Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Window of Time for Nichols murder

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

    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.
    It is the only feasible theory there can be if he was the killer. The premises were checked and no knife turned up. Nothing has changed in that department.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

      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.
      If we accept that a killer will take no risk, we must also accept that there will be no killers, I'm afraid.

      If Lechmere was the killer, then he actively decided to kill Nichols and did so.

      When Paul arrived, he was faced with the options stay or flee, and chose option number one. Andy Griffiths said that he would NEVER have run, and I think that it would have involved great risk to run. So to me, he minimizes the risks, and that should keep you happy since you suggest that killers will always minimize the risks. But are you happy about it? No, you claim that running away, loudly and conspicuously, is a more risk minimizing strategy. Well, Patrick, that would depend on the outcome, would it not? And, circular or not, if he WAS the killer, he seems to have chosen a winning concept, right?

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

        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?
        Are you VERY surprised that I do not have Lechmeres intake of alcoholic beverages listed, pint per pint, Patrick? Allow me to point out that I SUGGESTED that drinking COULD have had an impact in the Tabram case. It would fit the bill in my SUGGESTED scenario. Other things can also fill that role, as I tried to point out.

        You know, I am actually not saying that we KNOW that he drank, and I am not saying that Tabram WAS not an intended murder. I am saying that such a scenario CAN represent a type of solution to how we can fit the Tabram murder, frenzied and disorganized though it may seem, into a series of murders involving seemingly very organized slayings. And the exact same goes for psychopathy and narcissism - they are not and can not be proven, but they WOULD help explain how the Lechmere theory can work eminently. Apart from that, we KNOW from the research done on serial killers that a very large percentage of them, the absolute bulk as it were, are diagnosed psychopaths, so it is not something that should surprise us if the Ripper/Torso killer is of the same ilk. Narcissism too is very, very common in these ranks.

        So that is how it works, Patrick! I say Lechmere was probably the killer, and you say "Noooo, a nice man like that, family man and all? Never! Take it back! Besides, he would NEVER risk staying put at the site, so there you are! Hah! And he would nevernevernvernever dare to cut her IF he stayed put, because if he did, he could get BLOOD on his person! And that would be risk taking, something killer do not engage in."
        And then I tell you that psychopathy is extremely common within the serial killer ranks and psychopaths are unable to panic plus they are very adept liars, who actually LIKE to lie and con people, plus narcissism is also very common in those ranks and that has a tendency to tell the killers that they are invincible and make them believe that they can BATHE in blood and talk their way out of it. And I point out that the killings bear the classic hallmark of psychopathy: a total disregard for the slain, a sense that the killer has taken control over another person and decided that he is in his right to kill and cut them up.

        And that is when you say: But we don't have any clinical evaluation of Lechmere, saying that he was a psychopath! (Or a narcissist. Or a drunkard. Or a rotten egg).

        And then we do it all over again.

        And again.

        And again.

        And again.
        Last edited by Fisherman; 04-16-2019, 06:11 AM.

        Comment


        • #79
          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?
          I think having a proven presence at any one of the murder scenes is a great way to start. It is how police work is generally done. It has to do with opportunity.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
            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.
            If Jason Payne-James is right, and if a person with the kind of damage Nichols suffered is likely to bleed out in three to five minutes, just how ample an opportunity is there for another killer? And what happens if the only person who claimed to be able to give an exact timing was correct - that is Robert Paul who said that it was exactly 3.45 as he passed down Bucks Row.

            There are lots of parameters to weigh in.

            Regardless how he weigh them, we MUST allow for another killer to have done the deed, there can be no two ways about that.

            But if it was another killer, isn't it sad how the timings given by Lechmere seems to be wrong, how Mizen said that he spoke of another PC in Bucks Row, something that allowed Mizen to accept that the carmen could not be the killers, how Lechmere has links to all of the murder sites, how he had a logical reason to pass the Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly sites at the relevant hours, how he had geographical links a plenty to Berner Street and good reasons to visit the area, how Mitre Square was right along his old working route from James Street to Broad Street, how he used the name Cross instead of Lechmere with the police although he otherwise always used Lechmere with the authorities, how Paul never says that he heard out saw Lechmere before he arrived at the murder site and so on? Doesn't Lechmere have all the bad luck in the world, Jeff? And is it not up to us to ask ourselves WHY that is? And before we have answers to those questions, is it not a bit premature to fit a phantom killer in where there is already a suspect who has anomaly after anomaly clinging to his name?
            Last edited by Fisherman; 04-16-2019, 06:27 AM.

            Comment


            • #81
              Just re-reading some previous posts, and noticed something very odd in the bit below. Specifically, the two reports from the Echo and the Star, and these seem to be presented as testimony from Mizen at the Inquest for Nichol's murder.

              Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post

              >>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.
              Ok, bear with me. I'm taking this from Evans and Skinner's 2000 book, The Ultimate Jack The Ripper Companion, which presents all of the records remaining in the police files. The files contain the report as presented from The Times (the original inquest paper's are lost, which is a shame as those would be the best record), but the police chose to archive The Times.
              Here's what is recorded as Mizen's testimony, bearing in mind that PC Neil found Nichol's at 3:45.
              "
              Constable G. Mizen: 56 H, stated that at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's -row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row." The man, named Cross, stated a woman had been found there. In going to the spot he saw Constable Neil, and by the direction of the latter he went for the ambulance. When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street. Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed. He deniced that before he went to Buck's-row he continued knocking people up.
              " from page 37.

              Ok, if Mizen's time is correct, he didn't even start heading to Buck's-row until 30 minutes after Neil had found Nichol's, so whether or not he saw blood flowing, is really sort of immaterial. She was dead at least 30 minutes before he even headed there. Also, Neil's testimony of what he found with regards to blood (30 minutes earlier) was "With the aid of his lamp he examined the body and saw blood oozing from a wound in the throat.", which could be taken as supporting the fact that blood wasn't noticable without the aid of a lamp (which explains why Cross and Paul might not have seen it), and also indicates that at the time the body was discovered, blood wasn't "flowing", it was oozing, which provides a very different description.

              Now, for the part I found odd. Nothing in Mizen's recorded testimony mentions blood flowing or pools of it.

              However, we know that PC Neil, upon finding Nichol's, signaled for assistance with his lamp and was immediately joined by Constable Thain (who The Time's names as Phail). Here's his testimony:
              "
              Constable John Phail [sic - Thain], 96], said he was not brought any closer to Buck's-row in his beat than Brady-street, but he passed the end of it. He passed the end of Buck's-row every 30 minutes. Nothing attracted his attention until about 1:45 a.m., when he was signalled by a brother constable flashing his lamp some way down Buck's-row. Witness went to him, and found Constable Neil standing by the body of the deceased. Neil was by himself. Witness ran for the doctor, and having called Dr. Llewellyn, accompanied him to the spot where deceased was lying. On his return with the doctor, Neil and two workman were standing by the body. He did not know the workman. The body was then taken to the mortuary by Sergeant Kerby, Constable Neil, and an officer of the H Division. Witness, acting under orders, waited at the spot for Inspector Spratling. He was present when the spots of blood were washed away. On the spot where the deceased had been lying was a mass of congealed blood. He should say it was about 6in. in diameter, and had run towards the gutter.
              By the coroner. - He helped to put the body on the ambulance, and the back appeared to be covered with blood, which, he thought, had run from the neck as far as the waist. He got blood on to his hands. There was also blood on the ground where the deceased's legs had been. ...
              "
              There's more to his testimony, but it just goes on about where he searched, and that he found no knife or other signs of blood, etc, a bit about getting his cape from the horse slaughterers, and so on.

              Anyway, what has struck me as odd is that the Starr and Echo reports, which are presented as Mizen's testimony, sound far more like Thain's testimony. Mizen, I think, seems to have arrived after Thain returned with Dr. L. (as Thain specifically mentions there was Neil and two workman), and Dr. L. wasn't called upon until about 4:00 am. The only indication Mizen was there is the reference to the "officer of the H Division", who helped transport the body to the mortuary. Also, all of Thain's testimony about blood running anywhere, is describing his observations after the body was moved, so where blood had run, not where he saw blood actively in the process of running.

              The only testimony I can find in these reports that talks about active blood flow is Neil's description of the blood "oozing" from the wound in the neck.

              Anyway, not sure how much that might be of use. But I think the above quotes from the Starr and Echo should be quotes attributed to Thain, and not Mizen. I doubt it matters much which officer made the statements, but thought I would mention it here all the same.

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • #82
                >>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". <<

                What's curious is that Paul went to the two areas where the wounds were, Mrs Nichols neck and chest area, feeling around and then he went around to try and pull the dress down. If Xmere were the killer he should have been taking charge of these areas and preventing Paul from going any where near them.
                dustymiller
                aka drstrange


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

                Comment


                • #83
                  >>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 4a: Sorry, but because of you habit of misquoting, inventing or taking things out of context, I have no idea which part of my post you are taking about.


                  >>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.<<


                  I'm not big on analogies, like your "coins on the table", on another thread which fell pretty flat when tested against the real stuff.

                  That said I don't have any problem with the theory you offer. here It is one version of events that could be true.

                  But it is just one version and there's the rub.
                  dustymiller
                  aka drstrange


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

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Hello Jeff,

                    I can't remember whether it was on this site or over at jtr forums that I listed all the time variances for Mizen, there were a few. Since The Times time would put Mizen arriving after the doctor and the slaughter men, I think we can safely say it is a transcription error.
                    dustymiller
                    aka drstrange


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

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                      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.
                      There you have it.

                      There was plenty opportunity for another killer before Lechmere arrived on the scene. Plain and simple.

                      Fisherman will argue that we don't need another killer. We have Lechmere. He has constructed a narrative that paints the carman in a particularly sinister light. A psychopath who took the gamble of bluffing it out with Paul & PC Mizen instead of turning tail. It's up to you if you choose to believe that.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        I think having a proven presence at any one of the murder scenes is a great way to start. It is how police work is generally done. It has to do with opportunity.
                        True enough Fish. Isn’t it surprising then that, when they actually knew of someone who had been alone with the body, they appeared to have no interest in Lechmere as a suspect?
                        Regards

                        Herlock






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

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          If Jason Payne-James is right, and if a person with the kind of damage Nichols suffered is likely to bleed out in three to five minutes, just how ample an opportunity is there for another killer? And what happens if the only person who claimed to be able to give an exact timing was correct - that is Robert Paul who said that it was exactly 3.45 as he passed down Bucks Row.
                          Looking at the inquest testimony (again, from The Times, as this was apparently kept in the contemporary police files), the only time Robert Paul mentions is that he left home (#30 Foster Street; but I don't know where that is?) at about quarter to four (so he testified he left about 3:45, no mention of passing down Buck's Row at exactly 3:45, and anyway, 3:45 is when PC Neil reports finding Nichols, after Cross and Paul have left). But if "about" means after 3:30 but before 3:45, and presuming that Foster Street is close to Buck's Row, then that would explain how Paul arrives just before PC Neil, and meets Cross. Which fits with them leaving just before PC Neil arrives, but with enough time for him not to see them leave, so a minute would do. Paul says it was no more than 4 minutes after leaving the body they found Mizen, so they probably meet around 3:47/3:48 ish. Cross testifies he arrived at work at 4:00, so that meeting couldn't have been long, but his testimony is that they told Mizen that a woman was laying in the street, and that Paul thought she was dead, and Cross said he though she was dead or drunk. If it's 4 minutes to find Mizen, Mizen should have arrived at Buck's Row 4 minutes later, so around 3:53 if we give only a minute for that exchange, 3:55 if it took a little longer. Mizen doesn't appear to arrive until after Dr. Llewellyn though, who wasn't called upon until 4:00, so had to get up and get dressed, and get to the scene, let's say he arrives around 4:10 (presumably just pulls on pants and throws on a shirt and coat, etc). Cross and Paul not noticing the blood or injuries, in the dark without light, is nothing compared to the fact that none of the police or the doctor noticed she was disemboweled despite having lamps (yes, her dress was pulled down, but it seems to me this speaks to the lack of noticeable blood at the scene, and blood, in the dark, on a road, is not going to be highly visible). Mizen reports one time, which is 4:15, and though he says that is when Cross and Paul met him, that seems out of place with everyone, so I think that has to be the time of his arrival at the scene as that would more or less fit all the reported times together. It also means, he seems to have taken his time getting there, but it is implied there was some question as to how directly he went to the location as he had to deny continuing to "knock people up" before going - and that suggests that he was considered tardy in his arrival and an explanation was being looked for why he didn't get there sooner.

                          All of that, however, still means, Cross and Paul are finding the body shortly before 3:45, still leaving a 30 minute window of time in which Nichols could be killed by someone not named in the above.

                          Cross/Lechmere is a POI, of course. The person who finds a body always is. Mizen appears to have delayed getting to Buck's Row, so I suppose you could argue that suggests he didn't take the report from Cross and Paul very seriously, and so is unlikely to have searched either, hence no blood spotted and no knife found. But, that's just one story one could weave, because, with the amount of time left unaccounted for, we are not constrained to hold to that story. It's one of many possible stories. That places it in the realm of hypotheses, and it can stand in line with all the other hypotheses that also fit the data that we have. Which, unfortunately, is often too little to do much more than create room for more hypotheses to get in line with the rest.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                            Hello Jeff,

                            I can't remember whether it was on this site or over at jtr forums that I listed all the time variances for Mizen, there were a few. Since The Times time would put Mizen arriving after the doctor and the slaughter men, I think we can safely say it is a transcription error.
                            Yes, but who made the transcription error? It looks to me like the Starr and Echo might have misassigned Thain's testimony to Mizen, and Thain is there right after PC Neil finds the body as he comes to Neil's flashing lamp. If that's the case, then the reported times all fit fairly well, and it explains why Mizen apparently has to answer whether or not he delayed going to Buck's Row. But of course, I'm biased to like that explanation because I thought it up, and we like our own ideas.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              True enough Fish. Isn’t it surprising then that, when they actually knew of someone who had been alone with the body, they appeared to have no interest in Lechmere as a suspect?
                              No, not in the least. It would have been today, but this was 131 years ago. Another time, another world and a very different way of looking on what the victorians perceived as "the criminal class". Realizing this is crucial to anyone who wants to understand the proceedings.
                              Last edited by Fisherman; 04-16-2019, 11:03 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                                Looking at the inquest testimony (again, from The Times, as this was apparently kept in the contemporary police files), the only time Robert Paul mentions is that he left home (#30 Foster Street; but I don't know where that is?) at about quarter to four (so he testified he left about 3:45, no mention of passing down Buck's Row at exactly 3:45, and anyway, 3:45 is when PC Neil reports finding Nichols, after Cross and Paul have left). But if "about" means after 3:30 but before 3:45, and presuming that Foster Street is close to Buck's Row, then that would explain how Paul arrives just before PC Neil, and meets Cross. Which fits with them leaving just before PC Neil arrives, but with enough time for him not to see them leave, so a minute would do. Paul says it was no more than 4 minutes after leaving the body they found Mizen, so they probably meet around 3:47/3:48 ish. Cross testifies he arrived at work at 4:00, so that meeting couldn't have been long, but his testimony is that they told Mizen that a woman was laying in the street, and that Paul thought she was dead, and Cross said he though she was dead or drunk. If it's 4 minutes to find Mizen, Mizen should have arrived at Buck's Row 4 minutes later, so around 3:53 if we give only a minute for that exchange, 3:55 if it took a little longer. Mizen doesn't appear to arrive until after Dr. Llewellyn though, who wasn't called upon until 4:00, so had to get up and get dressed, and get to the scene, let's say he arrives around 4:10 (presumably just pulls on pants and throws on a shirt and coat, etc). Cross and Paul not noticing the blood or injuries, in the dark without light, is nothing compared to the fact that none of the police or the doctor noticed she was disemboweled despite having lamps (yes, her dress was pulled down, but it seems to me this speaks to the lack of noticeable blood at the scene, and blood, in the dark, on a road, is not going to be highly visible). Mizen reports one time, which is 4:15, and though he says that is when Cross and Paul met him, that seems out of place with everyone, so I think that has to be the time of his arrival at the scene as that would more or less fit all the reported times together. It also means, he seems to have taken his time getting there, but it is implied there was some question as to how directly he went to the location as he had to deny continuing to "knock people up" before going - and that suggests that he was considered tardy in his arrival and an explanation was being looked for why he didn't get there sooner.

                                All of that, however, still means, Cross and Paul are finding the body shortly before 3:45, still leaving a 30 minute window of time in which Nichols could be killed by someone not named in the above.

                                Cross/Lechmere is a POI, of course. The person who finds a body always is. Mizen appears to have delayed getting to Buck's Row, so I suppose you could argue that suggests he didn't take the report from Cross and Paul very seriously, and so is unlikely to have searched either, hence no blood spotted and no knife found. But, that's just one story one could weave, because, with the amount of time left unaccounted for, we are not constrained to hold to that story. It's one of many possible stories. That places it in the realm of hypotheses, and it can stand in line with all the other hypotheses that also fit the data that we have. Which, unfortunately, is often too little to do much more than create room for more hypotheses to get in line with the rest.

                                - Jeff
                                So you are expecting Nichols to have bled for 30 minutes? I see.

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X