Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Fisherman]

So when Neil says at 3.45 he is not exact?

I see nothing to downgrade his timing there is no about or around included.

Steve

Neil does not add any information to his timing, and so we cannot say whether he gave that timing as an approximation or as an exact timing. If it was an exact timing, he should have said so if he wanted that to be taken down as a fact.

Paul DID qualify HIS thing by saying that it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he passed down Bucks Row. And nobody who has not checked the time before would be anywhere near likely to say such a thing, which means that we must treat his timing with more than a shrug of the shoulders, in my view at least.

This is the difference inbetween Pauls and Neils given timings. One says "exactly" while the other does not.

It does not mean that either man is correct per se, but Paul lays more of a claim to be on the money than Neil does.

[Fisherman]

And that means I cannot/may not counter it, because you say so?
Really?

That's not how it works.

Steve

Counter away, Steve, nobody is stopping you. All I am saying is that my answer is final, as anybody reading it will know. After that, you can pile up as many posts you wish to, claiming black to be white. It is your prerogative, just as it is my prerogative to point out that I consider it useless to add more information on my part, since I considered the issue settled.

[Fisherman]

>>Actually, I am more embarrassed to share an Internet forum with you, seeing your level of insights. But I am willing to stick it out. And when it comes to honesty, I have many, many names that I am more likely to turn to than you. No offense.<<


Since I've listed the times you've been less than honest with us, can you name any instances where I've been dishonest?

No offense taken.

Yes, the second you claimed me to be dishonest, you were dishonest.

I am and have always been honest. I am less certain about you, to put it mildly.

By the way, you have had an answer to your flawed suggestion that I have not any answers to your questions on the Mizen thread. You must forgive me for not answering you immediately, and I think you do - it gives you the opportunity to claim that I have no answers. Up to, that is, the moment that all changes. As always.

[Fisherman]

Ok, I've got it clear again then, Christer. Because of your remark in post #243 I thought you no longer found the "bubble" scenario very credible, especially since you wrote "I keep saying…", but it turns out that your stance has remained the same: you leave all options open. No problem there.

How could I NOT leave all options open? Why would I opt for one option only when I have no way to rule others out? It is not how I work, Frank.


Well, of course, if Lechmere wasn’t the killer, then the actual killer will have stashed the knife and moved away from the body, too. So, the only thing that remains is that the abdominal wounds were covered. But even the actual killer may have done that if he heard Lechmere just before entering Buck’s Row. Just to stall a bit. I see no reason why he couldn’t have wanted that, knowing that Lechmere would arrive at the crime scene within a minute or so.

In no other murder did the killer do any hiding of the wounds, he instead left the victims on display. Doing it in the Nichols case would therefore be an anomaly. Lechmere was adamant that not a soul was in the street - why would the killer hear Lechmere, while Lechmere didn't hear the killer? Why would the killer linger long enough for Lechmere to draw closer? How much stalling could he bank on, when there was a very large chance that the blood would have run out all over the street? Did he arrange the clothing so as to soak the blood up? I find the suggestion a bad one, I'm afraid.

I have no wish whatsoever to nail you to the mast as having said that Lechmere MUST have heard Paul from an exact given distance. It just seemed to me that you changed your preferred view on this subject. Whether it makes sense or not is another matter. I know that it does to you and why (because narcistic psychopaths can behave like that). I - as you know - just don’t concur with your view that Lechmere never would have considered getting away from the scene, especially not if he heard him entering Buck’s Row from Brady Street. But I also know that we are never going to see eye to eye on this, but I’m as fine with that as you are.

All the best,
Frank

That's good to hear, Frank. Because I am not changing my mind any time soon...

[drstrange169]

>>Actually, I am more embarrassed to share an Internet forum with you, seeing your level of insights. But I am willing to stick it out. And when it comes to honesty, I have many, many names that I am more likely to turn to than you. No offense.<<


Since I've listed the times you've been less than honest with us, can you name any instances where I've been dishonest?

No offense taken.

[drstrange169]

>>I did not invent the timings, the participants of the drama did. There's stupid for you.<<

You invented the sync, You ignored the other timings that cast tremendous doubt, I would say there's stupid for you, but I now think it was deliberately contrived to deceive.

[drstrange169]

>>Debunked does. not mean challenged in vain, you know. Debunked means dismissed factually.<<

Correct!

There is not one fact that says Cross and Paul's time estimates where based on the same source.

Ergo, no sync, no fact.

[drstrange169]

>> You would dearly like to be able to dismiss Pauls timing given in the press and reinforced at the inquest...<<

You mean like this one?

"He left home about a quarter to 4"

If he knew he entered Buck's Row at exactly a quarter to four why is he saying he might have been at home at that time? Under oath and with a penalty of perjury where does he state an exact time for entering Buck's Row?



>>just as you would dearly love to dismiss Swansons report ...<<

The October reports with indisputable time errors?



>>Plus if it was 3.40, then Thain must have crawled to Llewellyn.<<

Thain said 3:45 not 3:40. Didn't you know that?




>> ... and then tell me that I am cherrypicking.<<

So you are not cherry picking? You believe everything Paul said in the article?

You believe Mizen was incompetent when he said he saw the two men at 3:45, but you believe he was a model policeman when he misheard Cross? Every time you mount a defense, your on ill logic traps you.



>>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?<<

Since there is no evidence that Xmere walked any other streets how it, by any definition, be cherry-picking? You can't cherry pick information that doesn't exist!

[drstrange169]

>>I have never claimed that any of the times are proven to have been in sync.<<

I don't know, because to date you've run away from answering it. You will not answer a straight question.

But, if you are now admitting there is no proof that they are in sync and there is no evidence that they should be, why are you continually claiming there is a time discrepancy in Cross story but not in Paul's, as a fact?

>>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.<<

Yes, a quote cheery picked from an article that you have admitted contains numerous errors and is unreliable. Against Cross's timings which agree with all three witness testimonies under oath and Paul's statements which changed once he had to swear under oath.

What you never mention is that Paul couldn't have entered Buck's Row at the time he claimed if ALL the other witnesses were right.

And there's the deliberate bias and distortion you are openly promoting.



>>Can the timings be wrong? Yes.<<

Given we are talking Victorian Britain, it is not a question of can, but, it is almost certain that timings are not synced or are "exactly" accurate.



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

Should we work from the assumption that Paul's Lloyd's article is deeply suspicious? Yes.



>>Are you misleading about my running from questions? Always.<<

Unlike you, there is no question I run away from.

[drstrange169]

>>Nice try, but I have never run away from any single question at all.<<

Really?

"The old myth of me "avoiding questions" again, I see! Go ahead, list them, one by one and I will answer them all. It is as rotten a lie today as it was the last time you tried it, so let's quash it once and for all. I am waiting! And DON´T tell me that you have already posted the questions - do it again, and do it now. No yellowbelly hiding, please. Put up or shut up. My money is on you failing to produce any question at all, since you know quite well that I can answer them all."

PC Jonas Mizen thread 04-15-2019, 02:09 AM.Post #143

My reply,

04-16-2019, 05:25 PM


>>The old myth of me "avoiding questions" again, I see! Go ahead, list them, one by one and I will answer them all. It is as rotten a lie today as it was the last time you tried it, so let's quash it once and for all.<<

First off you need to take some time out and relax, you are getting upset and when you get upset you tend to get personal, which is not constructive to anyone.

It's nobody's fault, but yours that you've avoided the questions. Of course, you are under no obligation to answer them, but people will rightly or wrongly draw conclusions about your avoidance.


>>I am waiting! And DON´T tell me that you have already posted the questions - do it again, and do it now. No yellowbelly hiding, please. Put up or shut up. <<

This thread is only 4 pages long and the relevant subject matter is only in the last two pages. It doesn't say much for your attitude to research, that you require me to find them for you, still, hang on...

... it took me 35 secs.

Post #82:
"Simple test, prove, to me, according to Xmere's time source, that there was a long delay in him reaching Buck's Row.
Prove to me that Paul was correct in saying it was exactly 3:45 when he entered Bucks Row and that the three policemen were wrong."

Post #83: "Above all, prove to me that Xmere and Paul's times were in sync. Without that your story is meaningless."

I asked again, in post #101.

I notice you cut and pasted my posts in your responses, so you can't claim not to have seen them and yet no answers to those specific questions.
have plenty more if you are finally in the mood for answering.

If you could avoid digressing as you normal do in your answers it would be helpful.


>>My money is on you failing to produce any question at all, since you know quite well that I can answer them all.<<

Don't take up gambling, you've racked up over $10,000 in virtual debt in your last two posts to me already."



15 days and still waiting!

[drstrange169]

Argh! Pictures didn't work ... second attempt.

[drstrange169]

>> I am not the none having problems with believing people seeing in total darkness, you are. <<

So you are now saying Buck's Row was in total darkness? Or is this another "those" 150 yard/feet claims?



>>I think it is perfectly possible that Lechmere backed away unseen.<<

Good, then why do you have a problemunderstanding the notion of a killer "backing away unseen" from Xmere, before Xmere stopped to look?


>>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.<<



Just to be clear, youre claiming the Board School and Brown's gateway would cast the same shadows? Really?



>>That is where the contradiction lies.<<

Only in your mind.

[drstrange169]

Re your claim,

"There are those who have claimed that Lechmere was 150 yards from the body as he saw it..." Post 383

You've been asked twicewho were the "those" you were referring to. Instead of answering you said you made a mistake that the "those" in fact claimed 150 feet not yards, but you still didn't say who "those" were.

When asked again, you still avoided answering the question. Instead posting this non-sequitur.


>>As I said, I did not check it in detail ...<<

Are we to understand you made up the "those"? Or are you falsely claiming I said 150 feet/yards?

Could you actually answer the question, so we know the quality of what you are putting in your posts?


>>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.<<

Just so I understand, you invented a set of ridiculous figuresout of nowhere and now you are complaining about people who you think might do that sort of thing?

Good work Christer!

Now straight answer please, who are the those you keep referring to and where did they make this claim?

[Elamarna]

hi strange

I have no idea what your talking about. Paul said he entered bucks row at 3:45 and lech was standing near the body. lech said he left home at 3:20 or 3:30 either way hes in bucks row for some time before Paul arrives. the question is-how long was he in bucks row? seems to me he was there longer than his story of finding the body would allow. and easily long enough to be pollys killer.

as for the lech being Pollys killer and or the ripper theory, and comparing it to crackpot theories like Van Gogh-its patently ridiculous comparison. Lech is exactly the type of person we should be looking at.

Abby

Let's go on the inquest statements, rather than going over and over the reliability of the Lloyds report.

Lechmere is reported in the main as saying "around" or "about" 3.30.

This must be seen as just that, a range.

According to the time he is using he leaves home at approx 3.30, with a range of up to 2-3 minutes each way.
That means say 3.27-3.33

Let's accept Christer 7 minutes walking.

That gives us a range of arriving in Bucks Row from 3.34-3.40.

I discount the 3.20, as this appears to be a corruption of the time he normally left.

We now come to Paul.

His inquest report says just before 3.45.

So it's all back to:

1)The accuracy of Paul's time.
Which I continue to say, dispite the views of others , is contradicted by the 3 police officers.

2) the syncronizied time of all involved.

It is possible all gave what they believed to be accurate times, but they were not syncronizied,

That is Paul's 3.45, assuming it is based on a time piece, could be the same as Lechmere's 3.40.

It is actually far more likely that the times are not syncronizied and that 3.45 for one is not 3.45 for another.

I honestly believe there is no larger gap between Paul and Lechmere than 30 or so seconds, maybe a little longer but we'll under a minute.


I have no issue with him being the type of person, local, basically invisible.
He is far, far better than many of the crackpot ideas.

I simply do not see the evidence, such as it is points towards him.


Steve

[FrankO]

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.

Ok, I've got it clear again then, Christer. Because of your remark in post #243 I thought you no longer found the "bubble" scenario very credible, especially since you wrote "I keep saying…", but it turns out that your stance has remained the same: you leave all options open. No problem there.

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.

Well, of course, if Lechmere wasn’t the killer, then the actual killer will have stashed the knife and moved away from the body, too. So, the only thing that remains is that the abdominal wounds were covered. But even the actual killer may have done that if he heard Lechmere just before entering Buck’s Row. Just to stall a bit. I see no reason why he couldn’t have wanted that, knowing that Lechmere would arrive at the crime scene within a minute or so.

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?

I have no wish whatsoever to nail you to the mast as having said that Lechmere MUST have heard Paul from an exact given distance. It just seemed to me that you changed your preferred view on this subject. Whether it makes sense or not is another matter. I know that it does to you and why (because narcistic psychopaths can behave like that). I - as you know - just don’t concur with your view that Lechmere never would have considered getting away from the scene, especially not if he heard him entering Buck’s Row from Brady Street. But I also know that we are never going to see eye to eye on this, but I’m as fine with that as you are.

All the best,
Frank