Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Fisherman]

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

Actually, it is absolutely correct that there are limited escape routes. You list the limits yourself.

[Fisherman]

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

No, my comment is not irrelevant. But yours is incomprehensible. It is about the light, Steve.

[Fisherman]

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.

If you decide not to understand a simple enough premise, then that is your problem.

[Fisherman]

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

The "opinion" you speak of is the verdict of the experienced medico who examined Nichols.

[Fisherman]

Steve: "all options are looked at and examined by me, ALL."

I take it "by me" is the instrumental matter here? Because it is not as if Edward Stow and I have not looked at and examined the options. Funnily enough, we arrived at another conclusion, but that probably owes to our almighty bias.

[Fisherman]

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

Steve

Thatīs the problem with us paranoid people - although we are totally fairly treated, we cannot free ourselves from that feeling of being persecuted.

[Elamarna]

Actually, it is absolutely correct that there are limited escape routes. You list the limits yourself.

Oh dear,

"Limited" escape routes suggests "few", or a "small number of" which is not the case.

There are some 23 in total, 2 are if not impossible very improbable and 3 are unlikely given the information we have.

That leaves 18 which are all possible.
To describe 3 as "limited" is a strange use of the English Language.



Steve

[Elamarna]

T

No, my comment is not irrelevant. But yours is incomprehensible. It is about the light, Steve.

Not so, the original comment was in response to a post talking about the shadow thrown by the Board School.

The murder did not occur in that area, and so your comment is irrelevant.


Steve

[Fisherman]

T

Not so, the original comment was in response to a post talking about the shadow thrown by the Board School.

The murder did not occur in that area, and so your comment is irrelevant.


Steve

Ah - I did not realize that different buildings throw different grades of dark shadows. Sorry for that. Of course it would have been lit up like Champs- Elyseés outside Browns. WHich is why the carmen said it was too dark to see any blood there.

Funny phenomenon, irrelevance.

[Elamarna]

The "opinion" you speak of is the verdict of the experienced medico who examined Nichols.

His experience is not the issue, it's the lack of evidence to support his opinion, there is NO mention of which organs or vessels lead to instaneious death, such would be expected. The ignoring of the condition of her clothing to account for supposed lack of blood and the contradiction between his suggestion and the blood clearly visibly on her clothing around her upper body.

Steve

[Patrick S]

If you decide not to understand a simple enough premise, then that is your problem.

I'll only take so many of your insults, your "worst of Ripperology" comments, before I respond in kind. I think everyone can agree.... You are being willfully dishonest. You said this:

"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."

Yet he said, "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."

I'm afraid this is one "simple premise" only you can understand. Griffiths says Lechmere could not run away. But what he meant to say what that he could run away, but chose not to? He was being colloquial? You're simply inventing this, obviously, because just last week you said that was YOUR view - and always had been - and that Griffiths views were his, not your's... which any sane person would deduce means you two DISAGREE. Again, you said this:

"when Griffiths said that he would not have run, that was HIS view and not mine.....so the view he gave was entirely his own.."

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.

I see. So you're now contending that saying he could not have run was a colloquialism... even though he gave REASONS WHY he could not have run. He said this:

"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."

Colloquialism indeed. Laughable, actually. And a new low.

I'm afraid you're going to have to give us cheat sheet or a guide of some kind that tells us when we're to believe you, or Griffiths, or ANYONE... and when not to.

[Fisherman]

Oh dear,

"Limited" escape routes suggests "few", or a "small number of" which is not the case.

There are some 23 in total, 2 are if not impossible very improbable and 3 are unlikely given the information we have.

That leaves 18 which are all possible.
To describe 3 as "limited" is a strange use of the English Language.



Steve

Limited stands for "having a limit". There was a limit to the number of escape routes. They were quite enough to offer the possibility of escaping unseen, providing you used the correct escape route. But unlimited they were not, and unlimited IS the opposite of limited. Saying that the routes were not limited at all is simply wrong. Saying that they were not very few would be more correct. "Oh dear" or not.

[Elamarna]

Steve: "all options are looked at and examined by me, ALL."

I take it "by me" is the instrumental matter here? Because it is not as if Edward Stow and I have not looked at and examined the options. Funnily enough, we arrived at another conclusion, but that probably owes to our almighty bias.

The "me" is because you said I was sweeping stuff under the carpet.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Thatīs the problem with us paranoid people - although we are totally fairly treated, we cannot free ourselves from that feeling of being persecuted.

How apt.


Steve

[Fisherman]

I'll only take so many of your insults, your "worst of Ripperology" comments, before I respond in kind. I think everyone can agree.... You are being willfully dishonest. You said this:

"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."

Yet he said, "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."

I'm afraid this is one "simple premise" only you can understand. Griffiths says Lechmere could not run away. But what he meant to say what that he could run away, but chose not to? He was being colloquial? You're simply inventing this, obviously, because just last week you said that was YOUR view - and always had been - and that Griffiths views were his, not your's... which any sane person would deduce means you two DISAGREE. Again, you said this:

"when Griffiths said that he would not have run, that was HIS view and not mine.....so the view he gave was entirely his own.."

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.

I see. So you're now contending that saying he could not have run was a colloquialism... even though he gave REASONS WHY he could not have run. He said this:

"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."

Colloquialism indeed. Laughable, actually. And a new low.

I'm afraid you're going to have to give us cheat sheet or a guide of some kind that tells us when we're to believe you, or Griffiths, or ANYONE... and when not to.

Why would I give you a guide you wouldnīt be willing to understand? That would be a total waste of time.

Of course Griffiths knew that Lechmere had two legs and an opening in the street that pointed away from Paul. But he felt certain that Lechmere would prioritize staying put, that it was the natural choice for him to make. The very same choice, that is that you peddle as totally and utterly unnatural. And have always done. To no avail.