Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Fisherman]

>>Pauls exact timing, by the way, is from his paper interview.<<

A newspaper interview with more holes than there are in "Blackburn, Lancashire". Which kinda says it all.

And with an exact timing given. Which strengthens the case for Paul having arrived at this time. It also jibes with his inquest statement in this respect. Plus the last police report we know of has the timing 3.45. Plus that late timing sits a whole lot better with the time it took Thain to fetch Llewellyn.

That should not cover the holes in your argument, though, they are too big for that. The case involves a lot of timings and specific information. Some of it we like, some of it we may like less. That´s how it goes, inevitably.

[Fisherman]

Why was Nichols the only victim to have her injuries deliberately concealed?


This is a crucial element which speaks volumes

It's not just the injuries and mutilation which count, it's the fact that they were CONCEALED.

To really understand this case, you need to be able to try and understand how a man like that JTR thinks... and based on his other killings, he wanted to make a statement and show off his work.

The fact that he had to conceal Nichols wounds would indicate that he was interrupted BUT NOT RUSHED!

If he hadn't of been interrupted, then he would have 'displayed' Nichols more extravagantly.

A killers M.O. CAN and DOES change over time as they go down their murderous path, but how a killer displays their work to the world is a ritualistic and repetitive process i.e. A killer may use a knife to kill and then progress to a gun or chainsaw BUT a killer will stick to their choice of how they present their work i.e. drown in bath, bury in fields, bind with rope etc...

Nichols lack of 'display' completely contradicts the way JTR completed his work. He would NOT have hidden Nichol's injuries if he had completed his job and moved off into the shadows. Covering her wounds would have been a counter measure against being caught.

JTR wasn't RUSHED with Nichols like he was during his attack on Stride (if she was indeed a JTR victim) BUT HE WOULD appear to have been interrupted during the mutilation process and had to REACT to being caught.

If it WASN'T Lechmere, then Lechmere may have been the person who disturbed the real JTR

Stride's murder is somewhat different because her lack of any mutilation indicates the killer was interrupted BUT had to quickly FLEE the scene

But with Nichols, the wounds inflicted meant he had TIME to express himself BUT covering up his work would NOT have been his CHOICE!


He had time to mutilate BUT then conceal her injuries.
If he was RUSHED like with Stride, he would have RUN and...

LEFT HER INJURIES OPEN FOR ALL TO SEE

He had TIME to CONCEAL her injuries BUT it was NOT his CHOICE to do so because it doesn't fit with criminal psychological profile compared to his other victims.


Being interrupted is NOT THE SAME as being rushed.


Lechmere fits with this theory of the killer having enough time to quickly conceal his work (which he would of otherwise displayed) but not enough time to either run and leave her exposed (ironically) or not to mutilate her at all.

In a way, by covering her injuries and concealing them, it makes Lechmere more likely to have committed the crime.

Besides...he couldn't run and leave her exposed if he still had the knife.

Conceal the wounds...conceal the knife...conceal the crime...


Thoughts and theories please?


As an aside; for me, if it wasn't Lechmere, then it was BURY or HARDIMAN

I normally just say that if we accept the C5 as the Rippers only victims (which I don´t, but for argument´s sake...), then Lechmere, who just happened to have his timings wrong, who just happened to use the name Cross instead of Lechmere, who just happened to have a PC disagree with himself over what was said on the murder morning, who just happened to have a working trek that was roughly consistent or very consistent with being at the murder sites at the correct times, who just happened to have reason to visit St Georges, who just happened to have reason to be familiar with Mitre Square and who just happened to be found stading alone in the street nearby a murdered Ripper victim one cold August morning in 1888, also just happened to be present at the one murder site where the victim just happened to have had her wounds hidden from sight.

It just so happens that this, taken together, makes for a very good case of guilt. A case, that it just so happens, a QC tells me would make it to court.

Anyone is welcome to say "I don´t think it was Lechmere". Fine. But saying that he is not a good suspect is absolute bonkers in my humble view.

[Fisherman]

No way Lechmere will carry the Knife that he already killed Nichols with and go stopping people and looking for policemen.. this is not a theory, this is fictions.. fairy tails and no more.

Get rid of the knife and you have a case.


The Baron

Look at the boards. I already have one. Perhaps not in your eyes, but there are more eyes out here, Baron! We all have our ideas and convictions, but I would propose that you look at other serial killers. Do they all throw away their murder weapons once they´ve killed?

[Fisherman]

Just a query. As Paul and Lechmere left Nichols body in search of a Constable (and with a guilty Lechmere ‘’possibly’’ with blood on him and definately carrying a knife) why instead of hoping to scam his way past a Constable with Paul with him didn’t Lechmere say to Paul ““to increase our chances of finding a Constable you go that way and I’ll go this way.”” Lechmere would then simply avoid a Constable if he saw one. If questioned later he just says ““I never saw one.””

One possible explanation could be that Lechmere wanted to stay in control throughout. Tagging along with Paul ensured that he did, and as we can see, it seems that he and he alone was the one who decided how to inform Mizen. The objective behind most serial murder is to gain maximum control over the victims, and these kind of creatures are - generally speaking - control freaks.
We can always suggest lines of behaviour that we think are more logical than the chosen line, but hey - we would start out by saying that we really should not go around killing other people...

Try as hard as you can NOT to think up "better" lines of behaviour, and make an effort to look on the carman as a psychopathic narcissist, killing with no remorse and no fear at all, wanting the world to see and recognize him. Whoever the killer was, he was not easily scared and alien to risktaking, Herlock.

[drstrange169]

>> ... what we really need to do is to conduct an honest discussion, not the kind of senseless accusations you spend your time dreaming up.<<

Pot, kettle, blacker than Mary Kelly's.