Window of Time for Nichols murder

[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.

[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

[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]

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]

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 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]

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

[Fisherman]

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

Bye for now.

[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]

>>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]

>>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]

>> 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]

We've been through all this before, but lets go again.

Robert Paul gave an interview to Lloyd's Newspaper, in it he said,

"It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row"

Christer has cherry-picked this one sentence out of the context. Let's look at it back in context. Paul tells us,

"I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw."

He claims he went alone to Mizen, is this true?

He then says,

"... I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come,"

Is this true?

"I had told him the woman was dead."

Is this true?

Then,

"... she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her".

Is this true?

So what we have is an interview full of inaccurate bravado and this is what Christer chooses to cherry-pick from.


As already stated, without sync the Paul's time is meaningless, but let's check it out anyway because even that doesn't add up.

At 3:45 Paul should have seen Thain walking up Brady Street, so Thain must have been wrong.

At 3:45 Paul should have seen Neil examining the body, so Neil must have been wrong.

Mizen said he saw the two men at 3:45, so he must have been wrong.

Remember these three policemen had to walk at a regulation pace. They were spied on by sergeants, to check they were keeping to time, in fact Sgt. Kirby had just checked on Neil.

It was their job to keep an eye on the time. In 1888 Edward Rodgers even wrote a hugely popular music hall song, "If you want to know the time ask a policeman".

Mathematically Lechmere could not get to Broad Street by 4 o'clock.

At the inquest, once times have been established by four more reliable witnesses, Paul mentions nothing about exact times, instead,

"He left home about a quarter to 4" or "...just before a quarter to four".
(My emphasis)

So, how did Paul not know the exact time he left home yet knew the exact time he entered Buck's Row? Because he made it up just like the rest of his Lloyd's interview.

Every way you look at it, Christer claim falls badly apart. There is nothing to recommend it.

Well, if a music hall song claimed that the police knew the time, then surely you must be correct in stating that Paul must have been wrong. There's absolutely no possibility that the PC:s all spoke of a time a few minutes removed from 3.45 after possibly having heard a clock strike the quarter hour. And of course, if there WAS such a clock, there is absolutely no possibility that it was off.

You would dearly like to be able to dismiss Pauls timing given in the press and reinforced at the inquest, just as you would dearly love to dismiss Swansons report, opting for Paul being on the money. After having considered the case, he altered the earlier suggestion. Plus if it was 3.40, then Thain must have crawled to Llewellyn.

To me, the are important case facts.

To you, they are important case facts that don't suit you, so you choose to dismiss them and then tell me that I am cherrypicking.

They will not go away, you know. And, more importantly, they do not make Lechmere a less credible killer regardless which time applies. It takes a lot more cherrypicking (Mizen must be the liar, Lechmere probably walked other streets on the murder mornings, he probably called himself Cross at work and so on) but you don't mind that, do you?

[Fisherman]

>>... 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.

Nice try, but I have never run away from any single question at all. And I have never claimed that any of the times are proven to have been in sync.

What I DO say - and will keep saying - is that the information Paul and Lechmere gave points to how the latter should not have been in Bucks Row when he was.

Can the timings be wrong? Yes.

Should we work from the assumption that they MUST be wrong? No.

Are they the timings given and as such of vital interest to the case? Yes.

Are you misleading about my running from questions? Always.

[Fisherman]

>>Dusty claimed that Lechmere saw her from a very long distance away. <<

Once again, I don't claim anything, I'm only repeating the inquest testimony, you know the evidence available.


>>if he could do that, then why would the shadows conceal a fleeing killer?<<

If Xmere was the killer, why didn't Paul see him with the body? Because, according to you, he moved away before Paul noticed him.

You seem to grasp that concept when it suits you, but have difficulty understand the very same concept when it doesn't suit you.

I am not the none having problems with believing people seeing in total darkness, you are. I think it is perfectly possible that Lechmere backed away unseen. But YOU say that Lechmere could see the body from afar in your Ripperologist article, but you also want the killer to have been able to flee in total darkness.

That is where the contradiction lies.