Window of Time for Nichols murder

[drstrange169]

>> 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.<<

Since your timing theory has been well and truly debunked and you've consistanly avoided addressing the issues it's raised, this is just a bit of grandstanding on your part.

[drstrange169]

>>Paul says "exactly 3.45". None of the others claim an exactitude.<<

Since your ideal evidence is dodgy newspaper articles, you'll be sad to know that the Daily Mail says the case has been solved!

The rest of us prefer some more substantial facts.

[drstrange169]

>> 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.<<

Another classic Christer avoidance. Where have you corrected your shows mistakes outside of here? To those who don't know it was wrong?

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<

There you go with those "facts" again. There are no "facts" on either of those issues, only opinion. You keep trying to muddy the waters but the rest of us remain focused.

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<

Don't worry Patrick, Christer always starts the personal insults on threads when he's been caught out. They are always baseless, just thrown in to distract from talking issues.

[drstrange169]

>> Of the proposed "23" possible escape routes, how many are simply not viable? i.e. meaning JTR would have run straight into a policeman!<<

Since no murder was known at that stage and no alarm raised, there would be no problem passing a policeman.


>>Can we agree that JTR didn't go EAST along Bcuks Row AFTER killing Nichols? i.e. EAST is NOT a realistic option as he would have run into Lechmere/Cross<<

Yes, depending on t.o.d.

[Harry D]

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.

If Griffiths stated that Lechmere had "no choice" but to stick it out, then he was gravely misinformed by the producers of the documentary.

[Fisherman]

Pardon, a taller, well made brick building will throw a far different shadow from a one story high wooden gate.

Now of course we are just being silly, are we not?

Of course such is required to attempt to move the goalposts from the shadow from the Board School, to the shadow by Brown's Yard.


Steve

There are those who have claimed that Lechmere was 150 yards from the body as he saw it - and that the carmen could not see any blood since it was too dark. There's silly for you. But anything goes out here in the battle against Lechmere.

Yes a taller house will throw a larger shadow than a lower construction. But they will both obstruct the light. Wood, you see, is not transparent. Other things are, though.

[Fisherman]

So limited is another colloquialism?

"Oh dear" sounds about right.

Limit means "A point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or pass".

Unlimited therefore points out a situation where no such level exists. There are examples of it on this very thread, actually.

Glad to have helped.

[Fisherman]

Who has said anything about "unlimited".
Very few things are "unlimited", certainly in this context.
Such a concept is truly rediculous, if not unrealistic.

To say that the escape routes were "not limited", is not the same as saying they were "unlimited".


The TV documentary said "No easy escape routes" which is highly disingenuous.

To say the escape routes are "limited" is about giving the impression that there were very few, which is clear not true.
Such comments get repeated because of the aforementioned documentary.

When presented with the facts, the number of routes that you resort to playing semantic games is astounding.


Steve

So "not limited" and "unlimited" are two different things. I see.

[Fisherman]

It was never grandiose when read in its correct context, rather than has you tried to imply.


Steve

I never said it was. I said it sounded like it.

[Fisherman]

Ridiculous. And, I'm actually sad to say, clearly dishonest. But, I THINK I get it. Let me unpack this...

Griffiths knew Lechmere COULD have walked away (him having two legs and all), even though he said he COULD NOT walk away because Paul was in Buck's Row and because of the police presence. Further, he BELIEVED he had NO CHOICE but to stay and bluff it out.. but he didn't REALLY believe that. He REALLY believed that he HAD a choice and COULD have left... even though he said he couldn't have, gave reasons why he couldn't have, and used words like "COULD NOT HAVE" and "HAD NO CHOICE"... colloquially of course.

And whereas as last week you said, "when Griffiths said that he would not have run, that was HIS view and not mine" and that "the view he gave was entirely his own", this week he was in agreement with you: he could have left, but chose not to....because he was speaking colloquially. I"m beginning to think I don't know what a colloquialism is.

But.....I've got it! I think I understand now.

Good enough to have this here for others to read.

There are other posters out here who I personally feel are better suited to handle terms like "dishonest" than you, Patrick.

Your aim is to claim that whatever an expert says in a docu like the one we are discussing is useless in terms of viability, since every expert is ready to sell out his integrity in favor of endorsing whatever the person presenting a theory says.

That is as dumb as it is disrespectful. And very transparent.

Just like you say, it is good to have some matters presented out here, since it tells a story about the one who presents it.

[Fisherman]

RD,

Its not that easy,
For instance despite what you may have read we do not know the exact beat for Neil.
Some(pro Lechmere) make it very short, come up into Bucks Row from Thomas St (south).
Others have it going to Bakers Row and turning along Buckrow from there.
The only written account we have is a newspaper account Echo 21st sept, which says it includes all the above plus the northern section of Thomas st and queen anne st.

Of course we can assume that he knew the beats, but that is a big assumption in my view. There is nothing to suggest he was aware of Neil's beat, it is just ideas that have been repeated over and over.
Neil is the only officer to patrol Bucks Row, once approx every 30 minutes.
Thain and Mizen, pass either entrance again once every approx 30 minutes.

Indeed when the carmen see Mizen he is exiting from Old Montague st, he would not have seen anyone leave Bucks Row from there. Not did he stop Lechmere or Paul, they approached him.

Thain did see two men, we assume men out for legitimate reasons. He did not stop them.

If the killer passed Neil at say the start of Bucks Row or at the bottom of Thomas St (south) would it really matter?
Would Neil have taken enough notice to be able to ID him later.
He would have no reason to stop him, if the killer was walking normally

There are 50 minutes at least each hour where it is clear of any police presence, it's NOT heavily patrolled at all.

I therefore suggest that just the possibility that the killer could have bumped into a police office is not sufficient reason to say the route is not viable.

Of those 23 routes , 5 can I feel be discounted, as either too dangerous or maybe not possible.

The southern routes, Woods buildings, Court and Thomas street are probably the most obvious, as they are the quickest, and get one out of sight from the east end very quickly.

Yes we can exclude a route eastwards down Bucks Row, and such is not included in that 23.
However back East along Winthrop cannot be discounted.
Of into any of the nearby buildings.


Steve

And of course, this all translates to the simple fact that the killer could not bank on having any clear escape route where he would not run into a PC. It isn't any harder than that. Which is also the likely reason for why Griffiths said he would not have run.

[Fisherman]

Surely you can’t think that Lechmere would have stuck around if Paul was so far away?

Yes, of course I can, Herlock! And very much so! What I find you constantly fail to take into account is the psychology of a psychopath, who may well WELCOME this kind of thing. "Wow, there's somebody coming, that should be fun!" is by no means any impossible line of thought for such a person. I keep saying over and over again that we are sorely mistaken if we choose to think that a serial killer who is ready and willing to cut out innards from his victims in the open streets will reason the way we will. If we are dealing with a psychopath and a narcissist (and I know that it is not proven, but PLEASE understand that it is a VERY likely thing), then we are dealing with somebody who WANTED to participate in an exchange with society about what he did, and who quite likely did not identify staying out as much of a risk at all.

We are so far from each other on this that I fear that you regard such a proposition as ridiculous, I am well aware of that. I can only point you to research done on these kinds of characters, and that is what I do right now.

[Fisherman]

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

Pleased to read you finally acknowledging Cross claim of where he first saw the body.

Am I to take it you've never been outside at night? You don't understand the concept of light and shade? Then let me help you.

Paul could see a man standing in the road, but he couldn't see the body properly even when he was examining it, that's light and shade.

Where would cheap horror movies be without killer's emerging from the shadows? Where would Caravaggio or George de la Tour be without chiaroscuro?

Seriously, sometimes you just post for the sake of it. Think before you type.

I am acquainted with darkness in its most extreme form, believe me.