Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Harry D]

>>... 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.

Good point, Dr Strange.

The two carmen together didn't realise this was a murder victim. There would be no reason for Paul to run down the street crying bloody murder, even if he had bothered to inspect the body and not carried on his way to work.

[Fisherman]

Good point, Dr Strange.

The two carmen together didn't realise this was a murder victim. There would be no reason for Paul to run down the street crying bloody murder, even if he had bothered to inspect the body and not carried on his way to work.

Logical enough. Whether the two carmen together realized it was a murder victim or not is another matter, of course. I do think it belonged to their collected knowledge... What I would warn about is Dr Strange´s assertion that the carmen decided that it was a case of sleeping rough.

[Fisherman]

Plus it should be said that since Lechmere afterwards said that he thought that the woman was probably dead, that should perhaps have encouraged him to raise the alarm and secure some sort of first aid from dwellers in the street. But that´s another matter.

[Fisherman]

Plus it should be said that since Lechmere afterwards said that he thought that the woman was probably dead, that should perhaps have encouraged him to raise the alarm and secure some sort of first aid from dwellers in the street. But that´s another matter.

Then again, Lechmere was the only one to claim that Mizen had been told that the carman thought that she was probably dead. Mizen himself only said that the carman had told him that there was a woman lying flat on her back in Bucks Row.
So either Mizen had forgotten all about how the carman told him or the potential seriousness of the errand or the PC lied about it. Those are the only two possibil...
Wait a second.
It just hit me that there is a third possibility too: that the serving PC was actually telling the story exactly the way it had transpired.

But would that not point to..? I mean, surely that would in all probability mean that ...?

Nah. Ab-so-lu-te-ly not! NOT a family man with kids and a steady job. NOT an Englishman, as Queen Victoria so succinctly put it. Must have been a foreigner who dun´it. And who was scared off by the good carman. Yes, that must be it!

[Patrick S]

>>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.

He's an anti-police liar... except when it comes to time. He has that exact.

[Monty]

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.

Pretty much as I stated four/five years ago when the documentary initially came out.

Progression since then has been nil, with circular arguments since.

Good luck in seeking that clarification.

Monty

[Fisherman]

He's an anti-police liar... except when it comes to time. He has that exact.

He did not offer that time to a policeman, though, did he? It was given in a newspaper interview, and it was subsequently reinforced by his inquest testimony.

As an aside, being anti-police is not the equivalent of always lying to the police. It denotes a disregard for the police, not a decision always to lie to them.

[Fisherman]

Pretty much as I stated four/five years ago when the documentary initially came out.

Progression since then has been nil, with circular arguments since.

Good luck in seeking that clarification.

Monty

There has actually been a lot of progress. Naming just one example, Lechmere´s mothers address on the day of the Stride murder has been found to be 1 Mary Ann Street, and not the Cable Street address that was formerly thought to be the correct one.

So saying that there has been no progress says more about you than about the developments as such, I'm afraid.

If the anti-Lechmereians had taken care not to step into these traps, deviced by themselves as it happens, they would stand a better chance in these types of debate.

[Monty]

There has actually been a lot of progress. Naming just one example, Lechmere´s mothers address on the day of the Stride murder has been found to be 1 Mary Ann Street, and not the Cable Street address that was formerly thought to be the correct one.

So saying that there has been no progress says more about you than about the developments as such, I'm afraid. And when it comes to you, that description of yours is quite fitting, it would seem: nil progress.

If the anti-Lechmereians had taken care not to step into these traps, deviced by themselves as it happens, they would stand a better chance in these types of debate.

Personal insults Christer, doesn't do you any favours.

The arguments are circular (despite the groundbreaking revelation of Cross's mother's address) and designed to keep you and your theory in the spotlight.

The issues raised many years ago have not been satisfactorily addressed. In short, you rely on speculation rather than fact.

It is a trait with many suspect theorists.

I'll leave you to wallow.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Personal insults Christer, doesn't do you any favours.

The arguments are circular (despite the groundbreaking revelation of Cross's mother's address) and designed to keep you and your theory in the spotlight.

The issues raised many years ago have not been satisfactorily addressed. In short, you rely on speculation rather than fact.

It is a trait with many suspect theorists.

I'll leave you to wallow.

Monty

So once again nil progress on your behalf.

Thanks for leaving, though.

PS. The Mary Ann Street address would have been regarded as groundbreaking by you and any other Ripperologist, had it been tied to, say, Kosminski. Once that Berner Street address on behalf of Woolf K was revealed, I seem to remember you sharing in the champagne sipping. That would have been a few years after your accusation about me and Edward gaining financially from the St Johns event, something that you afterwards have claimed that you apologized about.

Of course, you never did that.

So much for bias, Monty. End of debate.

PPS. I rely on facts AND speculation. Its called a theory.

[Fisherman]

And there we are, once again the Lechmere discussion is transported into manure-spreading country, thanks to the usual clique. I'm happy to answer any SERIOUS questions and offer my view, should there be such an interest around.

I cannot get enough of the "spotlight" (or is that "spitlight"?), see.

[Monty]

Well seeing as I was initially addressing Patrick, and you saw the need to ride right on in, it seems my point has touched a nerve.

Yes, back to the Christer show. Don't forget to buy the book. If it ever happens.

Monty

[Patrick S]

"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.

I suggest we focus not on what I've put in italics since that's simply foolishness in response to you strategy of indignation, name calling, feigned outrage, and pretense that someone's insulting Griffiths or anyone else. The fact is that I - and others, I think, are INTERESTED in what Griffiths might make of the idea that Lechmere stayed voluntarily, rather than - as was presented - that he stayed because he COULD NOT go.

But, I agree. This, Christer, is really, really sad. "Pure idiocy", one might say. But, I do pity you, as well. But for different reasons. Anyway, I think you'll find a lack of such commentary directed at you in my posts. Try and extend the same courtesy. I'll try and get back to ignoring them and focusing on actual debate.

Your yourself call the documentary "one sided" and as advocating Lechmere as Jack the Ripper and now feign moral indignation that anyone may suggest that very thing and what Griffiths role in it most clearly was. He was NOT THERE to poke holes in your theory. HE WAS NOT THERE to ask you tough questions. This is no insult against the man. It's simple logic in agreement with what YOU, YOURSELF have said. That this was a one-sided docu, of which there are thousands and as I've said, I consider it's presentation and the experts' comments therein completely ABOVE BOARD. Comments you omitted because it would affect this feigned outrage routine.

You've been on these boards for years quoting Griffiths, citing him as a supporter of your idea. And now your saying that, in some instances, he gave "entirely his own view". No one is suggesting Griffiths "echoed you're view no matter what it was". No one suggested that he said only what you told him to say. Let's stop the game of turning anything and everything into a "horrific insult" against Griffith, Scobie, Payne-James, whomever. It's a silly game you play. It's absurd.

The point is a simple one. Griffiths based his commentary on your interpretation of the events surrounding the Nichols murder and Lechmere's actions and motivations as you perceive them. Yet it seems he didn't know that you're idea was that he stayed put for reasons other than that he simply couldn't have escaped. You say here clearly, with respect to Lechmere having "stayed put" as opposed to running, that you'd never discussed it with the man. This proves the point: Clearly, Griffiths - based on his experience - assumed a man who had just killed a woman would only "stay put" had he no choice. That is why he STATED that Lechmere HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO STAY IN BUCK'S ROW! Clearly, it didn't occur to him that Lechmere had a choice... and chose to stay because he liked the risk as it fed his narcissistic psychopathy. And rather than just walk away he chose this "bluff" with Paul.

I have always regarded Lechmere's "bluff" with Paul as one of the most absurd aspects of your theory. You've defended the idea, as you should, and I've attacked it. You post here often citing your documentary, the people who now believe in your this theory because of it, AND you cite the experts involved in it. You've cited Griffiths' comments many times and I, and others, I think, have gained an impression that he agreed with the motivations you ascribe to Lechmere for his "staying put" and "bluffing his way out" with Paul. Now you are saying that Griffiths knew nothing about your idea that Lechmere chose this "bluff" over flight because it appealed to him as a narcissist and psychopath. And clearly, a close viewing of the documentary makes plain that Griffiths believed Lechmere COULD NOT have walked on because of the police presence and the fact that "someone else was in the street", and you didn't disagree. Yet, you stated on this thread (in response to Harry) that you have NEVER believed or stated that Lechmere COULD NOT have walked on.

I'm left to wonder what Andy Griffiths would make of the idea that Lechmere stayed not because he couldn't have escaped Buck's Row but because his belief that he could not is STRESSED:

“ANDY GRIFFITHS states that given the heavy police presence and lack of easy escape route, Lechmere had no choice but to cover his tracks and bluff things out.”

Followed by Griffiths himself saying on camera:

“Certainly, I think he COULDN’T run away, having realized there was somebody else in the street.”

[Patrick S]

He did not offer that time to a policeman, though, did he? It was given in a newspaper interview, and it was subsequently reinforced by his inquest testimony.

As an aside, being anti-police is not the equivalent of always lying to the police. It denotes a disregard for the police, not a decision always to lie to them.

The anti-police bit is irrelevant here, as I suspect you know. The liar bit is with respect to his representation of his interaction with Cross, isn't it? Because if Paul's statements are true... then Paul did all the talking to Mizen. Remember, you said that Paul had "big-upped" himself, talking to Mizen, not mentioning Cross beyond him telling him (Paul) to "come see". The reader is left to believe Paul left Cross in Bucks Row and that he went on alone and would "send the first PC he found". If its true that Lechmere killed Nichols, bluffed it out with Paul, and then scammed Mizen.... ... then Paul lied... or at the very least he got the details very wrong. EXCEPT with respect to the times. You want those to be exact. So.....he got those exact.

[Patrick S]

And there we are, once again the Lechmere discussion is transported into manure-spreading country, thanks to the usual clique. I'm happy to answer any SERIOUS questions and offer my view, should there be such an interest around.

I cannot get enough of the "spotlight" (or is that "spitlight"?), see.

There are, of course, many SERIOUS questions. I think you should re-read this thread to discern where the hostility and insults came from, Christer. Your last post to me was full of insults. I'd insulted you in no way to that point but you perceive disagreement and - frankly - questions, as insults.