Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Fisherman]

>>Calling upon somebody to come and look at a body is no control exhibiting, following that same person out of the street in search of a PC is no control exhibiting, taking the leading role and speaking to the PC is no control exhibiting and so on. Itīs good that you pointed that out to those of us who look upon these matters as very clear indicators of a controlling personality!<<

A classic Christer post, totally avoided what we were talking about and a sarcastic comment to try and dismiss the issue.

What we wrote about was the lack of control Cross exhibited during Paul's investigation of the body. What we wrote about was Cross's lack of supposed sense of invulnerability in dealing with Mizen.

AND you wrote that you could see no controlling exhibited in what Lechmere said and did. it seems you have now effectively retracted that rather senseless suggestion, so we are in agreement.

[Busy Beaver]

JTR would not have done things that would have attracted any unwanted attention. His aim was to murder and get out as quickly and as safely as possible without being seen or etched into someone's memory.

[Elamarna]

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.

Bumping into a police officer would not be an issue.
This has been pointed out by Dusty and myself already.
There would have been no reason for the police to stop anyone unless the alarm had been raised and it had not.

Thain saw two and did not stop them.
And there is no indication that Mizen would have stopped Lechmere or Paul.

Once again the post misses the issue.


Steve

[Fisherman]

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

Facts Christer, facts.

There is no "medical evidence" that the abdomen was cut first. No report we have from Llewellyn specifically states that the abdominal wounds came first.

All we have is a very vague reference from Baxter,

"Dr. Llewylln seemed to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were inflicted first."

A fact would be, Dr Llewellyn stated that the abdominal were inflicted first. Baxter isn't sure what Llewellyn thought as evidenced by his use of the word seemed.

In fact, "seemed to incline" suggests some hesitation on Llewellyn's part, does it not?

It is not Llewellyn who says that he "seems" to incline that the abdominal wounds came first. It is a coroner who is very unhappy about Llewellyns stance, and who is trying to do his best to impose another turn of events on the inquest. So we have no indication t all of any hesitation on Llewellyns behalf, only a lack of will to live with it on Baxters behalf. Much like you, come to think of it.

[Fisherman]

>> 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.

Which of the points I make do you think are wrong?

That Paul said 3.45 exactly to the paper?

That he bolstered it at the inquest by saying that hen left home close in time to 3.45?

That it works with the facts to a large degree, for example with the short distance to Llewellyns practice?

Debunked indeed!

[Fisherman]

>>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.

I know that "substance" well; I have frequently dealt with it.

[Fisherman]

>> 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 donīt 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?

To anybody who has asked about it. If you are making the point that I don't spend my days telling everybody that there were errors in the docu, then you are correct. You, on the other hand, start every conversation by saying that you got the doors wrong in Broad Street, that you had Lechmere in the wrong spot by a country mile in Bucks Row, I take it?

What a rot, Dusty. How cheap and how low.

[Elamarna]

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.

Pray tell me who says he was 150 yards from the body?

You now admit that a more robust building will throw a larger shadow, yet attempt to now argue on how solid a wooden gate was, answer unknown.

But of course it is still irrelevant to the original point, which was there was greater shadow by the board school.
The murder site was not even mentioned, apart from by you in an apparent attempt to muddy the waters

Steve

[Fisherman]

>>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.

There are facts that support that Mizen spoke of the earlier occasion. End of story. But you are indeed focused, I will give you that. So am I. We just focus on different matters.

[Elamarna]

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

Christer, indeed they are, happy to teach you the correct use of the English Language.

But of course you know that, it is a poor attempt on your part to imply there were few, and according to the documentary, no easy escape routes


Steve

[Fisherman]

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

Or he thought that no clever person would take the risk to run into the arms of a PC.

So it becomes a question about whether we have a case of a seasoned murder investigator using his experience to judge what he thinks Lechmere would have done, or a case of a film crew lying through their teeth.

And we have a choice of how we want to do our Ripperology. Each and every one of us.

[Elamarna]

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

Agreed, you implied it, has I said in my post.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Christer, indeed they are, happy to teach you the correct use of the English Language.

But of course you know that, it is a poor attempt on your part to imply there were few, and according to the documentary, no easy escape routes


Steve

Don't be that sad, Steve. Go back and look at what I have written over the years, and you will find that I have always said that it cannot be ruled out that the killer, if not Lechmere, could have escaped via one of the routes leading to and from the murder site.

If you had had the decency to acknowledge that, we could perhaps have discussed this in a less inflamed manner.

But you choose not to. You choose to claim, with no substantiation at all, that I want to imply that there were not enough routes for a killer to escape. You thereby opt for tarnishing me with nothing at all to bolster that take, instead of accepting how I have always said that there were escape options.

Why? Why do you do that?

[Elamarna]

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.

It is unrealistic to suggest that a tv programme, with an aim to suggest a named person as the killer, would ever include comments from an "expert" that did not match their agenda.

Steve

[Fisherman]

JTR would not have done things that would have attracted any unwanted attention. His aim was to murder and get out as quickly and as safely as possible without being seen or etched into someone's memory.

Are you aware of how a large number of serial killers have made very far-reaching efforts to have their deeds acknowledged? I hope you are. Rader got caught for not being able to stand having his work diminished in the press, for example. He released how much of a narcissist he was when taking the bait the police offered.

Of course, it is reasonable (although not necessarily a fact) to think that the killer wanted to stay uncaught. But please note how many serial killers are caught late in the process when they get more and more slack in the safety thinking, believing that they are invincible and don't need to worry about being caught.

Apply this to the picture, and what happens? "He would have run"? Or?