least, Lechmere was not the Ripper.


                The Baron
                Christer's theory, unless it's changed, has Lechmere going about his search for a PC with Robert Paul with the knife on his person.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Lechmere couldn’t have been anything like certain of that in the dark though. As Payne-Jones can’t be certain.
                  This is a point I've made again and again. Lechemere may have gotten little or no blood on his person. Although consider this unlikely due to the fact that he would have had to cut her throat, mutilate her body, and then either clean the blade or hide the bloody knife (or the knife and the rag he used to wipe it) in his clothing, all in near pitch blackness, it's possible. But, had he killed Nichols, Lechmere could not have known that he had no blood on him. Yet he recruits Paul, going so far as to touch his shoulder with a hand that had mere seconds before killed a woman. The then goes off searching for a PC, seemingly unconcerned that blood may be visible on his person when he was - as he should have reasonably expected - exposed to that PC's lamp. Not to mention the fact that he's got the murder weapon still stowed in his coat.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    it may have seemed a better solution to Lechmere to hold on to the knife. Also, I think we should avoid presupposing that a serial killer would make the same kind of calls that we do, especially if that killer is a narcissist and a psychopath, something that must be regarded a very clear possibility.
                    In another thread you suggested alcohol use, but it seems you have no real information with respect to whether the man drank heavily or didn't drink at all. Here you state that its a "very clear possibility that Lechmere was a "narcissist and a psychopath". Aside from your belief that he was a prolific, lifelong serial killer, what evidence do you have that suggests narcissism and psychopathy?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
                      Regarding the murder weapon...

                      If JTR didn't take the weapon with him and dropped it down the drain... and yet no weapon was ever found...

                      could that mean it was missed...

                      and the knife is still there today?!

                      highly unlikely of course...but still more likely than 75% of the alleged suspects (that we still consider today) having a chance of being JTR.

                      it truly baffles me how some suspects are STILL considered to be JTR when some of them weren't even in the country at the time of all of all the murders.

                      how is it possible for Sickert to be considered a suspect over the likes of Lechmere when Sickert wasn't even in London?

                      Being able to connect suspects the scene of a crime is paramount.

                      Sickert was out of London
                      Lechmere was found standing over Nichols

                      unless we start dismissing some of the inpossible suspects, the case will NEVER be solved...which appears to be the want of some people.

                      sensationalist books pointing to impossible suspects are the reason why the case got saturated with nonsense.

                      surely the priority is to solve the case? Even if it ends the myth of JTR, finding a way to try and properly solve the case must be the most important thing?

                      Thoughts please?

                      the Rookie
                      Let's concede now that if Sickert is the metric we measure the field of "suspects" against, then the field wins every time.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        And as I said earlier there are very few ‘impossible’ suspects unfortunately. How would we choose who to eliminate and what criteria would we use?
                        Regards

                        Herlock






                        "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          And as I said earlier there are very few ‘impossible’ suspects unfortunately. How would we choose who to eliminate and what criteria would we use?
                          Oh. I completely agree with you. Eliminating is nearly impossible at this point. I was more taking an opportunity to poo-poo the whole Sickert thing is all.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

                            Oh. I completely agree with you. Eliminating is nearly impossible at this point. I was more taking an opportunity to poo-poo the whole Sickert thing is all.
                            I should have been clearer that my post wasn’t directed at your last post Pat. You’’ll get no argument from me on the Sickert point though.
                            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 04-15-2019, 02:24 PM.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






                            "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                              >>To begin with, it is kind of strange to write "No" when the commented phrase is "She bled as Mizen saw her too". Because we have it in record that she did, it is a proven thing that the PC claimed this.<<

                              Nothing strange about it, your posts #19 and #32 make it clear you were stating as fact that Mizen saw the blood, before he went for the ambulance, that is NOT "a proven thing".

                              My post makes it quite clear that I was differentiating between bleeding and leaking or are you saying she could have still been bleeding when Mizen came back with the ambulance?


                              >>What you should have said, Dusty, is "Yes". "Yes, she bled as Mizen saw her, but I think that he may not have seen that blood until half an hour later", THAT is what you should have said. Instead, you allowed your dislike for the Lechmere theory get the better of you, and misrepresented the facts rather badly.<<

                              And in my own words that's exactly what I said. You however stated your theory as fact and that is where the problem lies.


                              >>The second is when you say "It is your theory that Mrs Nichols bled when Mizen arrived". It is of course not my theory at all, but instead something that is written in the sources. We have it on record.<<

                              You clearly have a problem what "on record" means. No where in any report does it say Mrs Nichols bled when Mizen arrived. Why do have difficulty understanding what is written in the papers? If I'm wrong, show me the report that states that and I'll happily and profusely apologise.

                              Instead we have a newspaper that leaves out the part about Mizen coming back with the ambulance and skips to him seeing the blood. I restate (accurately) that it is your theory that Mizen saw bleeding when he arrived.

                              Echo: Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.

                              The Star: "... witness went for the ambulance. He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed."

                              I've enboldened the sentence missing from the Echo story.

                              Now, you have a theory that the Echo is more accurate, that's fine, that's your right and nobody is denying your right to have it. What I was pointing out is that it is only a theory not a fact as you stated it.

                              Even in your latest post you are still claiming that "we have it on record that Mrs Nichols bled when when Mizen arrived", but NO newspaper explicitly said "when Mizen arrived. It is a record of fact that when reading ALL the newspapers it is unclear when he saw the blood.


                              >>A theory is a suggestion about how to fill in the blank spaces inbetween the facts we have, and not the facts as such.<<

                              Precisely the point I'm making and you are ignoring.


                              >>There are sources that suggest that Mizen saw the blood as he arrived the first time to Bucks Row, minutes only after the carman had left. And there are sources that seemingly suggest that Mizen saw blood running half an hour after the carman had left, that is to say after Mizen himself had fetched the ambulance.<<

                              Bingo!!! You've finally used the word "suggest", that was all that was needed from the begining, not pseudo statements of "facts" or "records".


                              >>Only one of these suggestions will be correct. The key to understanding which one of them is that Mizen said that the blood was STILL RUNNING and LOOKED FRESH as he saw it.<<

                              Oh dear here you go again. There are different versions in different newspapers, one states the blood was congealed. One version can read "running" as past tense. There is no definitive answer, your just pretending there is, again.


                              >>to fit with what Jason Payne-James said, it would be better if she did NOT bleed as Mizen arrived, but had bled out in the 3-5 minutes that involved the leaving of the carmen and the arrival of Neil. If we go on those timings, we get a clear picture in which no other killers than Lechmere and Paul are possible...<<

                              And so you go again with the definitive statements. Lots of things are possible, including as I've already mentioned, the killer cutting Mrs Nichols throat after the pair left.
                              Lesson four: If you are going to mocking congratulate me on having understood that there are to different suggestions about when Mizen saw the blood, then it is not a good idea to use the same post to tell me that I am refusing to admit that there are two suggestions about when Mizen saw the blood.

                              Lesson five: If three sources make the same claim and one makes another claim, it is not a given that the tree sources should be relied upon over the single one. If those thee sources say "Then he finished the meeting and flew out the window" while the singe source says "Then he finished the meeting and walked down the stairs", the single source is actually a lot more probable to be correct.

                              In the case at hand, we have one of two things present: Mizen offering his information about the events on his own account or Mizen responding to questions asked by the coroner. Whichever applies, we should ask ourselves these questions:

                              If the coroner asked about it or if Mizen offered the information, which is more likely: That the coroner was interested in whether any blood came out of Nichols body as she was lifted onto the ambulance half an hour after she died or that he wanted to know if Nichols still bled as Mizen arrived to the site, very few minutes after Neil? The same thing goes if Mizen offered the information: Which is likelier, that he thought it important to know that she still bled as he arrived few minutes after Neil or that some blood exited her as he lifter her onto the stretcher half an hour after she died?
                              Is it furthermore more likely that Mizen said that she was STILL bleeding as he saw her a short time after the carmen had been around or that he actually thought that - regardless of how the pavement blood had turned into a clot - she had bled for half an hour as he arrived with the ambulance?
                              Is it furthermore more likely that he would say that the blood looked fresh when he saw the body few minutes after the carmen and left, or that he said that the blood looked fresh as some of it exited the body half an hour after the victim had died?

                              One line of answers take the stairs down, steady as you like.

                              The other flies out the window.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

                                I think it's clear that the primary reason Paul didn't notice blood or Nichols' wounds was the darkness. We know the nearest lamp was some distance off from the spot on which they found her. Neil remarked at the inquest, "It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row." Paul said in his "remarkable statement", "It was too dark to see the blood about her." While it's accurate to say that the blood had collected beneath Nichols' body. However, Neil noticed the throat wound immediately "with the aid of (his) lamp".


                                It was the logical thing to think on behalf of Paul. He saw no blood, and the darkness will have popped up as the reason when he asked himself why. But what he forgets is that he saw Nichols, Lechmere could see her from across the street, the men could see the hat, they could see the dress and pull it down etcetera. Ergo, since blood reflects light (and light was what enabled them to see anything, what we see IS light, reflected from various objects) he would have been able to see that too. I therefore think that the main reason for him not seeing the blood was that there was very little blood to see, hidden under the neck of Nichols, and that this blood had not yet run down to the gutter, meaning that it had not yet "run over the brim" of the pool forming under Nichols´neck. I find this a probable but unprovable further point in favor of Lechmere being a very probable killer. Note that Neil says nothing about any blood running into the gutter, whereas Mizen does.
                                Then again, that blood perhaps only ran down into the gutter as Nichols was lifted onto the ambulance, eh...?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X