Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Fisherman]

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

Thain would not have said that he was sent for an ambulance. Only Mizen would since only Mizen was.

[JeffHamm]

Thain would not have said that he was sent for an ambulance. Only Mizen would since only Mizen was.

Yes, it's also Mizen that says he was sent for the ambulance in The Times, not Thain. But Thain is there right away and goes for Dr. L. and upon their return, the only people with Neil are two workman and there's no mention of Mizen until the body is removed upon the ambulance. It's all of the Starr and Echo's reports of the blood testimony appears to be Thain's but appears to be attributed to Mizen, not the ambulance part.

Now, it has just occurred to me as I'm typing this that Mizen could have arrived while Thain was fetching the Doctor. And that it was PC Neil who directed Mizen to go get the ambulance (and not Dr. L, which is what I was assuming as Dr. L. instructs them to take the body to the mortuary). That mans Mizen could have arrived while Thain was getting Dr. L. and he returns with the ambulance after Thain and Dr. L. have returned (which is why Thain testifies when the returned there was only PC Neil and two workman; Mizen is getting the ambulance). That would place Mizen's arrival at the scene more in line with what would be expected given the combination of Cross and Paul's testimony, which suggests Mizen should arrive around 3:55ish at the latest (as per my previous post). That's enough time for Thain to have left the scene to go get the Dr. Mizen then is directed to go get the ambulance, so he's not there when Thain and the Dr. arrive. He arrives after that, with the ambulance, etc, and that is starting to sound like pieces fitting together. The only bit that doesn't fit is Mizen's testimony that Cross and Paul met him at 4:15, but that seems widely out of place with everything else.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

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

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

No, not at all. I'm pointing out that it appears the testimony reported in the Echo and Starr have misattributed Thain's testimony about the blood he saw after the body was moved onto the ambulance to Mizen.

I don't know Paul's "paper interview", but his testimony given under oath is far less exact. And the journalist interviewing someone is far less required to quote properly than when they are reporting sworn testimony. But even if we go with that then Paul was heading down Buck's Row at exactly 3:45, so PC Neil's time of finding the body at 3:45 is wrong as we know that happens later. As it appears that Cross and Paul exited Buck's row shortly before Neil arrived, let's say they leave at 3:50, meet Mizen at 3:54. So, put Neil arriving at 3:53 and sees the oozing blood from the neck wound with his lamp, which he then uses to signal assistance. Thain sees the signal, and he is there by 3:55, heads for Dr. L and gets there around 4:00, Mizen now arrives at the scene around 4:00, he heads off for the ambulance, after which Thain returns with the Doctor, Mizen is gone but two workman there, and Mizen returns at 4:15 with the ambulance, and all is good with the world. And we still have about 30 minutes prior to Cross and Paul entering the scene.

- Jeff

[Patrick S]

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.

I must express incredulity that your Andy Griffiths would say that Lechmere, had he killed Nichols, would never have run. John Henry Wigmore, American legal scholar, widely considered a pioneer in the field of evidentiary law, who I've quoted here before:

"Flight from justice, and its analogous conduct, have always been deemed indication of a consciousness of guilt. The wicked flee, even when no man pursueth; and the righteous are as bold as a lion."

Obviously, one would be foolish not to concede that there can be conditions that will prevent a guilty man's flight. Of course, none of those conditions existed in Buck's Row. There was no one about, save Robert Paul, who even you contend Lechmere heard approaching from forty yards away, on a deserted, pitch black street (recall you referred to Buck's Row as an "echo chamber").

We know that Paul and Lechmere, in their time together in Buck's Row, encountered no one. No one observed the two men. No one heard them. The only person who perhaps heard anything that night was Harriet Lilley, who stated that she heard moans at approximately 3:30am. We know that you must discount Lilley because if she heard the murder occur at 3:30am it invalidates your "blood evidence", your timeline, your theory in total. So let's discount her and say no one heard anything.

So, we KNOW that the spot chosen for Nichols' murder was an excellent one. Perfect for the pretense of having sex for money. Perfect for murder. Perfect for mutilation. It's clear that Lechmere - had he killed Nichols - felt confident enough that his chosen location in Buck's Row was sufficiently deserted and afforded him the cover of darkness he needed to kill and mutilate his victim... but upon hearing Paul's footfalls as he entered the Buck's Row echo chamber, forty yards off... he suddenly had no choice but to remain in place? Even though we know - as he must have, having selected the spot and been ON IT long enough to kill and mutilate Nichols - that it was perfectly safe for him to simply walk on.

Again, I struggle here. You have Lechmere emboldened by the privacy of his surroundings (correctly in that no one saw or heard a thing) to lure Nichols to it, kill her, mutilate her body... but not emboldened enough to simply walk on (something no one would think twice about observing as opposed to public sex with a prostitute, murder, and mutilation) upon having heard footsteps forty yards off.

[Joshua Rogan]

Now, it has just occurred to me as I'm typing this that Mizen could have arrived while Thain was fetching the Doctor. And that it was PC Neil who directed Mizen to go get the ambulance (and not Dr. L, which is what I was assuming as Dr. L. instructs them to take the body to the mortuary).

Yes, I think you have it there. Neil sent Mizen for the ambulance while Thain was fetching the doctor.

MA 3 Sept, Neil's evidence;
"I heard a constable passing Brady street, so I called him. I did not whistle. I said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn," and seeing another constable in Baker's row I sent him for the ambulance. The doctor arrived in a very short time."

[Harry D]

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

To be honest, I don't remember Fisherman posting that Lechmere had no choice. He could well have walked away from the scene. According to Fisherman, both options carried risks. For example, if Paul raised the alarm and Lechmere had been intercepted by a policeman. Instead, Lechmere chose the option to approach Paul and control the situation, which appealed to his narcissistic side.

Feel free to correct me, Fish.

[Fisherman]

To be honest, I don't remember Fisherman posting that Lechmere had no choice. He could well have walked away from the scene. According to Fisherman, both options carried risks. For example, if Paul raised the alarm and Lechmere had been intercepted by a policeman. Instead, Lechmere chose the option to approach Paul and control the situation, which appealed to his narcissistic side.

Feel free to correct me, Fish.

Why would I? You have it spot on, Harry. Why Patrick claims things on my behalf that I have never said, I don't know.

[Fisherman]

Yes, it's also Mizen that says he was sent for the ambulance in The Times, not Thain. But Thain is there right away and goes for Dr. L. and upon their return, the only people with Neil are two workman and there's no mention of Mizen until the body is removed upon the ambulance. It's all of the Starr and Echo's reports of the blood testimony appears to be Thain's but appears to be attributed to Mizen, not the ambulance part.

Now, it has just occurred to me as I'm typing this that Mizen could have arrived while Thain was fetching the Doctor. And that it was PC Neil who directed Mizen to go get the ambulance (and not Dr. L, which is what I was assuming as Dr. L. instructs them to take the body to the mortuary). That mans Mizen could have arrived while Thain was getting Dr. L. and he returns with the ambulance after Thain and Dr. L. have returned (which is why Thain testifies when the returned there was only PC Neil and two workman; Mizen is getting the ambulance). That would place Mizen's arrival at the scene more in line with what would be expected given the combination of Cross and Paul's testimony, which suggests Mizen should arrive around 3:55ish at the latest (as per my previous post). That's enough time for Thain to have left the scene to go get the Dr. Mizen then is directed to go get the ambulance, so he's not there when Thain and the Dr. arrive. He arrives after that, with the ambulance, etc, and that is starting to sound like pieces fitting together. The only bit that doesn't fit is Mizen's testimony that Cross and Paul met him at 4:15, but that seems widely out of place with everything else.

- Jeff

I always assume that everybody have these matters clear. Yes, Neil was the one who summonsed both Thain and Mizen (or so he thought, more on that later), and Thain had set off to get Llewellyn on Neils orders as Mizen arrived at the scene. Interestingly, much as Neil THOUGHT he had called Mizen to the spot, it was the carman who had done this. Neil simply saw Mizen, thought that Mizen was up at Bakers Row and signaled him with his lamp, but Mizen was already underway to the murder spot at that stage.

The 4.15 timing is an isolated mistake, Mizen said 3.45 in the other papers.

[Fisherman]

No, not at all. I'm pointing out that it appears the testimony reported in the Echo and Starr have misattributed Thain's testimony about the blood he saw after the body was moved onto the ambulance to Mizen.

I don't know Paul's "paper interview", but his testimony given under oath is far less exact. And the journalist interviewing someone is far less required to quote properly than when they are reporting sworn testimony. But even if we go with that then Paul was heading down Buck's Row at exactly 3:45, so PC Neil's time of finding the body at 3:45 is wrong as we know that happens later. As it appears that Cross and Paul exited Buck's row shortly before Neil arrived, let's say they leave at 3:50, meet Mizen at 3:54. So, put Neil arriving at 3:53 and sees the oozing blood from the neck wound with his lamp, which he then uses to signal assistance. Thain sees the signal, and he is there by 3:55, heads for Dr. L and gets there around 4:00, Mizen now arrives at the scene around 4:00, he heads off for the ambulance, after which Thain returns with the Doctor, Mizen is gone but two workman there, and Mizen returns at 4:15 with the ambulance, and all is good with the world. And we still have about 30 minutes prior to Cross and Paul entering the scene.

- Jeff

You need to read the Lloyds weekly interview, Jeff. It is in the witness section under Robert Paul. It will add much to your picture of Robert Paul, I´d say...

[Patrick S]

To be honest, I don't remember Fisherman posting that Lechmere had no choice. He could well have walked away from the scene. According to Fisherman, both options carried risks. For example, if Paul raised the alarm and Lechmere had been intercepted by a policeman. Instead, Lechmere chose the option to approach Paul and control the situation, which appealed to his narcissistic side.

Feel free to correct me, Fish.

I agree. Christer has stated a preference by Lechmere to "bluff it out" due to his narcissism and psychopathy.

I was attempting to address Christer's quote by Griffith that "he'd have never run". Which is consistent with what was presented in the documentary (which I inadvertently omitted referencing in my post). Griffiths says, "He couldn't run away, having realized there was someone else in the street" with the narrator adding "....given the heavy police presence and lack of easy escape route, Lechmere had no choice but to cover his tracks and try to bluff things out."

Again, the "heavy police presence" seems not to have deterred Lechmere (if he were Nichols' killer) from going with Nichols to that spot, unobserved by any policeman (or anyone else for that matter). He was able to kill Nichols on that spot, and mutilate her body. Further, he only encountered this "heavy police presence" when he went in search of a PC with Paul. I simply find it hard to believe that upon hearing Paul's footsteps he judged he could not exit Buck's Row safely.

[Patrick S]

Why would I? You have it spot on, Harry. Why Patrick claims things on my behalf that I have never said, I don't know.

I see. So you were misrepresented in the the documentary then? He HAD a choice - which contradicts Griffiths - he just chose a 'bluff' because he was a narcissist psychopath? The issue for me is that you quote Griffiths and his support of your theory often (along with Payne-James and Scobie). It's important to understand which quotes we're to take seriously and which we're to disregard.

Finally, I'm afraid I can't tell you why I "claim things on your behalf that you never said". Because it seems that you have said them... or allowed other to say them (or to simply repeat what you've told them) and stand uncorrected.

[Joshua Rogan]

The 4.15 timing is an isolated mistake, Mizen said 3.45 in the other papers.

Not quite isolated, as the Morning Advertiser said "On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four..."

Either of which might have been about the time that he arrived back at Buck's Row with the ambulance.

[FrankO]

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.

One thing about this whole thing bothers me, Christer. If there would have been light that would have been reflected in the blood, this light would also reflect in Nichols's wide open eyes, and they certainly weren't obstructed by anything! Had he noticed the open eyes, I think he would have mentioned this. In fact, I think things would have played out differently altogether from that moment on!

All the best,
Frank

[rjpalmer]

You need to read the Lloyds weekly interview, Jeff. It is in the witness section under Robert Paul.

Actually, it isn't. Many of the links in the "witness" section no longer work. But one can find it in the press reports for September 2nd. It's about halfway down.

[Patrick S]

Actually, it isn't. Many of the links in the "witness" section no longer work. But one can find it in the press reports for September 2nd. It's about halfway down.

I think this works. In press reports, as you said. I usually just do a search for Lloyd's whenever I need it.

https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18880902.html