Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Fisherman]

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





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.



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

What a pathetic way to argue: "I see simply ignore the interview problems, so be it".

The 3.45 timing is more in line with the events if we look at how long it took for Thain to get hold of Llewellyn who lived a stones throw away. There are factual reasons to argue 3.40 and there are factual reasons to argue 3.45, and trying to sweep that fact under the carpet by trying the old "you only say so because it suits your theory" is rather a sad approach.

Paul said exactly 3.45, he bolstered it at the inquest and the police opted for that time in their later report, plus it works with the facts to a large degree. You are quite welcome to think that the 3.40 time is likelier, but less welcome to portrait yourself as the logical one and me as a theory-ridden, slightly delusional fantasist. It is a shameful approach.

[Fisherman]

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.

Five sentences, making an effort to paint me out as paranoid. One would have done the REAL job and answered the question I was asking; the last one.
But there is a work to do here, right? (You should thank me, now you can do the "It seem you think everything is aimed at you routine again! Happy days!)

[Fisherman]

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.

Is it different? All such matters are, more or less.

Is it another example of how a serial killer can be extremely brazen? Yes.

[Fisherman]

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.

A fact is when somebody claims that "if Lechmere had heard Paul from 130 yards away, there would be absolutely no chance of him sticking around". That is presenting a personal view as a fact.

Ergo YOU are committing the kind of error you implicate ME of having done!

[Fisherman]

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

Paul says "exactly 3.45". None of the others claim an exactitude. It may be right, it may be wrong, but that is how the evidence looks. Nothing will alter it. If Neil had said "exactly 3.45" the two would have been on equal footing. But he didn´t. So they are not on equal footing.

That is not to say that Paul must have been correct, only that he claimed to be and he later bolstered the information at the inquest.

I know that you have to break this up as best as you can to provide a counterpicture. The problem is that the information will not change in this respect, however hard you may try. One piece of information claims to be exact, the others don´t. Full stop.

Far from being "nonsensical" as you must put it, it is factual (in the sense that these ARE factually the things that were claimed and said by the participants) and it accordingly carries weight.

[Fisherman]

>>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.

Which I have acknowledged another zillion times. But it has no bearing on the viability of Lechmere being the culprit, something that has falsely been led on a third zillion times, creating the myth that people who don´t hover right over a body is probably not the killer.

Since you know the facts better, why not just accept that it would be a clever move on behalf of the killer to step away from the body if he was going to bluff it out? Why instead try to peddle the view that I prefer to fool the innocent into believing that he WAS hovering over the body, and that I only admit that he was some way away to those who know the fact better?

To make me look like a liar?

[Fisherman]

>It´s 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??

Yes it was me who said that. And I would also say that anyone who is willing to compare the issue of the blood (where the facts support the single paper) to the propping up business (where there is no factual support at all for the single paper) should be ashamed of himself. Why, I´d even go as far as to call him grossly and grotesquely misleading.

[JeffHamm]

Yes, indeed, Herlock! You are spot on - it IS the more efficient way of doing things.

Then again, Llewellyn knew this too. And he nevertheless opted for the abdomen first, going on the medical evidence.

That has to count for something. Saying that cutting the neck first is the smarter way, ergo he cut the neck first is putting the carriage in front of the horse. The medical evidence MUST be weighed in, and it speaks a different language.

True, but the medical evidence was not universally in favor of Llewellyn's interpretation. During summing up, Dr. Wayne Baxter says "Dr. Llewellyn seemed to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were inflicted first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seemed difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it came about there was so little bleeding from the several arteries that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained and the legs not soiled, and there was very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck. Surely it might well be that, as in the case of Chapman, the dreadful wounds to the throat were first inflicted and the abdominal afterwards."

So, opinion then, as now, was divided.

- Jeff

[Patrick S]

I concur with this, it is always about Control.

With regards to the killer "luring her into Buck's Row"... this is another key aspect which we need to try and resolve conclusively.

So, here are a few scenarios...

Scenario 1...

Lechmere/Cross is JTR travelling WEST along Bucks Row and INTERCEPTS Nichols who was most likely travelling EAST from her last known location; Whitechapel High Street
If this is the case, the murder would have been more an impulsive urge to attack Nichols; which also fits into the Lechmere theory of being a "spree killer."
Crucially, there is no "luring" to be had, rather an instinctive urge to kill Nichols


Scenario 2...

Lechmere/Cross is JTR travelling WEST along Bucks Row having "Lured" Nichols into Bucks Row with him from the EAST End of the Road travelling together WEST along Bucks Row.
He then took his opportunity to attack her.
The "luring" theory is consistent with this version.


Scenario 3...

Lechmere/Cross is Innocent travelling WEST along Bucks Row and stumbles across the body of Nichols. Moments later Paul arrives and Lechmere/Cross draws his attention to her body.
This means the killer is more likely to have escaped WEST along Bucks Row, having already "lured" Nichols into Bucks Row from having met her elsewhere.


Scenario 4...

Lechmere/Cross is innocent traveling WEST along Bucks Row, having missed the real killer by minutes after JTR had escaped the scene EAST along Bucks Row.

There are minimal escape routes from Bucks Row
WEST or EAST...


OR..over the train line.


Thoughts please?


The Rookie Detective

In my view, your scenario 3 is most likely. Obviously, I don't believe Cross killed Nichols (or that he was Jack the Ripper, the Torso Killer, et al), therefore I believe that he was walking west in Buck's Row from his his home in Doveton Street to Pickford's in Broad Street. As well, I think Buck's Row was an unlikely place for Nichols to have gone in search of customers. We know that Emily Holland spoke with her at 230am at the corner of Whitechapel Road and Osborne Street and that she stated Nichols was intent on earning money for her bed. I think it's more likely that Nichols met her customer and eventual killer elsewhere and either went to Buck's Row at his suggestion or took him there herself, perhaps having utilized it previously due it's darkness and comparative lack of foot traffic at that time of night.

[Elamarna]

I concur with this, it is always about Control.

With regards to the killer "luring her into Buck's Row"... this is another key aspect which we need to try and resolve conclusively.

So, here are a few scenarios...

Scenario 1...

Lechmere/Cross is JTR travelling WEST along Bucks Row and INTERCEPTS Nichols who was most likely travelling EAST from her last known location; Whitechapel High Street
If this is the case, the murder would have been more an impulsive urge to attack Nichols; which also fits into the Lechmere theory of being a "spree killer."
Crucially, there is no "luring" to be had, rather an instinctive urge to kill Nichols


Scenario 2...

Lechmere/Cross is JTR travelling WEST along Bucks Row having "Lured" Nichols into Bucks Row with him from the EAST End of the Road travelling together WEST along Bucks Row.
He then took his opportunity to attack her.
The "luring" theory is consistent with this version.


Scenario 3...

Lechmere/Cross is Innocent travelling WEST along Bucks Row and stumbles across the body of Nichols. Moments later Paul arrives and Lechmere/Cross draws his attention to her body.
This means the killer is more likely to have escaped WEST along Bucks Row, having already "lured" Nichols into Bucks Row from having met her elsewhere.


Scenario 4...

Lechmere/Cross is innocent traveling WEST along Bucks Row, having missed the real killer by minutes after JTR had escaped the scene EAST along Bucks Row.

There are minimal escape routes from Bucks Row
WEST or EAST...


OR..over the train line.


Thoughts please?


The Rookie Detective

It is incorrect that there are limited escape routes.

One can go to the board school and go south via, woods buildings, Court of Thomas Streets.
You could head back down Winthrop and exit via Brady or Nelson .

Going North there are routes via Queen Anne, Thomas St and the rec ground..

In total there are some 20 possible escape routes.


Steve

[Elamarna]

But Lechmere was nevertheless able to discern a body lying there from fifty feet away...?

Why no, the Board School in the previous post is further to the west, the building by the body are only 2 story. The gate only one story.
your comment is irrelevant.


Steve

[Patrick S]

Christer has said nothing of the sort. Griffiths was well aware that Lechmere that there was no obstacle in the way of Lechmere leaving the scene. What Griffiths would have used is a simple colloquialism, meaning that when he said that Lechmere would never flee, he simply stated that he believed it very much likelier that he would not.
Putting slants like this on things is an unsound method of debating, aiming painting people into corners where they do not belong. Griffiths found it very unlikely that Lechmere would run, but he of course realized that he had an option to do so nevertheless.

The fact that I have to step in and point this out says it all. Ripperology at it´s worst, I´m afraid, Patrick.

Honestly.....I'm sorry... are you serious? You said this:

"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."

This would SEEM to indicate that you DO NOT AGREE with Griffith's view.

Further, and I'll quote Griffith's from the documentary... again:

"He couldn't run away, having realized there was someone else in the street" with the narrator adding that GRIFFITHS BELIEVES "....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."

So if Griffiths was well aware there was no obstacle to Lechmere's escape why did he STATE that the police presence and Paul's presence in Buck's Row WERE OBSTACLES to his escape in that he had NO CHOICE but to remain that he COULDN'T have run?

Ripperology at it's worst indeed. This is utter foolishness, I'm afraid.

[Elamarna]

Yes, indeed, Herlock! You are spot on - it IS the more efficient way of doing things.

Then again, Llewellyn knew this too. And he nevertheless opted for the abdomen first, going on the medical evidence.

That has to count for something. Saying that cutting the neck first is the smarter way, ergo he cut the neck first is putting the carriage in front of the horse. The medical evidence MUST be weighed in, and it speaks a different language.

The pity of course is we have NO medical evidence, which support abdomen first, merely OPINION.
True he does make comments about vessels being empty, but is not specific and such appears to be to fit his pre formed opinion.
Of course originally he was minded to say the attack took place elsewhere.

That opinion is greatly influenced by Llewlleyns inability to account for the blood loss.

This is because he appears to ignore the condition of her clothing.

The only "evidence" we have is Spratlings report, which gives no infomation to conclude the abdomen was first or what the killer wounds were.

Either neck or abdomen is actually possible, but one is much the more likely, particularly when one looks at Llewlleyn's instantaneous death from Abdomen wounds, v the amount of blood in the clothing.


Steve

[Elamarna]

What a pathetic way to argue: "I see simply ignore the interview problems, so be it".

Well one can do let else when A mind is so closed.
What is pathetic, is the continual ignoring of sources.

The 3.45 timing is more in line with the events if we look at how long it took for Thain to get hold of Llewellyn who lived a stones throw away. There are factual reasons to argue 3.40 and there are factual reasons to argue 3.45, and trying to sweep that fact under the carpet by trying the old "you only say so because it suits your theory" is rather a sad approach.

There is no sweeping under the carpet, all options are looked at and examined by me, ALL.
This includes the possible time Thain arrives at Llewellyn's home. That time is nowhere near clear, but easily fits him getting to the body just after Neil arrives at approx 3.45.

Paul said exactly 3.45, he bolstered it at the inquest and the police opted for that time in their later report, plus it works with the facts to a large degree. You are quite welcome to think that the 3.40 time is likelier, but less welcome to portrait yourself as the logical one and me as a theory-ridden, slightly delusional fantasist. It is a shameful approach.

It is not bolstered , it is diminished by his account at the inquest.

The original comment is very highly debateable at best, yet you do not take this into account in the arguments you post.

Neil said "at 3.45" or "at a quarter to four"
That is also exact and in no way impricise.


You IGNORE the accounts of the POLICE yet again, in effect cherry picking the sources you use.

Such an approach to research is shameful.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Five sentences, making an effort to paint me out as paranoid. One would have done the REAL job and answered the question I was asking; the last one.
But there is a work to do here, right? (You should thank me, now you can do the "It seem you think everything is aimed at you routine again! Happy days!)

No effort is made at all to paint you as Paranoid.

Steve