Window of Time for Nichols murder

[drstrange169]

>>But this is not the case, and it never was. It does not matter much whether Lechmere was found by Paul at 3.40, 3.43 or 3.46 - he is nevertheless a person who has been found alone with the victim in close proximity the point of death and therefore a person if interest in this respect. The known facts of the case are in line with the suggestion of Lechmere being the killer. End of story.<<

Gee, watch out Christer, all this back peddling, you might run into something!

If you think it's not important, why did you invent such a stupid story and spend so much time here and on TV promoting it?

[drstrange169]

>>So suggesting that either set of facts can make or break the theory is false<<

Nobody has suggested these to stories, they definitely aren't facts, make or break the theory that Lechmere was the killer.

Yet again, you've just made something up. If I'm wrong show us the posts where anybody said it.

[Fisherman]

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.

There is and can be no better argument, Patrick: All the arguments put forward from your side are shaped along the exact same line: Yes, Lechmere was there, yes Lechmere offered a timing that is not in line with the facts, yes, he disagreed with Mizen and according to Mizen he did so in a way that is shaped perfectly to take him past the police, yes he would reasonably have passed through then killing fields en route to work, yes, he would have done so at removes in time that are roughly consistent with being the killer, yes, he did not say that he heard Paul before he was 30, 40 yards away, yes Paul said nothing about noticing Lechmere movie in the street and so on and so on - but these things MAY all have an innocent explanation. Or two. Or five. Or thirty.

A man is found standing over a dead body out in a street. He holds a smoking 22 caliber gun in his hand, warm and recently fired. He is alone in the street as a police turns the corner, the gun still smoking and the man on the ground bleeding profusely, his blood being pumped out onto the ground. It is subsequently found that the man on the ground was the lover of the wife of the man with the gun in his hand. It is also revealed that the man with the gun had threatened to shoot the lover of his wife.

Alternative innocent explanations:

Somebody else did it and put the gun in the hands of the accused man, who was too shocked to do anything about it. The killer had just enough time to flee before the police turned the corner. Many men have experienced that somebody has had an affair with their wives, that does not turn them into killers. Many men threaten to do things, but they rarely act upon it.

In your world, that is how a case is debunked.

In the real world, that is how a killer is caught and tried and jailed. There is not a jury in the world who would NOT convict on those implications, and rightly so. And it MAY nevertheless be - there is a theoretical possibility for it - that the man with the gun is innocent.

This is what you are up to. Alternative innocent explanations. And the rather senseless suggestion that there is nothing pointing to Lechmere. No, if you substitute the fact that Lechmere and Mizen disagreed in a VERY suspicious manner with an assertion that this MUST not have meant anything sinister, then there is not a case to answer. But before that case IS answered, we cannot do that.

Alternative innocent explanations are not a tool that can in any way absolve the carman. As long as there is no absolute proof that he was the killer there WILL be possible alternative innocent explanations. Absolute proof is the exact opposite: an example of where only the guilty explanation can be true. As long as no such proof exists, all we can do is to accept that men with smoking guns in their hands, standing over dead people with bullet holes in them just may be killers.

That is not a bad argument, you know. It is the exact opposite. It is claiming that they may theoretically be innocent that is a bad argument.

[drstrange169]

Your avoidance and lack of honesty with us is becoming very embarrassing.

[Fisherman]

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

I have already answered this and told you that it was my final answer.

[Fisherman]

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

Personally, I find it very important to tell facts from suggestions. If you disagree, THEN we are talking disingenuous.

[Fisherman]

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

I would be the first to celebrate that day if it ever comes along. Since you will go down in flames that very same day, I find less reason on your part to do so.

[Fisherman]

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

I never had you down as anything as honest, frank, so no probs. What I am saying is that I think it is reasonable to accept that Lechmere will have heard Paul from 130 yards away if he was kneeling by the side of Nichols - as he entered the street, that is. But of course I cannot prove it as such, and I cannot exclude that Lechmere may have been in a bubble (we've been here before, I know) as he cut into Nichols, perhaps delaying his noticing Paul. Heart pounding and all that.

What I am definitely saying is that if he was the killer, then he took a very conscious decision to stay put, since he took care of a lot of things before Paul arrived within sight - the hiding of the wounds, the stashing of the knife, the movie away from the victim. In my world, he never really considered flight all that much, if at all.

Does that make sense? Or do you want to nail me to the mast as having said that Lechmere MUST have heard Paul from an exact given distance?

[Fisherman]

"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.

So casually walking away is something a serial killer of the US would not do? Is that it? I fond your reasoning very hard to follow, I'm afraid. As an aside, I don't think that Rader getting caught is an example of anything else than the police work being more efficient today and more helped along technically, plus we have a better understanding of serial killers overall. The men who caught Rader, for example, were acutely aware of how serial killers have narcissistic traits in many cases, something that the victorian police and the bulk of this out on this thread seem not to have incorporated into their knowledge.
That, however, does not mean that victorian serial killers and modern dittos are in any way materially different in their driving forces and actions.

[Fisherman]

Abby you say when witness are sure if themselves there is usually a reason for it, (paraphrase) I can assure you that as often as not they are wrong. No idea how many Cross examinations I’ve done in my life, must be thousands, I guess at least 50-75% if those are are sure about something and most of the time another witness is just as sure the opposite way, both can’t be right.

But there is no such controversy here - nobody says the PC:s were sure of the 3.45 timings. Only Paul said he was sure. That is not to say that he must have been correct anyways, only that there is no "direct contradiction", as Steve would have it.

[Fisherman]

Based on the clear discrepancies with timings, is there a scenario which could implicate BOTH Lechmere/Cross AND Paul?

If even the basic premise if Nichols being a JTR victim in the first place, then it's not beyond the realms of possibility that BOTH men were responsible for the demise of Nichols.

This would mean they worked together and upon exiting the crime scene, they inadvertently bumped into Mizen

My point is that after all this time passing, virtually any scenario is possible because it can't be disproved.


Probability and circumstance are the only real tools we now have as investigators and enthusiasts.


TRD

Ask yourself whether the two men would approach Mizen if they were combined killers. Personally, I don't think so.

[Fisherman]

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

But, I can't find any reference to anybody says 150 feet either.


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

But, it seems to be only you mentioning these distances.

Once again, where is your information that people have said this?

As I said, I did not check it in detail, I only know that you gave a number based on cutting information away from the material you used, and that the result was ridiculous. Accordingly, no-one has latched onto it.

[Fisherman]

>>Dusty claimed that Lechmere saw her from a very long distance away. <<

Once again, I don't claim anything, I'm only repeating the inquest testimony, you know the evidence available.


>>if he could do that, then why would the shadows conceal a fleeing killer?<<

If Xmere was the killer, why didn't Paul see him with the body? Because, according to you, he moved away before Paul noticed him.

You seem to grasp that concept when it suits you, but have difficulty understand the very same concept when it doesn't suit you.

I am not the none having problems with believing people seeing in total darkness, you are. I think it is perfectly possible that Lechmere backed away unseen. But YOU say that Lechmere could see the body from afar in your Ripperologist article, but you also want the killer to have been able to flee in total darkness.

That is where the contradiction lies.

[Fisherman]

>>... 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.<<

Hello Abby,

Christer's little story is deader in the water than William Holden's character in Sunset Boulevard.

Since Christer runs away every time I ask this, perhaps you can answer this simple question?

How do you know Lexchmere's leaving time was in sync with Paul's 3:45 time? The internet, the radio, the TV, the talking clock?

C'mon, let's get serious about the subject. Christer's story belongs with the hidden clues in Van Gogh's pictures and the ripper anagrams in Lewis Carrol's books.

If you can't sync the two then how can you possibly claim there is a time gap? It's nonsense of the first order to compare two totally unrelated things and claim a comparison.

Nice try, but I have never run away from any single question at all. And I have never claimed that any of the times are proven to have been in sync.

What I DO say - and will keep saying - is that the information Paul and Lechmere gave points to how the latter should not have been in Bucks Row when he was.

Can the timings be wrong? Yes.

Should we work from the assumption that they MUST be wrong? No.

Are they the timings given and as such of vital interest to the case? Yes.

Are you misleading about my running from questions? Always.

[Fisherman]

We've been through all this before, but lets go again.

Robert Paul gave an interview to Lloyd's Newspaper, in it he said,

"It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row"

Christer has cherry-picked this one sentence out of the context. Let's look at it back in context. Paul tells us,

"I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw."

He claims he went alone to Mizen, is this true?

He then says,

"... I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come,"

Is this true?

"I had told him the woman was dead."

Is this true?

Then,

"... she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her".

Is this true?

So what we have is an interview full of inaccurate bravado and this is what Christer chooses to cherry-pick from.


As already stated, without sync the Paul's time is meaningless, but let's check it out anyway because even that doesn't add up.

At 3:45 Paul should have seen Thain walking up Brady Street, so Thain must have been wrong.

At 3:45 Paul should have seen Neil examining the body, so Neil must have been wrong.

Mizen said he saw the two men at 3:45, so he must have been wrong.

Remember these three policemen had to walk at a regulation pace. They were spied on by sergeants, to check they were keeping to time, in fact Sgt. Kirby had just checked on Neil.

It was their job to keep an eye on the time. In 1888 Edward Rodgers even wrote a hugely popular music hall song, "If you want to know the time ask a policeman".

Mathematically Lechmere could not get to Broad Street by 4 o'clock.

At the inquest, once times have been established by four more reliable witnesses, Paul mentions nothing about exact times, instead,

"He left home about a quarter to 4" or "...just before a quarter to four".
(My emphasis)

So, how did Paul not know the exact time he left home yet knew the exact time he entered Buck's Row? Because he made it up just like the rest of his Lloyd's interview.

Every way you look at it, Christer claim falls badly apart. There is nothing to recommend it.

Well, if a music hall song claimed that the police knew the time, then surely you must be correct in stating that Paul must have been wrong. There's absolutely no possibility that the PC:s all spoke of a time a few minutes removed from 3.45 after possibly having heard a clock strike the quarter hour. And of course, if there WAS such a clock, there is absolutely no possibility that it was off.

You would dearly like to be able to dismiss Pauls timing given in the press and reinforced at the inquest, just as you would dearly love to dismiss Swansons report, opting for Paul being on the money. After having considered the case, he altered the earlier suggestion. Plus if it was 3.40, then Thain must have crawled to Llewellyn.

To me, the are important case facts.

To you, they are important case facts that don't suit you, so you choose to dismiss them and then tell me that I am cherrypicking.

They will not go away, you know. And, more importantly, they do not make Lechmere a less credible killer regardless which time applies. It takes a lot more cherrypicking (Mizen must be the liar, Lechmere probably walked other streets on the murder mornings, he probably called himself Cross at work and so on) but you don't mind that, do you?