Did Baxter mean 3.40 when he said 3.45?

[Fisherman]

So here is something I find truly remarkable. It has to do with how coroner Baxter said in his summary of the Nichols inquest that he had, using many independent data, been able to fix the time at which the body was found to ”not far off 3.45”.

It must be understood that there were - and still are - two lines of thinking when it comes to the time at which Charles Lechmere found the body. I am writing ”found” although I thinbk that he killed her, he did not find her. This is becasue it was the common thought at the inquest that he was a mere finder of the body.

The first line of thinking goes with the three PCs timing. They all said that they were brought into the action at 3.45 or around 3.45. That would have meant that Lechmere would have been in place at around five or six minutes earlier. This group can be referred to as the 3.40 group, suggesting that circa 3.40 was the time at which Lechmere found the body.

The other line of thinking goes with Robert Pauls and Dr Llewellyns timings. Here, we get a 3.45 group, suggesting that 3.45 was the time at which the body was found.

When one reads thr summary of the coroner, one may feel tht the latter group - to which I firmly belong myself - is correct. A coroner saying that the time at which the body was found would not have been far off 3.45, could easily be interpreted as suggesting that 3.45 and not 3.40 weaws the time at which the body was found.

But this has not been accepted by those in the 3.40 group.

Some time back, I had a discussion with Steven Blomer, a representative of the 3.40 group, about this. He suggested tht since the coroner said that the body had been found at a time ”not far off” 3.45, the 3.40 timing could well be the coorect one. Why? Becasue, I was told, 3.40 IS n ot far off 3.45.

This perplexed me somewhat, and I asked Steven Blomer why the coroner would n ot have said 3.40 or ”not far off”3.40, if tjat was the time he thought that Lechmere found the body. I then received the answer that perhaps the coroner was in the habit of dividing the hours into fifteen. Mi njte periods, and so when he said ”nor far off 3.45”, he may have meant 3.40, but since he may have been in the habit of expressing times in fifteen minute periods, he chose the fifteen minute period closest tom 3.40, and that would have been 3.45.

That was the gist of Steven Blomers thoughts on the matter, and in order not to misrepresent him, I will quote the sentencing he used:

”Why settle on 3.45?
Possibly because people do tend, and did tend to round up or down to the nearest 15 minutes.”

Sadly, when Ibrought this up earlier today, Steven Blomer would not discuss it with me, stating that he had ”no intention of joining this repeated debate”, something he entitled to say.

But since it is a question of the utmost importance, I would be interested to hear what the rest of you think; would a coroner who had mnade an exhaustive effort, checking ”many independent data” in order to get as close as he could to a vital point in time, then say 3.45 when he actually thought 3.40?

I find the suggestion completely unrealistic myself, and there are indications that the coroner really meant 3.45:

In his October report, Swanson had the finding time at 3.45. This was after the coroners summation. In the September report from the police, signed by Swansion and Abberline, the timing had been given as 3.40.

In an article in the Daily News, in combination with the coroners summation, the paper writes that the body must have been found in between 3.15 (Neils earlier round) and 3.45. And if the body was found at 3.40 by Lechmere, then it of course applies that the murder could not have occured at 3.45 or the five minute period leading up to 3.45!

If there is any body out here who has heard of a coroner that suggested one time but meant another on account of rounding up the time to the nearest 15 minute period, I would be interested to hear about it. Of course, it can always be suggested that even if other coroners were not in that habit, perhaps Baxter was so anyway. But is it realistic?

To me, the material is very clear, and suggests that Lechmere found the body at around 3.45 - which means that his given departure time of around 3.30 from home would have put him in Bucks Row at circa 3.37, not 3.45. That, of course is why this is a very important matter.

Any productive thoughts are welcomed.

[Elamarna]

I see that despite in the other thread, "The Darkness of Bakers Row, post #423, claiming you did not mean to mispresent my comments, saying you were sorry; You repeat that "clipped" and misleading claim here.

The full statement you are refering to, which you continue to "clip" thus still giving a misleading impression should read

Why settle on 3.45?
Possibly because people do tend, and did tend to round up or down to the nearest 15 minutes
Or maybe because that's the time he had from the 3 police officers, which would place the discovery a few minutes before, that is NOT FAR OFF, 3.45."

[Fisherman]

I see that despite in the other thread, "The Darkness of Bakers Row, post #423, claiming you did not mean to mispresent my comments, saying you were sorry; You repeat that "clipped" and misleading claim here.

The full statement you are refering to, which you continue to "clip" thus still giving a misleading impression should read

Why settle on 3.45?
Possibly because people do tend, and did tend to round up or down to the nearest 15 minutes
Or maybe because that's the time he had from the 3 police officers, which would place the discovery a few minutes before, that is NOT FAR OFF, 3.45."

That is the exact thing I have been saying, though: you claim that it could have been 3.40 since it is ”not far off” 3.45, and then you say that the coroner could have been in the habit of rounding off to the closest fifteen min ute period, actually thinking that it was 3.40 but saying 3.45.

But thank you for providing the snippet above, I am quite happy with it, and I welcome any thought anybody could have on this, just as I welcome any evidence of coroners rounding off times and ending up expressing one time when they actually mean another.

[JeffHamm]

Baxter's statement about the body being found not far off 3:45 is just indicating that he acknowledges that Cross/Lechmere and Paul found the body shortly before PC Neil, who in turn found the body at 3:45. At that time, Cross/Lechmere and Paul have only made it the relatively short distance to PC Mizen, a journey that would require a few minutes. However, without having the exact details about that journey, and without having a measured time for how long the two carmen were at the crime scene, it is impossible for the coroner to state an exact time for the carmen's discovery, but he can state it was not far off the time that PC Neil found the body.

He's being non-committal to the interval between the discovery by the carmen and the discovery by the police because the testimony given does not specify a reliable time stamp for the carmen's discovery (all the carmen's stated times are in the more vague "about or around x o'clock" type phrasing), but he is confident in the time as given by the police.

So in his statement he's just indicating the police found the body at 3:45, and the carmen had come across it not long before that; he's not stating 3:45 but meaning another, he is stating an unknown exact time relative to a known one.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Baxter's statement about the body being found not far off 3:45 is just indicating that he acknowledges that Cross/Lechmere and Paul found the body shortly before PC Neil, who in turn found the body at 3:45. At that time, Cross/Lechmere and Paul have only made it the relatively short distance to PC Mizen, a journey that would require a few minutes. However, without having the exact details about that journey, and without having a measured time for how long the two carmen were at the crime scene, it is impossible for the coroner to state an exact time for the carmen's discovery, but he can state it was not far off the time that PC Neil found the body.

He's being non-committal to the interval between the discovery by the carmen and the discovery by the police because the testimony given does not specify a reliable time stamp for the carmen's discovery (all the carmen's stated times are in the more vague "about or around x o'clock" type phrasing), but he is confident in the time as given by the police.

So in his statement he's just indicating the police found the body at 3:45, and the carmen had come across it not long before that; he's not stating 3:45 but meaning another, he is stating an unknown exact time relative to a known one.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff!

I disagree on every point, I'm afraid. Let me tell you why!

You begin by claiming that it was impossible for the coroner to state an exact time for the carmens discovery, leading on that he chose instead to speak about PC Neils discovery, presumably because he felt he COULD state an exact time for that event?

First: Baxter never did state an exact time, he said that the time at which the body was found could not have been far off 3.45. So if he felt that he could be precise about Neils finding, he failed to express that in his summary.

Likewise, if he chose to express himself not in exact terms, then he would not have felt that he could not use the carmans time of finding the body - therefore, the problem you identify does not exist.

Having said this, I think it is vital to recognize what the inquest was about and which task the coroner set for himself. Was it to establish at what time the body was found or was it about finding out what had happened to Nichols, and when it happened? I think we both know the answer to that question: the aim was to find out when Nichols was killed, not when she was found. As it happens, the finding of the body could offer clues to when she was killed, that she was found very close in time to her death - but not by PC Neil.

To understand this a little better, let us take a look at some smallish parts of the summary:

"The deceased was first discovered by a carman on his way to work, who passed down Buck's row on the opposite side of the road."

Here, we are informed that Baxter is no longer working under the misapprehension that Neil found the body, he is quite aware that the finder of the body was Charles Lechmere. But let's put the above sentence into context, because it allows us to see who Baxter spoke about as the finder when he suggested 3.45 as the finding time:

"The deceased was first discovered by a carman on his way to work, who passed down Buck's row on the opposite side of the road. Immediately after he had ascertained that the dark object in the gateway was the figure of a woman, he heard footsteps approaching. This proved to be Paul, another carman. Together they went to the woman. The condition of her clothing suggested to them that she had been outraged and had fainted. Neither appear to have realised the real condition of the woman, and no injuries were noticed by them; but this, no doubt, is accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data"

There we are - Baxter always speaks of how Lechmere found the body, adding detail to detail in an unbroken chain before he ends up by saying that the finding he describes can be fixed at 3.45. It is therefore definitely Lechmeres finding he speaks of, not Neils.
He would have had to add that he was shifting topic, if he suddenly started speaking of Neils finding after having detailed how Lechmere found the body, point by point.

The above quotation is from the Morning Advertiser, but it needs to be pointed out that no paper indicated in any way that Baxter would have been talking about Neils finding of the body, the sequence of events is that the claim about the fixed time of 3.45 comes after Baxter having spoken extensively about how Lechmere found the body.

We need now to turn to how the Times related the finding of the body, because that provides us with a further opportunity to realize that Baxter always spoke of Lechmere as the 3.45 finder, never of Neil.

"The deceased was first discovered by a carman on his way to work, who passed down Buck's-row, on the opposite side of the road. Immediately after he had ascertained that the dark object in the gateway was the figure of a woman he heard the approaching footsteps of a man. This proved to be Paul, another carman. Together they went to the woman. The condition of her clothing suggested to them that she had been outraged and had fainted. She was only just dead, if life were really extinct. Paul says he felt a slight movement of her breast, and thought she was breathing. Neither of the carmen appeared to have realized the condition of the woman, and no injuries were noticed by them; but that, no doubt, was accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data."

Nota bene that the times do not mention Baxters fixed timing of 3.45. It is one of the things that was left out in this paper, but thanks to the other reports, we know when it was uttered, and I have added it to the Times report, in red, making it easy for us to see the context as a whole.

What is of the essence to note in the Times version, is that Baxter points out that Nichols could not possibly have been long dead as Lechmere - not Neil - found her. Paul was able to say that she was still breathing, and so death may not even have occurred at that stage. The murder must realistically have taken place very close in time to the examination made by Paul.
This is where we can see what the coroner was interested in: When Nichols died, when the murder took place. And the finding time offered a clue to it, but ONLY if the finding time was that of Lechmere. When Neil saw the body, Nichols would have been clinically dead, and that finding would not offer the same kind of valuable clue to the murder time.

So this is where I think you are completely wrong, and how I think that point is proven by the papers. But we must also move on to a snippet from the Daily News, that offers further evidence that you got it all wrong, Jeff. Here it is:

"Nicholls was murdered in the early hours of Friday, the 31st August - in all probability between a quarter past three and a quarter to four."

The question that must be asked here is this: If Baxter was referring to the finding time of Neil at 3.45, but knew that Charles Lechmere must have preceded Neil by some five minutes - why is it that the paper does not say that Nichols must have been murdered between 3.15 (Neils earlier round) and 3.40 (when Lechmere found the body, according to yourself)?
Very apparently, she could not possibly have been murdered at 3.45 or in the minutes leading up to 3.45, because if this was so, then Lechmere would not have found her lying in Bucks Row. She would still have been alive and kicking at that stage, if she was killed at 3.45.
But what happens if we go with Baxter, who clearly spoke of Lechmere as the finder at 3.45? Well, then it all falls in place: Nichols must have been killed after Neil was there at 3.15, but before 3.45, when Lechmere arrived.

One version only fits the facts, Jeff. It is easy enough to show.

So lets finish by looking one more time at the claim you seemingly hang your hat on: Baxter was unable to fix the times exactly, and so he chose to rely on Neil, somehow accepting that Neils timing of 3.45 was correct.

In his Lloyds Weekly interview, Robert Paul said that it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he entered Bucks Row on the murder morning. In his inquest testimony he says he left home at just before 3.45, which is in line with the exact timing, because he had only a minute or two to walk to the inlet of Bucks Row.
So how could Paul be certain of the exact time? Well, there was a large clock at the Bath Street brewery that he could check the time by, and he would have passed that clock seconds before he turned into Bucks Row. Sensing he was late, he would have been intensely interested in what the time was, furthermore.
Reasonably, Paul will have been asked about how he could be so precise about the timings. And the Bath Street clock is the logical answer. Add to this that Dr Llewellyn said that Thain arrived at his place at 3.55, in the paper articles. At the inquest he said "around 4".
Since we know that the trek from the murder site would take around two or three minutes at most, we can take a look at when Thain will have left the murder site. He was immediately directed to run for the doctor by John Neil as he arrived there. So lets check this out!

Thain said that he was alerted to the murder site by Neil at around 3.45. Neil said he found the body at 3.45. There are no contradictions here, because Neil may well have signalled Thain down within a minute of finding the body.

It would have taken Thain a minute to reach the site, and so we get 3.46. Neil would then have informed him about the errand and then sent him to get Llewellyn. Say that he left at 3.47. With a two to three minute trek, that would have seen Thain arriving at the doctors place at 3.49 - 3.50.
But Llewellyn said he got there at 3.55, possibly 4.00.

Something is out of order here, and that was not lost on the inquest, where Thain was suggested to have wasted time by going to the slaughterhouse in Winthrop Street to fetch his cape before getting the doctor.

But other witnesses (Henry Tompkins) was able to tell that Thain fetched his cape at around 4.15, AFTER he had arrived back with the doctor.

At this stage, Baxter knew that Neil had not found the body at 3.45. It was instead Lechmere who had found it at this time, and that was confirmed by the exact timing given by Paul, by Dr Llewellyns given time of Thains arrival and the timed distance between the murder site and Lewellyns practice. These were the independent data that Baxter used to reach his verdict that the body was found at 3.45. By Charles Lechmere.

Once again, only one version can be correct. It was either Neil who found the body at 3.45, or it was Lechmere. And only Lechmere as the 3.45 finder works with the facts. And to be frank, far from this version being unsafe to rely on time wise, it is the only version where there are anchor points to compare. When it comes to the three PCs suggestions, we cannot compare them against anything, the way we can compare Pauls timing, Llewellyns ditto and the distance from the murder site to the doctors practice. Here, and ONLY here, is there a set of independent data that can confirm the finding time to have been 3.45 or not fr from it - and the finder to have been Lechmere.

It only works one way, the facts only support one 3.45 finder: Charles Lechmere. To suggest Neil as an alternative is out of sync with the paper reports as well as with the facts.

This of course opens up another can of worms: If Charles Lechmere left home at around 3.30, but arrived in Bucks Row at around 3.45, why did it take him around a quarter of an hour to cover a seven minute trek? My answer is that it didn't ´t. And the discrepancy is a further nail in the coffin of Charles Lechmere, implying that he was the killer of Polly Nichols. In this context, it needs to be pointed out that as Lechmere made his way to the inquest room on the 3rd of September, the general view was that Neil had arrived at the body at around 3.45.
That would have meant that Lechmere should have been there at around 3.40.
And that would in it's turn mean that if Lechmere was the killer, and wanted to give a departure time from home that roughly was in keeping with having found the body at around 3.40, then a departure time of "around 3.30" would fit that bill quite well.

But now that we can see that the coroner was able to establish that Lechmere had in fact found the body not at 3.40 but at 3.45, we are left with a blazing red flag on the carmans account. He suddenly has many minutes to explain away. The sad thing is that nobody seems to have noticed this at the time.

Of course, for those who want to try and get Lechmere off the hook, it is vital that the initial belief that he found the body at 3.40 should be perpetuated. For me, it is the other way around; I find it incredibly important to present the evidence for how he found the body at 3.45. It is therefore extremely rewarding to see that the facts favor my story, and not yours, Jeff.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Jeff!

I disagree on every point, I'm afraid.

What Jeff suggested was perfectly sound.

[Fisherman]

What Jeff suggested was perfectly sound.

You are welcome to that view. I found it lacking in logic myself. That stands.

[Abby Normal]

not far off, around, about. when one uses these terms it means they are not sure about an exact time, but that if one had to pick a time from that the most accurate pick would be the base time used. there for, looking at all the factors, like baxter did, the most reasonable and accurate take on not far off 3:45, is 3:45.

[Abby Normal]

Baxter's statement about the body being found not far off 3:45 is just indicating that he acknowledges that Cross/Lechmere and Paul found the body shortly before PC Neil, who in turn found the body at 3:45. At that time, Cross/Lechmere and Paul have only made it the relatively short distance to PC Mizen, a journey that would require a few minutes. However, without having the exact details about that journey, and without having a measured time for how long the two carmen were at the crime scene, it is impossible for the coroner to state an exact time for the carmen's discovery, but he can state it was not far off the time that PC Neil found the body.

He's being non-committal to the interval between the discovery by the carmen and the discovery by the police because the testimony given does not specify a reliable time stamp for the carmen's discovery (all the carmen's stated times are in the more vague "about or around x o'clock" type phrasing), but he is confident in the time as given by the police.

So in his statement he's just indicating the police found the body at 3:45, and the carmen had come across it not long before that; he's not stating 3:45 but meaning another, he is stating an unknown exact time relative to a known one.

- Jeff

no he's unequivocally stating the body was found by lech and paul around 3:45. of course, lech found it a little bit earlier, how much earlier we dont know. which makes this all rather moot anyway dosnt it?

[Fisherman]

no he's unequivocally stating the body was found by lech and paul around 3:45. of course, lech found it a little bit earlier, now much earlier we dont know. which makes this all rather moot anyway dosnt it?

There must always be some learoom when it comes to timings, and Baxter, being aware of this, therefore did not say "3.45 exactly". Wisely, he opted for a time "not far off 3.45", still thereby inferring - just like you write in your post 8 - that his best guess was 3.45.

Personally, I believe that this timing was reached by way of Paul having checked the brewery clock and found it to be 3.45 or just before 3.45 as he saw it, meaning that he was able to say that it was exactly 3.45 as he entered Bucks Row. Armed with that information, it would be a very easy thing to order to have the brewery clock checked to see how reliable it was. And at the other end of the scale, there was the timepiece that Llewellyn employed, stating that Thain arrived at his place at 3.55. He later said at the inquest that the time was "around 4 AM", and the inference is therefore that we are dealing with a few minutes to 4 AM. Which fits nicely with Thains story, that will most likely have been a further checkpoint for the coroner.
Llewellyns clock could also be checked, and the owner would be able to inform the investigators how reliable it was.

This presents us with ample opportunities for Baxter to be able to get very close in time to when Lechmere would have arrived at the body, contrary to what Jeff claimed in his post. He seemingly suggested that the only way Lechmeres arrival at the site could be ascertained, would be by extrapolating from the PCs 3.45 timing, but as per the above, this was seemingly never the case.

I am very happy to have the Daily News laying down that the murder would have taken place in between the given timings of 3.15 and 3.45, cementing that the coroners verdict would oddly have allowed for Nichols to have lived a full five minutes after it was suggested that Lechmere found her, according to Jeff and Steve Blomer - and probably a number of other posters.

PS. I am not sure whether you are saying that Lechmere found the body "a little bit earlier" than Paul, or that he found it "a little bit earlier" than 3.45, but Pauls given timing of entering Bucks Row was 3.45, and he would have taken a minute or so to reach the murder site, so he would have arrived there at 3.46, and if he was a mere 40 yards or so behind Lechmere, then 3.45 is a likely time for Lechmeres finding the body (although, as usual, I am happy to point out that I don't think he "found" the body at all, nor do I believe that his first contact with Nichols came at 3.45, I think it came many minutes earlier).

Thanks for your post, Abby!

[Fisherman]

Does anybody have anything to say about Steve Blomers suggestion that the coroner could have said 3.45 but meant 3.40, on account of a habit to round things off to the nearest quarter of an hour?

[The Baron]

Not guilty.






The Baron

[rjpalmer]

Yes, not guilty. Or "not proven."

[rjpalmer]

Christer -- I don't think Steve meant what you think he meant.

He's not saying that Coroners, as a rule, round off estimates to 15-minute intervals.

He's saying that when there are discrepancies, and uncertainty, or if it isn't important to hone the exact time down to the last nano-second, people tend to speak in round numbers.

It's similar to Lechmere saying "I left home at about 3.30."

It would have been mighty strange for him to have said "I left home at about 3:29:17."

The problem you face is that Wynne Baxter wasn't as obsessed with giving a precise time as you are. He has no suspect. He's not trying to trip anyone up.

As I see it, you're reading too much into a simple statement. Earlier in his summation, Baxter said the body was discovered before 3.45.

For his purposes, that was good enough. He's not creating a flow-chart of every statement. His purpose is to identify the victim and the cause of death.

[Tab]

Does anybody have anything to say about Steve Blomers suggestion that the coroner could have said 3.45 but meant 3.40, on account of a habit to round things off to the nearest quarter of an hour?

My input for what it is worth. This is definitely something people do - I do it, my wife does it, strangers I have met have done it etc... Not necessarily always to the nearest quarter of an hour, obviously depends on the actual time and how precise you want/need to be, but I have definitely said "quarter to" for some nebulous time between half past and quarter to. As for whether a coroner in the late 19th century would do this - I would say it is possible but I have nothing to work from to guess how likely it is.

not far off, around, about. when one uses these terms it means they are not sure about an exact time, but that if one had to pick a time from that the most accurate pick would be the base time used. there for, looking at all the factors, like baxter did, the most reasonable and accurate take on not far off 3:45, is 3:45.

I can't get on board with this. I would never interpret "not far off 3:45" as 3:45. I wouldn't be able to put a time to it unless forced at gun point, and then I would have a complete guess at how many minutes "not far off" might be, and then randomly add or subtract that from 3:45. I would then need a change of pants. In fact to my mind, using not far off 3:45 means "any other time except 3:45, use your own biases and life experience to determine exactly how many minutes 'not far off' is, and in what direction."

Why would Baxter want people to conduct a mini investigation and trawl through other evidence to determine that he was saying 3:45, when he could have just said 3:45? Seems rather circuitous.

Tab