Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Herlock Sholmes]

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."

I think that this quotation shows that Griffiths was just plain wrong.

You would think that people were tripping over police officers. This was the earliest stage of the murders was there really a big increase in police numbers?

Paul was 40 yards away, in the dark. If Lechmere had walked on, by the time that Paul arrived at the body (if he didn’t simply walk straight passed it) Lechmere would have been up near the end of Buck’s Row. Even if Paul had stood there yelling for a police officer there’s no way that a fellow police officer in the next street or the next but one would be stopping random people in the street on the off chance that they were connected to whatever had occurred in Buck’s Row.

Lechmere did have a choice. A very simple one.

a) Call over a complete stranger whilst he might very well have had blood on his hands or clothing and he would definately have had the bloodied knife on him. Risking as he would have been a confrontation with a police officer.

or

b) Walk away in the dark to safety.

Its that simple. Griffiths is wrong and obviously so I’m afraid.

[Fisherman]

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.

He could undoubtedly exit Bucks Row, but whether he judged that he could do so safely or not is another matter. I know it is circular, but one has to say that if he was the killer and opted for bluffing, then he did opt for a method that worked out just fine.

When Griffiths say that he couldn´t run away, he is of course not referring to any physical obstacle for running, but instead reasoning that since Lechmere could hear Paul, then Paul would hear Lechmere if he ran, and so it seems to me tat Griffiths is saying that he could not run away unnoticed at such a stage, and that this would have governed the decision that Lechmere made. It must stand for Griffiths himself and not for me, although I think he makes a valid point.

[Fisherman]

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.

To begin with I was not the only one behind the material of the documentary, there is also Edward Stow to keep in mind. As I said in my last post, it goes without saying that Lechmere could run as such if he chose to. My own take is that he weighed the possibilities, risks, kicks and all, and opted for bluffing. It is impossible for me to have an opinion on how close he could have been to make the opposite choice, and it matters very little to me. All that matters to me is that there can be no ruling out of how Lechmere may have chosen to stay and bluff things out, and on that score, Griffiths wording very much strengthens the suggestion.

If you have problems to understand that I and Andy Griffiths are not the same person and if those problems involve a completely logical difficulty to understand our respective stances, then I would much prefer if you asked instead of claiming that I have said things that in fact Griffiths has said. I would have thought that should be a very basic measurement of logic, decency and factuality. Just ask, Patrick.

[Fisherman]

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.

Yes, indeed. The salient matter is that the rest of the testimony tells us that it is not a correct piece of information, anyhow.

[Fisherman]

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.

Ah, okay - thanks for that, R J! I have looked it up in the witness section a thousand times, and worked from the assumption that I could do it two thousand times too ...

[Fisherman]

I think that this quotation shows that Griffiths was just plain wrong.

You would think that people were tripping over police officers. This was the earliest stage of the murders was there really a big increase in police numbers?

Paul was 40 yards away, in the dark. If Lechmere had walked on, by the time that Paul arrived at the body (if he didn’t simply walk straight passed it) Lechmere would have been up near the end of Buck’s Row. Even if Paul had stood there yelling for a police officer there’s no way that a fellow police officer in the next street or the next but one would be stopping random people in the street on the off chance that they were connected to whatever had occurred in Buck’s Row.

Lechmere did have a choice. A very simple one.

a) Call over a complete stranger whilst he might very well have had blood on his hands or clothing and he would definately have had the bloodied knife on him. Risking as he would have been a confrontation with a police officer.

or

b) Walk away in the dark to safety.

Its that simple. Griffiths is wrong and obviously so I’m afraid.

There is no way that you can establish that Griffiths was wrong. He made a guess about what Lechmere would do if he was the killer, and based it on his perception about the Bucks Row scenario. Sure enough, there were a lot of policemen and watchmen around the area, so he was correct on that score. But whether he is correct on how Lechmere would have reasoned is something that we cannot possibly decide, just as we cannot know that "walking away in the dark" would have led to safety or into the bosom of a patrolling PC the very second Paul yelles blue murder.
When we don´t know, we can´t tell, I´m afraid.

[Patrick S]

I think that this quotation shows that Griffiths was just plain wrong.

You would think that people were tripping over police officers. This was the earliest stage of the murders was there really a big increase in police numbers?

Paul was 40 yards away, in the dark. If Lechmere had walked on, by the time that Paul arrived at the body (if he didn’t simply walk straight passed it) Lechmere would have been up near the end of Buck’s Row. Even if Paul had stood there yelling for a police officer there’s no way that a fellow police officer in the next street or the next but one would be stopping random people in the street on the off chance that they were connected to whatever had occurred in Buck’s Row.

Lechmere did have a choice. A very simple one.

a) Call over a complete stranger whilst he might very well have had blood on his hands or clothing and he would definately have had the bloodied knife on him. Risking as he would have been a confrontation with a police officer.

or

b) Walk away in the dark to safety.

Its that simple. Griffiths is wrong and obviously so I’m afraid.

To be fair, Griffiths relied upon Christer's information, and obviously he understood the program's objective. As Christer himself put it: It was a "one-sided documentary" designed to present Christer's suspect, Lechmere, as Jack the Ripper. It's safe to assume, I think, that Christer provided Griffiths the information with respect to police routes through the area that night. It's not stated that the police presence was increased, only that it prevented Lechmere's escape from Buck's Row upon hearing Paul enter.

I view Griffith as simply someone with experience and resume, included to repeat the details Christer provided him and offer agreement and some personal perspective, so long as it's not at odds with the program's objective (i.e. Lechmere was Jack the Ripper). And I think that's all fair and above board, actually. Clearly this is not a court of law.

I do, however, think Christer is the person who is wrong, and - as you say - obviously so. Especially, after accusing me of "claim(ing) things on (his) behalf that (he's) never said" in reaction to my having asked the following:

"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?"

Christer's contention is that Lechmere CHOSE to stay in Buck's Row because doing so would "feed his narcissism" and psychopathy. But there's a problem. We have Griffiths saying exactly what Christer said I'd invented: "He couldn't run away, having realized there was someone else in the street" with the narrator further elaborating: "...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."

This program is a presentation of Christer's theory. It says that explicitly at the outset. So, unless we have Griffiths and the producers making things up, or basing their comments on information NOT provided by Christer... then the ideas presented therein are his. And IF Griffiths (or Scobie, or Payne-James) is making things up or inaccurate in what he says, then we need to know the bits we are supposed to ignore and the bits were supposed to take as gospel. After all, Christer cites Griffiths involvement and his documentary comments quite often. Clarification of such things may help.

[JeffHamm]

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.

Yes, I agree, the 4:15 timing for his initial arrival at the scene does seem to be a mistake.

I've found that there are a lot of things presented with a lot more surety then perhaps warranted, so I often try and go back to the copies of the original sources I have at hand (the Evans and Skinner book I've mentioned is a great thing) and try and re-examine the sworn statements. I try to minimize use of less official "interviews", where statements are not sworn to, and editing by journalists and editors is more prone to occur to produce better stories. Basically, if there is a big conflict between two sources, I weight the inquest as the more reliable. And if the official inquest papers are available, those are weighted as higher quality evidence than a newspaper's reporting of them, etc.

It could be the time he arrived back with the ambulance, as that would fit with the rest of the statements, but there's nothing directly in the evidence to back that up or to refute it. Unfortunately, nobody in their testimony independently indicates the arrival of the ambulance, so while we know it was sent for and got there, we don't have something else to indicate the time it arrived. If we did, it either would provide independent support for a 4:15 arrival or it would tell us that idea is wrong too; without it, a 4:15 ambulance arrival is just something I'm hypothesizing as a way of tying up loose ends and tucking in the corners.

- Jeff

[Patrick S]

To begin with I was not the only one behind the material of the documentary, there is also Edward Stow to keep in mind.

Fair enough. So Ed believes that Lechmere killed Nichols but COULD NOT have left Buck's Row because Paul had entered and because of this "police presence" cited by Griffiths? And you disagree. You believe he COULD have left, but he chose not to because he was a narcissistic psychopath and that course of action appealed to him. Is that accurate?

As I said in my last post, it goes without saying that Lechmere could run as such if he chose to.


I'm sorry, Christer. If it "goes without saying that Lechmere COULD have run, then why does your documentary SAY exactly the opposite, that he could NOT have run: "He couldn't run away, having realized there was someone else in the street."?

My own take is that he weighed the possibilities, risks, kicks and all, and opted for bluffing.

He opted for bluffing even though (according to your theory) a mere nine minutes earlier he judged Buck's Row dark enough, deserted enough, lacking in police presence enough, to afford him the opportunity to meet Nichols for the (ostensible) purpose of sex for money, to kill her, and mutilate her body. Now, hearing footsteps in the "echo chamber" of Buck's Row forty yards away, he opts to stay in place, greet the man whom he heard enter, recruit him to visit and inspect her body, and accompany him on an errand to find a policeman. Aside from Paul, who you concede he could simply have walked away from as he heard him from such a distance, what so radically changed his view of the relative safety of Buck's Row? Safe enough to kill and mutilate, which would certainly have seemed suspicious if observed, but not safe enough to simply walk on to work, which is obviously not something viewed with suspicion if observed.

It is impossible for me to have an opinion on how close he could have been to make the opposite choice, and it matters very little to me. All that matters to me is that there can be no ruling out of how Lechmere may have chosen to stay and bluff things out, and on that score, Griffiths wording very much strengthens the suggestion.

Strengthens? How?

If you have problems to understand that I and Andy Griffiths are not the same person and if those problems involve a completely logical difficulty to understand our respective stances, then I would much prefer if you asked instead of claiming that I have said things that in fact Griffiths has said.

Okay. Did Griffiths disagree with any of the information you presented him? Did he surmise that Paul entering Buck's Row prevented Lechmere from leaving it? Did you tell him you disagreed?

I would have thought that should be a very basic measurement of logic, decency and factuality. Just ask, Patrick.

Asked. "Decently", I hope. Of course, it would be news to me if you and Griffiths disagreed or if he offered some perspective you found untenable in that you so often quote him and cite his involvement as an endorsement of your theory. I'd be dismayed to learned that his theory is somewhat different from your theory. And of course, I'd be interested to learn all the aspects of the case upon which you differ.

[JeffHamm]

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...

Ah, thanks for that Fish, and to everyone who provided further links to it. I'll paste it below, just in case links break down:

"
On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.
"

Again, this includes some of the reasons I put primary emphasis on inquest sworn statements. If all we had from the above, only Paul goes on to look for a policeman. But we know from Cross and Mizen's testimony, both Cross and Paul head off together. But on the whole, the rest of it more or less fits with the inquest testimony (and it provides an indication of why Mizen was apparently asked if he continued to "knock people up" after Cross and Paul spoke to him. Mizen denied he did, but Paul's claim that he did must have been known at the time of the inquest. Paul seems to believe that she had been dead quite a long time before he came along though, but even if he believed that we can disregard his opinion as estimation of time of death by touch for temperature is widely inaccurate, and also, Paul's not medically trained so his expertise on that would be even less reliable.

The above "exactly 3:45 in Buck's Row" statement here, compared to his sworn statement of leaving home "about 3:45", could be debated, but the overall time line that gets created when all the information is put together really doesn't change much either way. Confidence is not an indicator of accuracy, though, and it also could be journalistic editing (or not, just saying we don't know - fortunately, it really doesn't matter).

Anyway, thanks for that.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a query. As Paul and Lechmere left Nichols body in search of a Constable (and with a guilty Lechmere ‘’possibly’’ with blood on him and definately carrying a knife) why instead of hoping to scam his way past a Constable with Paul with him didn’t Lechmere say to Paul ““to increase our chances of finding a Constable you go that way and I’ll go this way.”” Lechmere would then simply avoid a Constable if he saw one. If questioned later he just says ““I never saw one.””

[The Baron]

No way Lechmere will carry the Knife that he already killed Nichols with and go stopping people and looking for policemen.. this is not a theory, this is fictions.. fairy tails and no more.

Get rid of the knife and you have a case.


The Baron

[kjab3112]

A while back I posted some calculations for minimum time to bleed out, which I know Christer wasn't too keen on at the time, but this occasion supports his theory more than some other examples expressed. Unfortunately I can't find the exact calculations, but:


Each common carotid artery has a typical blood flow of 400ml/min, this falls in direct relation to blood loss.

There is a typical circulating blood volume of 5000ml.

Ignoring the fact that bilateral carotid artery dissection results in unconsciousness, it would take approximately 30-40% blood loss before there would be a non-palpable pulse.

There is an unaccountable slowing of blood loss due to arterial spasm of the carotid arteries.

Blood loss from back flow of the jugular veins would likely be minimal, equally with the exception of catching a major intra-abdominal artery (possibly by fluke given the location of the abdominal wounds) and the greater blood volume loss associated reduced flow through the abdominal vasculature, abdominal losses would also likely be minimal.

It should also be considered that there was likely a preceding strangulation or other suffocation type event (note the protruding tongue).

if one assumes therefore that all of the required blood loss is from the carotid cuts, and the vagal response to strangulation has not taken effect, and the abdominal wounds were secondary, to lose 1500-2000ml is likely to be running in the few minute range (from memory 5-8 but I can't find the calculations). Blood would not have clotted though simultaneously with pulse loss (estimates could run to thirty minutes or more if cold and a clotting disorder).

Let us remember Paul (not Cross/Lechmere) was convinced he felt a central pulse but faint.



Is there time for a preceding killer, yes but very little.

I'll try to clarify when I find the more precise calculations.


Paul

[The Rookie Detective]

Why was Nichols the only victim to have her injuries deliberately concealed?


This is a crucial element which speaks volumes

It's not just the injuries and mutilation which count, it's the fact that they were CONCEALED.

To really understand this case, you need to be able to try and understand how a man like that JTR thinks... and based on his other killings, he wanted to make a statement and show off his work.

The fact that he had to conceal Nichols wounds would indicate that he was interrupted BUT NOT RUSHED!

If he hadn't of been interrupted, then he would have 'displayed' Nichols more extravagantly.

A killers M.O. CAN and DOES change over time as they go down their murderous path, but how a killer displays their work to the world is a ritualistic and repetitive process i.e. A killer may use a knife to kill and then progress to a gun or chainsaw BUT a killer will stick to their choice of how they present their work i.e. drown in bath, bury in fields, bind with rope etc...

Nichols lack of 'display' completely contradicts the way JTR completed his work. He would NOT have hidden Nichol's injuries if he had completed his job and moved off into the shadows. Covering her wounds would have been a counter measure against being caught.

JTR wasn't RUSHED with Nichols like he was during his attack on Stride (if she was indeed a JTR victim) BUT HE WOULD appear to have been interrupted during the mutilation process and had to REACT to being caught.

If it WASN'T Lechmere, then Lechmere may have been the person who disturbed the real JTR

Stride's murder is somewhat different because her lack of any mutilation indicates the killer was interrupted BUT had to quickly FLEE the scene

But with Nichols, the wounds inflicted meant he had TIME to express himself BUT covering up his work would NOT have been his CHOICE!


He had time to mutilate BUT then conceal her injuries.
If he was RUSHED like with Stride, he would have RUN and...

LEFT HER INJURIES OPEN FOR ALL TO SEE

He had TIME to CONCEAL her injuries BUT it was NOT his CHOICE to do so because it doesn't fit with criminal psychological profile compared to his other victims.


Being interrupted is NOT THE SAME as being rushed.


Lechmere fits with this theory of the killer having enough time to quickly conceal his work (which he would of otherwise displayed) but not enough time to either run and leave her exposed (ironically) or not to mutilate her at all.

In a way, by covering her injuries and concealing them, it makes Lechmere more likely to have committed the crime.

Besides...he couldn't run and leave her exposed if he still had the knife.

Conceal the wounds...conceal the knife...conceal the crime...


Thoughts and theories please?


As an aside; for me, if it wasn't Lechmere, then it was BURY or HARDIMAN

[drstrange169]

>>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... etc.<<

You've looked at the evidence and come up with the logic answers, it isn't hard is it?