Window of Time for Nichols murder

[drstrange169]

Re: 150 yards

>>No-one says it. But someone SAID it, which was what I pointed to.<<

I just did a search of Casebook and jtrForums and I couldn't find any hits for Cross being 150 yards from the body. Care to "point" a little more specifically? Is this one more of your "facts"?

[Elamarna]

"Lechmere was either the killer of the last person to see Nichols before the Killer escape"

I see several posters who I respect have sort of agreed with this statement and that really confuses me.

I just so not see how this can be supported in any way guys.

The body is already there when he arrives and he sees no one .

Therefore he may be the first to see her after the killer leaves; but not the LAST BEFORE.


Even if we go down the route of the killer hiding and coming back after the carman leave, which I consider highly unlikely, he would only be one of the two last people to see her before the Killer left.

Am I missing something ?


Steve

[Patrick S]

Re: 150 yards

>>No-one says it. But someone SAID it, which was what I pointed to.<<

I just did a search of Casebook and jtrForums and I couldn't find any hits for Cross being 150 yards from the body. Care to "point" a little more specifically? Is this one more of your "facts"?

Maybe he was speaking colloquially.

[Abby Normal]

Im confused about something-did or did not paul say he entered bucks row at 3:45?
also, when did lech say he entered bucks row/discover her body?

[Fisherman]

Re: 150 yards

>>No-one says it. But someone SAID it, which was what I pointed to.<<

I just did a search of Casebook and jtrForums and I couldn't find any hits for Cross being 150 yards from the body. Care to "point" a little more specifically? Is this one more of your "facts"?

The street was not 150 yards from Brady Street down to Browns, so 150 yards is obviously a mistake. I meant 150 feet.

And there is not much of fact about any information putting Nichols at any of those distances away from Lechmere as he noticed her.

All I know is that it was a number you reached by cutting away vital information and that it was absolutely ridiculous. Which will be the reason that this number is never quoted out here - nobody believed in it.

Sorry for the confusion, I really need to invest a little bit more in my exchanges with you.

[Fisherman]

Im confused about something-did or did not paul say he entered bucks row at 3:45?
also, when did lech say he entered bucks row/discover her body?

In the Lloyds interview, Paul is quoted as saying that it was exactly 3.45 as he passed down Bucks Row.

At the inquest, he says "I left home just before a quarter to four", which bolsters the time as such.

Lechmere never says anything about the time he entered the street or saw the body. He only gives the time when he left home.

[Fisherman]

So you cannot supply who made this unrealistic claim, oh well, says it all.


And you carry on about the body and the gate, which has no bearing on the original point made by Dusty.
Which you obviously do not wish to discuss.

That being that the shadows from the Board School would have made escape west very easy, given Paul is at least 30 yards from the body when Lech becomes aware of him(you say much more).

Steve

I cannot fix the distance, nor can you. Lechmere said 30-40 yards, but he may have lied. Sound certainly carries a lot longer than that.

Nichols was lying in the shadows you speak of. Dusty claimed that Lechmere saw her from a very long distance away. if he could do that, then why would the shadows conceal a fleeing killer?

That is the problem here.

[Fisherman]

Simply because you do imply it over and over again.
Please stop playing the victim, no one is buying it.


Steve

I´m afraid that is a lie. I imply nothing. Claiming that I do MAKES me a victim.

You can't have it both ways.

[Fisherman]

Pardon?

According to your theory, he is aware of Paul at over 100 yards away.
That means he will be out of sight before Paul even arrives at the body, possibly on the other side of the Whitechapel Road.
Such is not just opinion but backed by the distances and walking speeds, any walking speeds.

The argument you make is truly astounding in its unrealistic approach.


Steve

The only astounding thing here is how you claim that I would have passed it off as a fact that Lechmere heard Paul from 130 yards away. I THINK that he MAY WELL have, and I BELIEVE that he heard him from a much longer distance than 30-40 yards. But that is as far as it goes. And in the end, it means little to me, since I also BELIEVE (not claim as a fact - believe) that he may have chosen to stay put even if he had time to run.
In fact, he would not have pulled down the clothing and stashed his knife and walked away from the body in full view of Paul so whatever time THAT took, would have been time when he could have run off unseen.
But he didn't.

[Fisherman]

Fish my friend, we are talking about an English Victorian serial killer, not a modern day American one. Social, Moral Values and attitudes amongst killers do change over the years! Jack did like to show off his work and this has been discussed on these very boards. I do not think Jack ran anywhere. He casually walked away and quite probably heard the call and screams of murder, there's been another one as everyone else went running past him at high speed in the opposite direction. Who is rubbish then- Jack, the Police, or those who could have been a good witnesses, but turn out to be wanting fifteen minutes of fame?

So a victorian serial killer was materially different from a modern day American ditto? Killed for different reasons, ran for different reasons, had a different set of moral values? And this you can prove?

Are you sure you want to go down that path?

[Fisherman]

Very interesting reply,
In post 386 you said:

" I never said it was, I said it sounded like it"

Which is to imply or suggest.


Yet here you say I was acting as a know-it-all, and you "implied nothing".

So which is it ?
Did you imply or did you say?


Steve

No, to say it sounded like it is NOT implying something. It is pointing out that the wording itself implied something to me, namely that you thought very highly of yourself. Which may or may not be unwarranted.

I am the journalist here, Steve. And you are the...?

I don' t doubt that you will peddle the wrong take on this in extenso. I will not respond though, since I don't have to - this post has settled the question, once and for all.

[Fisherman]

I have no research to quote on this subject Fish but we often speak in terms of likelihood. What percentage of serial killers take unnecessary, almost suicidal risks compared to those that don’t? The ripper wasn’t one of those serial killers that pick up their victims on the freeway or in out-of-way places. He killed in places like Mitre Square and Hanbury Street, locations that involved danger and risk of discovery, and yet he remained undiscovered. This, to me, implies caution, an in-built instinct for self-preservation from someone that wanted to remain free to kill. Very little is impossible and so Lechmere loitering around for any length of time for the opportunity to stick his head in the noose isn’t an absolute no-no but I’d say it’s unlikely in the extreme.

Why would it not involve an overbelief in himself? A brazen attitude? A sense of invincibility? Cockyness?

Why do those parameters not pop up in your reasoning, Herlock? Why is he all about caution and self-preservation only to you?

[Abby Normal]

In the Lloyds interview, Paul is quoted as saying that it was exactly 3.45 as he passed down Bucks Row.

At the inquest, he says "I left home just before a quarter to four", which bolsters the time as such.

Lechmere never says anything about the time he entered the street or saw the body. He only gives the time when he left home.

thanks fish
then whats all the hub bub about it? paul said it was 3:45. he seemed adamant-why are people arguing this?

and if lech left at 3:30 or 3:20 then he would have entered bucks row well before 3:45. According to his description of finding the body then apparently he was only hesitating a few seconds before Paul arrived. so to me it doesn't add up. either lech dilly dallied somewhere before entering bucks row, gave the wrong time when he left his house (and it was later than he said), or he was in bucks row earlier and for more time than can be gained from there statements.

Im not sure which, but it dosnt add up.

added to that and IMHO someone as anal as Lech would probably leave his house by 3:15 to get to work by 4. for psychological reasons (its a natural time border and or he may have been aided by clocks striking the quarter hour?) and to give himself plenty of time to arrive on time, but more likely earlier. who plans on leaving everyday for work, that only gives themselves enough time to just show up in the nick of time? Not someone who held the same job for twenty years, one which time and being punctual (ie early) was probably extremely important.IMHO anyway.

[Fisherman]

Some helpful advice... Ask yourself this: How many other posters do I have these types of exchanges with? How many other posters does Steve? Abby? Herlock? And with how many do YOU have such threads running, all at once, hurling insults, crying foul, reserving spots in Hell? No one is out to get you. Acting like an adult is good first step in the right direction. You make this ENTIRE discussion personal. Always. Every time. And when that comes back at you... You become Christ on the Cross.

I've said enough. I've been dragged down into it and, to those reading it, I'm sorry for that. Christer, please post your missive again impugning my integrity, calling me dumb, dishonest, unsavory. Include your moral outrage at not being placed on a pedestal and adored by those you insult. I won't respond. We'll call you the smartest, wittiest, hardest working, best looking, and most likely to have solved the case. But, that won't preclude me from pursuing any line of inquiry I wish with respect to you theory. Last bit of advice: If you want respect, give it. If you want to be treated courteously, treat others courteously. I wish you the best.

You speak of respect. Then respect this:

For all your blustering, you are still at the same point - you provide alternative innocent explanations for the pointers to Lechmere´s guilt.

I can do that for you. It is dead simple. I can find alternative innocent explanations for a man with a smoking gun in his hand, standing over a shot person.

Finding a man with so many pointers to guilt in the Ripper saga is much, much harder.

Thanks for the advice.

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

"I don't go much for phantom rippers"

Made my day, Abby.