Window of Time for Nichols murder

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<

PC Neil gives us the timeline:

"Witness then heard a constable passing Brady-street, and he called to him. Witness said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn." Seeing another constable in Baker's-row, witness despatched him for the ambulance. Dr. Llewellyn arrived in a very short time."


>>... it explains why Mizen apparently has to answer whether or not he delayed going to Buck's Row.<<

Mizen had to justify is actions because Paul had accused him in the press of not responding.

[drstrange169]

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

A newspaper interview with more holes than there are in "Blackburn, Lancashire". Which kinda says it all.

[drstrange169]

>>... if Paul raised the alarm and Lechmere had been intercepted by a policeman.<<

Why would Paul raise an alarm?

He was supposedly late for work. No wounds were visible, even on close inspection. There were no signs of murder, just what appeared to be just another down and out sleeping rough.

[drstrange169]

The reported time Mizen met “Cross” and Paul varies by a staggering three and half hours.

Police-constable Mizen deposed that at a quarter to one o'clock on Friday morning,
(Lloyds Weekly)

Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning
(Daily News)

Policeman George Myzen said that at a quarter to four on Friday morning
(The Star)

Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four,
(Echo)

Most papers paraphrase Mizen, but the Morning News puts quotation marks around his testimony,
Police constable George Maizen , 55 H, said – “On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four I …”
Note, however, even they manage to get his name wrong.

When it came to Mizen's exact location, the reporters fared slightly better, but still couldn’t reach a consensus:

“… he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row,”
“… he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row.”
“… he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row,”
Again the Morning News claims a direct quote,
“ … I was at the end of Hanbury street ...”

Given this level of misreporting, researchers should approach the idea of using Mizen’s testimony with great caution.

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<

How do you know the wounds were deliberately concealed?

An interrupted killer could easily have been holding up the skirt with one hand, inflicting wounds with the other. On being disturbed they simply drop the skirt and leave.

You are approaching the case with a bias, keep an open mind.

[JeffHamm]

>>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.<<

PC Neil gives us the timeline:

"Witness then heard a constable passing Brady-street, and he called to him. Witness said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn." Seeing another constable in Baker's-row, witness despatched him for the ambulance. Dr. Llewellyn arrived in a very short time."

Yes, but those details you list are not in The Times report, which was the source I had available, but have since updated in some subsequent posts. Again, the mis-attributed material I was considering above was about the blood not Mizen's arrival time per se (though trying to work that out would help indirectly). It would be so much better for all if the official inquest papers were not lost, as trying to piece everything together from the newspapers, which to varying degrees appear to editorialize testimony and/or omit other bits, etc, can be frustrating (and secondary sources are always of a concern, but they're all we've got in this case). Anyway, I got to the above eventually!

>>... it explains why Mizen apparently has to answer whether or not he delayed going to Buck's Row.<<

Mizen had to justify is actions because Paul had accused him in the press of not responding.

Yes, that was my point. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

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.

"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)."

You have just been told that this is not correct, but it seems to have had little effect on your reasoning. You are basically making the claim that Griffiths (and presumably Scobie and the rest of the experts in the docu) were enlisted to echo my views and "offer agreement". As I very clearly pointed out, when Griffiths said that he would not have run, that was HIS view and not mine. De facto, when he said this, it was in direct response to me saying that many people rejected Lechmere as a suspect on account of how they thought that he would never have stayed put. And before this stage, me and Griffiths had not discussed the matter at all, so the view he gave was entirely his own, and the only Griffiths had been told to accept and reinforce anything I said, regardless of what it was.
If you think that is how he functioned and how the docu was made, I can only pity you for the level of cynicism such a thing would involve.

It is pure idiocy to say that regardless of what the experts say, we should accept that the ideas presented in the docu are all mine, on account of how it is my theory that is presented. Experts are used because they have extensive knowledge of their respective fields of research and they can therefore ADD material that others cannot, me included. I had no idea that Scobie would be involved, and I had no idea that he would make a case for how the material would be sufficient to take to trial, for example. Nor had I ever argued that the killer was likely to be in his late thirties or low forties on account of how the murders were matters that would have taken a long time for the killer to shape in his mind. Nor had I pondered the blood issue in the way Griffiths did, pointing to how the blood could have been harder to see when Paul was in place then when Neil and Mizen were; it was his own take on things, and new to me.

But of course - your objective remains what it always was: to try and come as close as you possibly can to a nullification of the value of the material pointing to Lechmere. If that takes making up stories and putting words in my mouth that I have never said, then so be it.

That is just sad, Patrick. Really, really sad. I hope I will not have to spend any more time on it, because what we really need to do is to conduct an honest discussion, not the kind of senseless accusations you spend your time dreaming up. Yes, the docu was aimed at pointing out Lechmere as the best Ripper suspect ever. No, the experts were not a flock of sheep, echoing my view. The mere idea is a flat out horrific insult. End of story.

[drstrange169]

>> ... what we really need to do is to conduct an honest discussion, not the kind of senseless accusations you spend your time dreaming up.<<

Pot, kettle, blacker than Mary Kelly's.

[Fisherman]

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.””

One possible explanation could be that Lechmere wanted to stay in control throughout. Tagging along with Paul ensured that he did, and as we can see, it seems that he and he alone was the one who decided how to inform Mizen. The objective behind most serial murder is to gain maximum control over the victims, and these kind of creatures are - generally speaking - control freaks.
We can always suggest lines of behaviour that we think are more logical than the chosen line, but hey - we would start out by saying that we really should not go around killing other people...

Try as hard as you can NOT to think up "better" lines of behaviour, and make an effort to look on the carman as a psychopathic narcissist, killing with no remorse and no fear at all, wanting the world to see and recognize him. Whoever the killer was, he was not easily scared and alien to risktaking, Herlock.

[Fisherman]

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

Look at the boards. I already have one. Perhaps not in your eyes, but there are more eyes out here, Baron! We all have our ideas and convictions, but I would propose that you look at other serial killers. Do they all throw away their murder weapons once theyīve killed?

[Fisherman]

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

I normally just say that if we accept the C5 as the Rippers only victims (which I donīt, but for argumentīs sake...), then Lechmere, who just happened to have his timings wrong, who just happened to use the name Cross instead of Lechmere, who just happened to have a PC disagree with himself over what was said on the murder morning, who just happened to have a working trek that was roughly consistent or very consistent with being at the murder sites at the correct times, who just happened to have reason to visit St Georges, who just happened to have reason to be familiar with Mitre Square and who just happened to be found stading alone in the street nearby a murdered Ripper victim one cold August morning in 1888, also just happened to be present at the one murder site where the victim just happened to have had her wounds hidden from sight.

It just so happens that this, taken together, makes for a very good case of guilt. A case, that it just so happens, a QC tells me would make it to court.

Anyone is welcome to say "I donīt think it was Lechmere". Fine. But saying that he is not a good suspect is absolute bonkers in my humble view.

[Fisherman]

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

A newspaper interview with more holes than there are in "Blackburn, Lancashire". Which kinda says it all.

And with an exact timing given. Which strengthens the case for Paul having arrived at this time. It also jibes with his inquest statement in this respect. Plus the last police report we know of has the timing 3.45. Plus that late timing sits a whole lot better with the time it took Thain to fetch Llewellyn.

That should not cover the holes in your argument, though, they are too big for that. The case involves a lot of timings and specific information. Some of it we like, some of it we may like less. Thatīs how it goes, inevitably.

[Fisherman]

>>... if Paul raised the alarm and Lechmere had been intercepted by a policeman.<<

Why would Paul raise an alarm?

He was supposedly late for work. No wounds were visible, even on close inspection. There were no signs of murder, just what appeared to be just another down and out sleeping rough.

The two men opted for a verdict of probably dead, or so Lechmere said.Thatīs a tad more sinister than to be sleeping rough.

Some details we like, some we like less...

[Fisherman]

>>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.<<

How do you know the wounds were deliberately concealed?

An interrupted killer could easily have been holding up the skirt with one hand, inflicting wounds with the other. On being disturbed they simply drop the skirt and leave.

You are approaching the case with a bias, keep an open mind.

Some things we like, some we like a lot less ... The wounds WERE covered, and that only happened in the case where Lechmere was found on the site. In the other cases, the killer seems to have been outright disinclined to cover them. Hellbent on showing of, more likely, than on concealing.

Maybe he dropped the sheet over Kelly and missed, I donīt know.

[Fisherman]

>> ... what we really need to do is to conduct an honest discussion, not the kind of senseless accusations you spend your time dreaming up.<<

Pot, kettle, blacker than Mary Kelly's.

Easy to say, impossible to bolster. Especially when you have merited yourself by claiming that Lechmere could have been thirty or forty yards (or was it fifty, I really canīt remember - all it took for you to reach the conclusion was to cut away half the information available. Some things we like, some we like less) from the body as he stepped out into the street in a Ripperologist article. It is not the kind of stuff that inspires trust.

I want as honest a discussion as possible. You are welcome to participate, but you may find the format trying.