Did Baxter mean 3.40 when he said 3.45?

[Fisherman]

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.

No, he never suggested that the coroner specifically did this. What he said was that it was a common thing to do so back in 1888, and so the explanation for why Baxter said 3.45 instead of 3.40 could have been this. That was his take on things.

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.

No, that was not the gist of the matter he spoke to me about. I specifically asked him why the coroner would have said 3.45 if he actually thought that it was 3.40, and on that question, he responded that there was this habit back in 1888, and this could have been what led on Baxters wording.

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

As per the above, no. That is your suggestion, but not the suggestion Steven Blomer worded when speaking to me about it. If he also thought along your lines, he failed to make that clear.

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

That is true, and something that nobody has ever suggested.

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.

On the contrary. If there was ever one person who would have had a reason to "be obsessed" about getting to the exact time about this, then it would have been Wynne Baxter. He had a professional reason for it, something I don't have. Nor am I obsessed about it, to be perfectly honest. I am convinced that Baxter spoke about the 3.45 time as the time at which Lechmere was likeliest to have found the body, and I consider it a very important matter. The reason for this is that it tells us that Lechmere had a window of time in which he could have killed Nichols.
As I said before, if Lechmere was the killer, and gauged a departure time to present to the inquest, then 3.30 would be a nice fit with the 3.40 time at which it was initially believed that Lechmere found the body. He ran into problems, though, when the coroner said that the body was found at a time not far off 3.45.

As you will likely be able to see, those who dislike the idea that Lechmere could have killed Nichols, are likely to prefer the 3.40 timing, while I myself and those who believe Lechmere did it, think that when coroner Baxter said that the finding occurred at a time not far off 3.45, he actually meant that the finding of the body took place at a time not far off 3.45.

There is also the fact that a check of the clocks Paul and Llewellyn will have used (unless Paul got the "exactly 3.45" timing out of thin air), will quite possibly have enabled Baxter to have been very precise. He would at the very least have been able to tell that it was NOT 3.40, because if it had been 3.40, guess what? Correct, he would not have said 3.45.
What we have is an approximate five minute pulse, where Lechmere and Neil either got to the site at 3.40 and 3.45, respectively, or at 3.45 and 3.50, respectively. The very fact that Baxter said that he had been able to fix the time to not far off 3.45, excludes the 3.40 timing as being viable. If he had not been able to exclude that time, he would not have said 3.45, leaving out the suggestion of the three PCs.

So all in all, the so often served argument that the timings are too uncertain to make any conclusions does not work here, R J. And if we could stop referring to each other as obsessed, it would be nice.

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.

No, he did not. That is a construction you made up from Baxters claim that the body was found less than one hour and a quarter after Nichols left Holland in Osborne Street, right? The wording is generic, and my thoughts are that what he meant to convey is that there was so very little time between life and death in Nichols case - one second, you are alive, the next, you are sliced up in a dark alleyway. And as I have told others, who have made the same reflection, ALL the times leading up to 3.45 are in this case useful - including 3.44.59. So there you are.
But Baxter was of course not saying in that wording that the killing must have occurred before 3.45. It does not work with his having fixed the time to a point not far off 3.45, unless we - unrealistically - accept that he meant before 3.45 when he said this. I am sure that you will agree about this too.
What must have occurred before 3.45, however, was the murder itself. And that is what the Daily News establishes, telling us that Lechmere found the body at circa 3.45, not circa 3.40.

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.

His purpose is to find out what happened to Nichols. That involved an interest in the timings, and it is also why he establishes that it may be that Nichols was not even dead when Paul felt her chest and detected breathing inside it. This means that the murder must have taken place very close in time to that point, and Baxters interest in that timing has nothing to do with her identity or the actual cause of death. So there is more to it than you are leading on; Baxter would never have needed to investigate which time was the correct one to get the identity or the case of death, if your claim was correct. Nor would have taken an interest in how the killer may have been able to escape. Nor would he have needed to try and map the movements of Nichols.
So in fact, he IS apparently looking at the flow-chart of every statement. That is how you find out that a time can be fixed by many independent data. And he did just that, remember?

PS. Steven Blomer is of course welcome to tell us himself what he meant/said to me about rounding off times. He would be the best source there is - but he is extremely reluctant to take part in the discussion at all, which is why I am glad that others are not.

[Abby Normal]

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.



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

Because he dosnt know for sure the exact time but the closest is 3:45 so that’s the starting point . And that’s why Baxter used it . It’s the the most accurate he can come up with .

[Fisherman]

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.


Yes, of course people in general round off timings. But does a coroner, trying to get as exact a time as possible for a murder, round off the times he find to be relevant?

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."

Maybe we should rephrase that: If somebody says "not far off", then which time is he or she most likely to be speaking of? Would 3.44, 3.56, 3,03 or 3.49 be as likely to be that time, as 3.45 would?

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

Not sure what you are trying to ask here. But if you are asking why a coroner, investigating a murder, would want to get as close to the truth as possible, I would say that it is his duty, his work to do so.

[Fisherman]

Because he dosnt know for sure the exact time but the closest is 3:45 so that’s the starting point . And that’s why Baxter used it . It’s the the most accurate he can come up with .

Admirably succinctly put, Abby. And if Baxter had felt that he was unable to come up with a reasonably exact time, he would simply not have done so. If he felt that 3.40 could just as well have been the correct time as 3.45, we would not be having the quotation we have from Baxter. He wanted to clarify as far as he could - and he had the information to do so, the independent data that ensured it.

There is a value in providing these kinds of clarifications, and it lies in how it enables us to rule possible scenarios more or less likely - or impossible. It is a tool that we should not throw to the wind, while claiming that the timings must have been so uncertain that we can ascribe no value to Baxters fixing of the time.

[Tab]

Yes, of course people in general round off timings. But does a coroner, trying to get as exact a time as possible for a murder, round off the times he find to be relevant?

As I said, I have nothing to work from to guess how likely it is he would do this. It seems important now, but would being precise down to the minute have been seen as important then, in this particular circumstance? I genuinely don't know.

Maybe we should rephrase that: If somebody says "not far off", then which time is he or she most likely to be speaking of? Would 3.44, 3.56, 3,03 or 3.49 be as likely to be that time, as 3.45 would?

I think I answered your first question there already. How many minutes "not far off" means would be personal interpretation to my mind. I wasn't commenting on how likely any particular number of minutes the word "off" 3:45 would represent. None of those times however would be 3:45. There is simply no way to include the time 3:45 from the phrase "not far off 3:45".

Not sure what you are trying to ask here. But if you are asking why a coroner, investigating a murder, would want to get as close to the truth as possible, I would say that it is his duty, his work to do so.

That is absolutely not what I am asking. I am saying that if Baxter meant 3:45, then why didn't he say 3:45? Why would he be so loosey goosey about it and make people guess?

Tab

[Admin]

PS. Steven Blomer is of course welcome to tell us himself what he meant/said to me about rounding off times. He would be the best source there is - but he is extremely reluctant to take part in the discussion at all, which is why I am glad that others are not.

Steve Blomer told you flat out that he had no further interest in discussing this with you. You then created a thread where you are attempting to browbeat/force/annoy him into a response that he told you he does not intend to give.

This is a violation of our harassment policy. You were given your response. You don't like it? That's a shame. No means no. The conversation is over. If you want to discuss the concept of timing, do it without attempting to irritate people into responding to you when they told you straight up that they do not intend to continue the conversation.