Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Fisherman]

>>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.<<

This lack of thought before typing is really beginning to let you down.

It is expected that an innocent man would flag down a passerby. It is expected that an innocent man would inform a policeman. Ergo, nobody can tell whether someone is trying to exert control by doing those actions.

Which is why Patrick and I were talking about the lack of control Cross exerted over Paul when it came to examining Mrs Nichols and the lack of sense of invulnerability he demonstrated by trying to get past Mizen rather than involving himself in the investigation.

Once again you are defeated by your own argument (see post 389 to Herlock as a prime example).

Repeating a faulty line of thinking does not make it come true. there were many elements that are entirely consistent with Lechmere wishing to control the events. Whether you CHOOSE not to acknowledge that is another matter. It is not as if I expect you to.

[Fisherman]

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.

True - it does not add up. At all. But that is a pill coated with so much bitterness that it MUST be rejected. It does not matter that I keep saying that the timings may be off - what is wanted from me is not to point to the discrepancy at all! Since it can be wrong, we should not take into account then possibility that it is right. That things are what they are claimed to be, sort of. We are supposed to treat the information as if it never existed, on account of how it MAY perhaps be wrong.
Same thing with Paul - he said exactly 3.45, he may have been wrong - but what is required from me is to regard it as a fact that he WAS wrong. The idea that he was right has - or so I am told by Dr Strange - been "debunked". Whenever that happened, I'm at a loss to say. Then again, Trevor Marriott has told me more than once that the whole Lechmere theory has been debunked, and IŽll be damned if I can find when that went down!

Thus works the minds of the naysayers. Donald Trump has given it a sensible name: "alternative truth". Myself, I will engage in alternative matters too: walking my dog.

[Abby Normal]

True - it does not add up. At all. But that is a pill coated with so much bitterness that it MUST be rejected. It does not matter that I keep saying that the timings may be off - what is wanted from me is not to point to the discrepancy at all! Since it can be wrong, we should not take into account then possibility that it is right. That things are what they are claimed to be, sort of. We are supposed to treat the information as if it never existed, on account of how it MAY perhaps be wrong.
Same thing with Paul - he said exactly 3.45, he may have been wrong - but what is required from me is to regard it as a fact that he WAS wrong. The idea that he was right has - or so I am told by Dr Strange - been "debunked". Whenever that happened, I'm at a loss to say. Then again, Trevor Marriott has told me more than once that the whole Lechmere theory has been debunked, and IŽll be damned if I can find when that went down!

Thus works the minds of the naysayers. Donald Trump has given it a sensible name: "alternative truth". Myself, I will engage in alternative matters too: walking my dog.

well, to me if its written record that paul said he entered the street at exactly 3:45, (saying exactly sounds pretty sure of himself to me)and another source that corroborates that where he says he left home shortly before--- then its up to those disputing it to disprove it somehow, or theyre just flatly going against the evidence for no good reason. and given the evidence we have I don't see how one could possibly disprove he lied or was wrong.

[Elamarna]

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.

It can do, it does not mean it does.

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.

Dusty , suggested 50 yards based on a newspaper report. That is only a little more than he claimed to see the moving figure of Paul, it is not a problem.

But again you avoid the issue,
We are talking of different shadows, that directly infront of tge Board school, as opposed to a single story at most wooden gate.
And at a different distance, The Board School being another 40 yards further on.

You really do struggle on these matters


Steve

[Elamarna]

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.

And that time is directly contradicted by 3 police officers.


Steve

[Patrick S]

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 LechmereŽs guilt.

It's quite simple to "provide" innocent explanations for behavior that appears, and most likely is, innocent. Unlike your "explanations" these don't require invented motives, the assumption of psychopathy and narcissism, Mizen Scams, and the coincidental involvement of anti-police, "big-upping" dupes.

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.

Alas, your man was found neither with a "smoking gun", or in our case, a bloody knife, nor standing over a (murdered) person. Though that's what we are told in the documentary, we know that it's just another aspect of it we're instructed to ignore. Colloquialisms, and all.

What you HAVE is man standing some distance away from a person who alerts the very first person he sees, goes to find a PC, and voluntarily appears at the inquest. Those are facts, as best as we can tell from the records, whether he killed Nichols or not. THOSE facts require NO "alternative" explanations to make them seem innocent. They do, however, require assumption and make believe to make them seem damning.

It's simple, really. If one accepts the aspects of your theory that you have invented, then one accepts Lechmere as a possible Ripper. And, isn't that true of all these "Ripper Suspects"? If one believes your Mizen Scam, that the anti-police Paul, harboring delusions of grandeur, became Lechmere's unwitting dupe, that a man who repeatedly submitted himself to, as you say, "authority", passing up every opportunity to remain anonymous..... Then they're in the "It was Lechmere what done it" camp. And good for you.

Still... it must be at least somewhat frustrating that virtually no one who has spent years studying these crimes are in that particular camp, Save Ed "Stow" and yourself. Alas, you are getting the Blink Films fans who come to it knowing little and leave believing Lechmere was the Ripper.

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

Pointers to guilt... all dreamed up. By yourself and Ed "Stow". This began with the name business. And it's not advanced beyond that. He gave a "false name"... only it wasn't false, was it? But.. beyond that, you've produced nothing that you haven't, frankly, made up.

Thanks for the advice.

Ah, yes. I'm the "blusterer". Usually, after a few days away, you have better arguments than this. The fact that this time around you don't, indicates that you're on shaky ground. Again.

[Elamarna]

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

You can't have it both ways.

You said I sounded grandiose, that is to imply.
However in a later post you change it to a Mr know it all.
That is more than implying.

You may see your self as a victim, I doubt anyone else does.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

And that time is directly contradicted by 3 police officers.


Steve

thanks El
how? were they following him with a watch?

[Elamarna]

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.

And again you are disingenuous.
No one claims you give it as fact, only that you suggest such in your theory and posts.
As you do again in this post.


Steve

[Elamarna]

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.

The suggestion that your opinion settles something is just a tad arrogant.


Who am I?

I am the person who speaks English as a first Language, and you are.....?

I remember, the person who does not know the difference between "inability" and "disability"

To suggest that you are not implying, is funny.
You are either implying I was grandiose or you are saying I am.

The days of these semantic games are done, a pity you do not realise it.


Steve

[Elamarna]

thanks El
how? were they following him with a watch?

No Neil says he finds the body at 3.45.
Thain says he see Neil at 3.45.

And maybe more importantly Mizen says he meets Lech and Paul at 3.45.

Can't all be right.

And I doubt ANY of them are spot on at 3.45 GMT.

steve

[Abby Normal]

No Neil says he finds the body at 3.45.
Thain says he see Neil at 3.45.

And maybe more importantly Mizen says he meets Lech and Paul at 3.45.

Can't all be right.

And I doubt ANY of them are spot on at 3.45 GMT.

steve

thanks el.

"No Neil says he finds the body at 3.45.

Thain says he see Neil at 3.45."

well they contradict each other-so theres an issue right there with their accuracy.

"And maybe more importantly Mizen says he meets Lech and Paul at 3.45."
does he say exactly 3:45 like Paul did?
also, if im not mistaken, you lean toward mizen being mistaken about what him and lech said about being wanted by another cop in bucks row, no?
but now you seem to take him as being more accurate in this case on time?

look, we have the person himself, who was the one who actually walked into bucks row, saying it was exactly 3:45. and apparently that's backed up by him corroborating that he left his house shortly before 3:45. when witnesses seem sure of themselves (like long in goulston street about the apron/GSG) theres usually a reason for it.
Paul was the one who was commenting on himself, what he was doing and when it was, and he apparently had no doubt, cooroberates himself, and also marks it with something that just happened moments before(leaving home).

"And I doubt ANY of them are spot on at 3.45 GMT."

agree with you there, but IMHO paul has the greater claim to accuracy here.

[FrankO]

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.

An honest question, Christer. In post #243 you wrote this: "

I keep saying that Lechmere will have heard Paul from 130 yards away." I think that Steve was pointing at this remark when he wrote what he wrote and I can't blame him for thinking that your position - even from before post #243 and onwards - was that Lechmere the killer heard Paul entering Buck's Row. So, what did you mean by "I keep saying that Lechmere will have heard Paul from 130 yards away." if you didn't intend it to mean that Lechmere heard Paul when he entered Buck's Row?

All the best,
Frank

[rjpalmer]

Donald Trump has given it a sensible name: "alternative truth".

It wasn't Trump. It was his legal advisor, Kellyanne Conway, and the phrase was "alternative facts."

I think the general facts here are agreed upon; it is the interpretation of those facts that is in dispute.

[Busy Beaver]

"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?"

I didn't say Jack ran- I said he casually walked away. Killers do kill for different reasons and do have different sets of moral values- if they all had the same issues, they would all be caught. Radar got caught, Jack did NOT. Different way of life, different generation, different way of thinking and committing murder.