Did Baxter mean 3.40 when he said 3.45?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[rjpalmer]

Yes, not guilty. Or "not proven."

[The Baron]

Not guilty.






The Baron

[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?

[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!

[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?

[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.

[Fisherman]

What Jeff suggested was perfectly sound.

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