Window of Time for Nichols murder

[drstrange169]

>>And the Rip article ... should you really recommend it to anyone? "Wonky maths" and all? My personal take on that is that it is one of the worst articles ever admitted in the publication, if not the worst. And yes, I am as allowed to say that as you are to speak of errors and unreasonable speculation in the docu. Sorry, but there you are.<<

Four years on and only one error of note, despite a litany of attempts to find fault with it by only two people with a vested interest in trying to prove me wrong, none of which stuck, yeah I'm ok with it. A lot more I could add now.

As for the TV show, as you agree errors and unreasonable speculation.

[Fisherman]

He was not, there has been no new evidence which shows any firm connection to Nichols or any other murder.


Steve

That was not what he said though, was it? He said that nothing new had come to light.

Once we move the goalposts we need to admit that.

[Fisherman]

Now I will leave the clique of naysayers to their fiesta, while enjoying the beautiful weather and some fishing over here. I am having cracking seatroutfishing right now, with 8-9 pounders coming thick and fast. Enjoy your day.

[Fisherman]

>>And the Rip article ... should you really recommend it to anyone? "Wonky maths" and all? My personal take on that is that it is one of the worst articles ever admitted in the publication, if not the worst. And yes, I am as allowed to say that as you are to speak of errors and unreasonable speculation in the docu. Sorry, but there you are.<<

Four years on and only one error of note, despite a litany of attempts to find fault with it by only two people with a vested interest in trying to prove me wrong, none of which stuck, yeah I'm ok with it. A lot more I could add now.

As for the TV show, as you agree errors and unreasonable speculation.

Nono - I agree about errors being present, but I find the reasoning (itīs the same part you prefer to call speculation) spot on. Bang! Thereīs another eightpounder clubbed!

Bye.

[drstrange169]

>>A/ They were inside their houses<<

Houses, apparently, built in an "acoustic tunnel".


>>B/ Who says they didnīt hear Paul? Who asked?<<

The police, the papers, somehow it got reported.


>>C/ Lechmere head Paul from 40 yards away. Why didnīt the others do that? They were as close.<<

Good question, Off hand, I don't know, unlike you I'm happy to admit anomalies instead of trying bluff my way through them. Anomalies are not evidence, they are just unknown things awaiting an answer.


>>Go into a silent street with no people in it. Put hobnailed boots on somebody and ask that somebody to stat walking towards you from 130 yards away. Then make a mental note of when you first hear him.<<

Did I miss something? where is the evidence Paul was wearing hobnailed boots. Why would a Carman wear hobnail boots? Could you post your sources for this?

[Elamarna]

Yes, it may be that the journalist made up the 3.45 timing.

Yes, it may be that Paul was wrong if he was the one who "made it up".

But that does not change how the paper interview has Paul saying 3.5 exactly.

Not does it change how the timing is seemingly powerfully bolstered by how Paul at the inquest says that he left home close to 3.45.

We may like or dislike a timing given. Until any evidence calls upon us to dismiss it, though, it will have to stand.

I see, simply ignore the issues of the Lloyds article, so be it.

And, of course, the "sworn testimony" of three PC:s are about APPROXIMATIONS, not about exact times like Pauls time.

They are all approximations, to take any time as absolute is fool hardy, rather one has to use relative times between events.
And those relative timings strong suggest that Paul's timing is not the exact time he claims or which you use in the documentary to produce up to a 9 minute gap.

And he swore to THAT time too by bolstering it at the inquest. So it becomes a question about whether we must trust approximations from PC:s over exact timings from a carman. If the PC:s could hear the quater hour strike some little time after they were called into action, it would be entirely feasible that this was the reason for their timings.

Either suggestion has things going for it. And Lechmere cannot be ruled out in this way - either.

I suggest that his inquest testimony in no way bolsters his 3.45 time.

Given than Mizen is is knocking up, one assumes at a set time, that will most probably be what he based his timing on.

Neil and Thain appear to base their time on their beats, and yes they are only approximate, but there is no suggestion that these were based on clock strikes.

NO PERSON involved mentions any clock strike at all.

Pure speculation, with no support.


And again, I do not rule out Lechmere, I simply question much of the arguments you suggest support him.
If my conclusions are correct is for others to decide.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Name one. And tell me if you look on me as one. Some little respect, please!

Pardon?
Respect?

I was talking to Trevor regarding general assumptions by many about TODs.

It seems you think it's all aimed at you.
I was not in that instance thinking of you.

[JeffHamm]

Yes, it may be that the journalist made up the 3.45 timing.

Yes, it may be that Paul was wrong if he was the one who "made it up".

But that does not change how the paper interview has Paul saying 3.5 exactly.

Not does it change how the timing is seemingly powerfully bolstered by how Paul at the inquest says that he left home close to 3.45.

We may like or dislike a timing given. Until any evidence calls upon us to dismiss it, though, it will have to stand.

And, of course, the "sworn testimony" of three PC:s are about APPROXIMATIONS, not about exact times like Pauls time. And he swore to THAT time too by bolstering it at the inquest. So it becomes a question about whether we must trust approximations from PC:s over exact timings from a carman. If the PC:s could hear the quater hour strike some little time after they were called into action, it would be entirely feasible that this was the reason for their timings.

Either suggestion has things going for it. And Lechmere cannot be ruled out in this way - either.

I think there is evidence against Paul's time of 3:45. Basically, if Paul left home at 3:45 then absolutely everybody else is way off. Even if her entered Buck's Row at 3:45, he has to walk down and meet Cross/Lechmere (1 minute?), interact over the body (3 minutes?), leave and find PC Mizen (4 minutes is stated there; I'm guessing times for the others but trying not to be unreasonable), stop and interact with PC Mizen (3 minutes), and now Cross only has 4 minutes to get to work by 4:00, and that's not enough time for him to get there. Even if we shorten the time they're with the body to 1 minute, he's only got 6 minutes to get to work, and I don't think there's enough time for him to actually arrive by 4:00. And, PC Neil had to find the body later than his stated 3:45, and Thain, who corroborates PC Neli's 3:45 is also not just wrong about his time, but wrong in exactly the same way as PC Neil is wrong. That's a lot of wrongs to make one time right. But if we only set that 3:45 time wrong, there's a lot of the sworn testimony that doesn't have to be ignored, and that seems the better choice to me.

So, regardless of what the Lloyd's article says, Paul's time of 3:45, whether for leaving home and for entering Buck's Row cannot be correct, whether or not he himself said exactly. If he based it upon a clock at home, I suggest the time needs resetting. Allowing for error in the estimations of times, though, when taken as a whole over all of the various testimonies, it becomes fairly clear that an entirely reasonable sequence of events occurring at approximately the times most report things as happening, does come out eventually. Out of all the testimony, only one or two times are anomalous, 3:45 for Paul, and 4:15 for Mizen. I would say, that's actually pretty good for time estimations, given we've got quite a few of them, to only have 2 looking dodgy is actually impressive in some ways.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do serial killers who see a victim they have chosen escape from their clutches and walk up to the police, anked and very afraid, join up and tell the police that it is all a mistake and offer to take the victim into their own custody again? Is ANYONE that dumb and reckless? Answer: Yes. Jeff Dahmer did precisely this, whereupon he killed the regained victim directly afterwards

Come on Fish, the Dahmer example is completely different. His choices were - follow his drugged victim and ‘explain’ the circumstances or allow his victim to go free and name/locate Dahmer and the ‘interesting’ contents of his fridge for the police

Lechmere’s choices were - call an unknown person over to the woman that he’d just killed and mutilated (potentially contaminated with her blood and certainly carrying the knife) or walking away to freedom.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I keep saying that Lechmere will have heard Paul from 130 yards away.

Personally I can’t accept that as fact. There would surely have to be doubt. And if Lechmere had heard Paul from 130 yards away there would have been absolutely no chance of him sticking around.

[Elamarna]

And, of course, the "sworn testimony" of three PC:s are about APPROXIMATIONS, not about exact times like Pauls time. And he swore to THAT time too by bolstering it at the inquest. So it becomes a question about whether we must trust approximations from PC:s over exact timings from a carman. If the PC:s could hear the quater hour strike some little time after they were called into action, it would be entirely feasible that this was the reason for their timings.

While I will argue that NONE of the times are absolute,
You appear to be saying that Paul gives "exact" times while those of the Police are not "exact"

This is not the case.

Neil is quoted as saying at a quarter to 4 or 3.45 in 4 papers:

The Globe,
Daily News,
East London Observer,
Evening Post.

Others merely say he had been there 30 minutes before.
There appears to be NO APPROXIMATION IN Neil's case.


In Thain's accounts
There is indeed a split,

The Daily Telegraph, Evening Standard, Morning Advertiser and illustrated Police News all give "at" that is exact.

The Times, Echo, Daily News and Woodford Times all say "about"

So there is debate if it is exact or APPROXIMATION, or down to the paper.

Mizen is more problematic, many papers give 4.20 or 4.15, it must be assumed this is a typo from a common source, there seems no other explanation for such.

However of those which give a more realistic time

Lloyds Weekly and the Star give "at 3.45"

The Evening News, Evening Post, Daily News and IPN all give "about"

So again it is not clear if exact or APPROXIMATION, or down to the reporter/editor.


However in all 3 cases exact timings ARE mentioned in the reports.

It is also clear from the reports of Paul's inquest appearance that his account is not Exact, but an APPROXIMATION.

To therefore suggest that the Police reports are only approximations, as opposed to Paul's being exact is highly selective at best and just a tad disingenuous.


Of course I repeat that I do NOT consider any of these times to be absolute times, that is syncronizied to each other(although Neil and Thain, from the same division could arguably be) or to GMT.


STEVE

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi TRD,

Interesting scenario. It could work, provided Cross/Lechmere is a psychopath, for which we have no independent evidence other than to assume he's JtR in the first place, which makes it a circular argument. I don't think I've seen anything that could be taken as evidence that he was a psychopath, other than to say he was JtR and so must have been - which is the circularity problem.

Also, psychopaths will run if there's a chance they will get caught. They'll do bizarre things that we might see as extraordinary risk taking (Dahmer kept heads in his locker at work; he convinced police a young boy who escaped was just his lover and they were having a dispute; Kemper went to see his psychologist (or psychiatrist, councilor? can't recall) with a head in the trunk of his car; Bundy kept a head in a box in his apartment until it smelled so bad his girlfriend asked what it was - and he burned it in a fireplace before she got home; Bundy also walked through a parking lot that was part of a crime scene while the police were examining it and picked up some evidence and took it away). These situations, however, are not them being caught in the act but ones where they felt in control of the situation. Bundy fled when the police followed him in a car. His instinct was to not get caught, despite him being able to brazen it out when he had time to prepare himself.

So even a psychopath would be prone to exit stage left if someone came across them. Think Bundy fleeing the sorority house in Florida. On his way out he ran past another girl, Neary. He didn't stop to attack her, he continued to flee (that's probably the closest we'll come to the situation you described above). That's just one case, of course, and this could be a counter-example (but could be's aren't worth much really). But any offender, psychopathic or not, has a strong self preservation response. Psychopaths, when they feel in control of the situation, believe they can "self preserve" through actions you and I would think are fool hardy options that would ensure self destruction. But when the unexpected happens, like someone comes along unexpectedly, believing they can escape successfully seems the more probable line of thought.

But, let's say, he does choose the stay option because his decision is as you suggest to fight rather than flee, and while that seems foolhardy to us, to his psychopathic mind it seems like the best way for him to control the situation. Ok, I could buy that as they make weird choices, so we're not running up against any problems there and things fit so far. But it is at that point a psychopath's responses will differ from yours or mine, so I don't think the emotional descriptions you suggest would apply. Rather, a psychopath would now feel like they have regained control - their decision to stay and fight is to them regaining control of the situation - so all those responses go away and they calm right down (hence their ability to bluff through situations that most would find too stressful to even attempt). But that's just colourful description of the unknowable internal thinkings, which nothing in the evidence is going to address for us. But here, to me, is the rub. If staying to fight was his decision as to how to regain control, then as soon as Paul bent over to check Nicholls for breathing or her pulse, etc, then he would have attacked Paul and killed him because that would be the time to strike and he stayed to fight after all. What's missing is the "fight" in the actual events. I can't see his decision being to stay to fight, and then not fighting when the moment presents itself and Paul is getting really close to discovering the murder, and therefore, him. And Paul has seen him, so Paul is now a threat to him, and he's going to want to eliminate that threat, but he doesn't. That's why, to me, that's the weak link in the chain. And, I think, even if we can get past that, I think once Paul and Cross left the scene, he would have found a way to part company (i.e. the "you look that way for a PC I'll go this way" type thing).

Still, we know there's ample time prior to Cross/Lechmere's arrival for someone else to have committed the murder, so that also means there's ample time for Cross/Lechmere as well (it doesn't have to be someone else after all). The problem is Cross/Lechmere's behavior and choices don't really mesh well with the scenerios where he's the killer; either he does things that don't make sense if he's guilty, or he fails to do things a guilty person would be highly expected to do. Even the current suggestion hits that type of wall where staying to fight is invoked at one point to get past one hurdle, and now something else has to be thought of to overcome the new hurdle that pops up due to the original solution. I find those kinds of twists and turns and knots to be arguments against a working hypothesis, especially when the comparison (the someone else did it hypothesis) seems free from those sorts of complications. But, I'm a simple man, and I like simple things so I can understand them.

It's worth exploring, and that's what people have been doing, but whether Cross/Lechmere was or was not a psychopath, the pattern of behaviour and choices that he makes are really hard to account for in a consistent way; yet all of them make perfect sense if you start from Cross/Lechmere was just some guy who found Nicholl's body and had no other connection to the murder event.

But maybe we've not found the right Cross/Lechmere counter-argument, and when we do, that will look to be the better one. So keep at it.

- Jeff

Jeff, you make absolutely brilliant points which i fully acknowledge and accept.

I appreciate you taking the time to counter and challenge some of the ideas i put forward.

The main reason why i joined this site around a week ago, was to put forward different scenarios, theories and ideas which i deliberately want to be challenged and countered, in order to flush out as many different aspects of the case as possible. There is always new things to discover and sometimes asking questions is the best way to move forward

In other words, i'm NOT here to try and suggest my theories on the case are better than anyone else, i'm here to have my theories on the case stripped bare and broken down to see if anything credible remains which can warrant further investigation.

I would never criticize or be dismissive of anyone putting forward ideas which oppose or counter my own, i actually welcome that because it's the only real way for us to us to succeed as a collective.

Solving the case is paramount and i welcome your response to my post.

Hats off to you sir!


The Rookie Detective

[JeffHamm]

Jeff, you make absolutely brilliant points which i fully acknowledge and accept.

I appreciate you taking the time to counter and challenge some of the ideas i put forward.

The main reason why i joined this site around a week ago, was to put forward different scenarios, theories and ideas which i deliberately want to be challenged and countered, in order to flush out as many different aspects of the case as possible. There is always new things to discover and sometimes asking questions is the best way to move forward

In other words, i'm NOT here to try and suggest my theories on the case are better than anyone else, i'm here to have my theories on the case stripped bare and broken down to see if anything credible remains which can warrant further investigation.

I would never criticize or be dismissive of anyone putting forward ideas which oppose or counter my own, i actually welcome that because it's the only real way for us to us to succeed as a collective.

Solving the case is paramount and i welcome your response to my post.

Hats off to you sir!


The Rookie Detective

HI TRD,

I'm glad you found my comments useful to your thinking. You'll find that the vast majority of responses, even if they appear curt or dismissive, will point you to useful information. Often, given the nature of conversations on boards like this, what might read as an attack was not written as an attack. Most often, a reply is written quickly, and a concise pointer to information the responder thinks is important isn't really intended as an insult, but rather as assistance to help you find important material and a reference to why they think so. Sometimes, yes, things get personal, but just remind yourself, when someone resorts to sarcasm and insults as their rebuttal it's because they have nothing else but mud left and you're probably on the more solid ground. Take away from that a sign of your victory, even if they don't admit defeat. Just also remember, that someone disagreeing with you isn't them being disagreeable. We all will have our opinions on the importance of things to consider, but opinions are not facts. We all have different levels of tolerance for complexity and speculation, and most disagreements are really about those differences. I believe that things can get too speculative and complicated, but I also believe that we have to speculate to a certain degree. I think there are limits to how far is reasonable, and it's certainly further than I tend to set as my criterion, but the borders are fuzzy and sometimes the conversation should just end with "well, that's goes beyond my tolerance levels" because neither side can see the problem the other does (X sees things as based upon unsafe speculation and Y sees things as a logical flow based upon evidence - if you can't agree on what you're looking at, there's no point in arguing over the conclusions that follow).

Anyway, my recommendation is to try not to get too focused on any one suspect (though that can be fun). You'll miss out on a lot of really interesting ideas.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>I have a zillion times said that MY viewpoint is that if Lechmere was the killer and tried a bluff, he would NOT do so hovering over the body...<<

Yes, to us here who know the real facts better, Sadly, your show portrayed to the world the encounter happening beside MrsNichols body and when you hear the lay persons, who watched your show, comment, they say "Oh but he was found stooping over the body". And so another myth is put out to the world abut this crime.

[drstrange169]

>Itīs the Daily Telegraph only who got it wrong, the rest got it right. Lechmere refused to help prop her up.<<

Wasn't it you on this very thread that said, just because the bulk of newspapers say something doesn't mean that the one paper that says something else is wrong?

Did you clear those goalposts through customs when you shipped them to Sweden??