Minutiae in Buck´s Row.

[Elamarna]

I suppose I am the target for this post of yours, Steve, and I am happy to offer some thoughts.

You certainly were not Fish, I was purely responding to Pierre, however the subject does mean I will of course touch on ground you are close too.

The time frame in which you put the killer´s meeting with Nichols in Bucks Row is 3.25-3.35. The time frame during which Neil said that the streets were totally empty and silent, reciprocated by for example the Purkisses, was 3.15-3.45.

With all due respect, Neil was not present at 3:25-3:35 and therefore any comments he makes about Buck's Row at that time are somewhat irrelevant.

His views of his previous beat and when he found the body of course are not, those reflect what he saw and heard.

With regards to the Purkisses, one has to be very careful with what was actually said by any such witness that night, or if any witness was actually awake, all we can be reasonable sure of is that no unusually noise or disturbance was heard.
Indeed no one seems to have noticed Paul or Lechmere walking down the street, other than themselves.

I am working on this particular issue at present, and will report back later on it, eventually, sorry it is taking long.


Surely if one is arguing for Lechmere not to be the killer, a later time helps his case, however the timing suggested certainly puts him in the frame; if not the actual "eye of the storm".

The Phantom killer would therefore have evaded detection as he moved on the streets. Of course, Nichols did so too, so it´s by no means an impossible thing. But it adds to the number of improbabilities required for the Phantom to have existed.

No not really, the Phantom, as you like to call him, could easily come and go without being seen, just as Nichols did as you rightly point out. And indeed as did Lechmere and Paul.

You make the assumption that the killer may have seen Lechmere, whereas the latter did perhaps not see the killer. One wonders to what end he spent time pulling the dress down in such a case.

I allow for the possibility.

From an analysis of the wounds I feel it is clear that the killer, who ever he was, Lechmere or another, was disturbed by someone approaching.

That was either Lechmere or Paul, if Lechmere had time to pull down the dress so did someone else.

The killer may not have known if he had been seen, and so to pull the dress down would buy a few seconds before the full extent of the crime could be observed, if it indeed was, which of course was not the case.

Its much the same argument if Lechmere did it, unless Paul pulled the dress up time was bought, the killer walked away.

The time one assumes is small, a matter of a few seconds.

You allow for a 22 minute passage of time before Mizen saw the body, at which state it was still bleeding. Jason Payne-James said that the one thing that helped him deal with proponents who wanted to drag time spaces out further and further from his own estimation, was that sooner or later he would be able to point out that the suggestions were absurd. Does not a 22 minute time frame end up there, Steve?

I allow up to 22 minutes, and then I all but completely dismiss it in my post, the only reason not to do so conclusively is the same reasoning Payne-James uses; not to rule out any thing that is not impossible.

I would suggest that 22 minutes is very close to such a position, however a lack of specific medical data on Nichols, means its not quite that, probably but not 100% certain.

I was attempting to offer all possibilities as suggested by various interpretations of the testimony, and then compare such to the science.

Payne-James said that seven minutes was less likely than three or five. The only sense I can make of that is that he proposed that the bleeding should have been over before it reached the seven minute mark. It seems apparent to me that it may well have reached that mark, going by an estimation of how long it would have taken Mizen to arrive, and so Payne-James would have been out on a minute or two in his estimation. But to me, that does not open up glorious new fifteen minute fields of exploration - it tells me that an already strained timeline was strained even further and it would not be to expect that more bleeding time was added.
Have you consulted anybody who has offered this suggestion, or is it your own?

Again, you are with all respect not fully understanding what I am posting.
I give a top figure of 15 minutes yes, this is the most it could be based purely on the testimony of those involved, with no science applied at all.

I finish the line about "15minutes" by saying it could be a matter of seconds.

I also say 15 minutes is highly unlikely, once one applies the science(actually I don't say that, but that is what it means)

Not even a real "suggestion" from me as such, just what the testimony on its own means could be possible.

Again I would say all but impossible given the science. So have not raised it with anyone, as i do not consider it a viable option.

You phrase yourself "The timeline allows for a maximum of 22 minutes between the death cut and the arrival of Mizen, which seems highly unlikely and a minimum of 7 minutes between the two occurrences, which seems more likely."
Can I take that to mean that you at least share my view that another killer becomes less likely with every passing minute outside the seven minute mark?

I had to think about that for along time, and the answer is dependent to when you feel Mizen arrived and what he actually saw.

To me it seems that if blood is still flowing freely when he does arrive, it probably means it is less than 7-8 minutes since the "death cut" and in that case the argument against another killer is strong.

If however the flow is not as you interpret it when Mizen arrives, and is less than free flowing, the time increases to maybe 10 minutes or so and the probability of another killer increases

I am not sure why you suggest a longer time frame speaks in favour of Lechmere, the opposite seems to be the case to me.

Finally, I can only echo an earlier poster: Why on earth would we suggest and favour a Phantom killer over a man we KNOW for a fact was there, and who we know for a fact offered an alternative name to the police? Which kneejerk reaction kicks in here?

Fisherman, with all respect you have not been able to place him at the scene at the exact time to indicate guilt, close to I readily accept and agree, but not exactly.

May I add that one of the issues here, but not the only one, is the less than unambiguous terms used by the police officers; which make you case difficult to prove.


The name issue we have all been over many times before, yourself and others have one view on its implications, and as far as I am aware there are at least 2 other scenario’s apart from yours which can work, that is not to say they do.

If you had been able to establish this, we would not be discussing it now.

Can you see how I think it utterly astonishing that the Phantom killer scenario is FAVOURED? If it was only suggested as an alternative, less likely option, whereas it was agreed that Lechmere is the prime suspect, I would not be as flabbergasted.

Agreed by whom Fish?

Certainly not the majority of those involved in this field, a sizable minority certainly believe it, but not all.

But it is seriously suggested that it is less likely that a man who was there, who gave the wrong name, and who is surrounded by anomalies and who fit the overall geographical pattern of ALL the Ripper murders, is actually not the likeliest bid there is. And only a few days back I posted the thoughts of Robert Ressler of the FBI about the typical serial killer: A man living what seems to be an ordinary family life, with a steady job and in his mid to late thirties.

Yes it is.

I know you think others are wrong, so keep up the efforts to convince people, you are not there yet.

With respect, it does take some serious alterations of the laws of logic to reach the stance that Lechmere is not a very viable bid and the most probable killer that has ever been presented in this case.

He is certainly a viable killer for Nichols and by wound analysis only, very probably for Chapman, Eddowes, probably also for Kelly.
Less probably but still more than possible for Mackenkie and possibly Stride.


I gave a post arguing that viewpoint as possible some time ago did I not?

I will say that my view has developed from reviewing all the wounds of Nichols, and I believe there is a case that the killer of Nichols, can be linked purely by wounds to those above to the degree I suggest.

However this thread, at least my post was about a time line, other arguments for and against Lechmere are for later.



Steve

[Elamarna]

What exactly is the methodological reason for ignoring the testimonies of three sworn policemen? ........



No, it it based on the assumption that the testimonies of three sworn policemen are reliable.

Pierre both points you make, are based on the presumption that the timings given by the police officers are 100% accurate.

While we have no reason to suspect that these are grossly inaccurate, we must allow for the less than modern reliability of time pieces in LVP, and more importantly, how these were synchronized between various witnesses.



I am not ignoring the sworn testimony, as all the times stated by the police witnesses are covered, I am just allowing for probably minor variations.

But that does not correspond with the sworn testimony of PC Mizen. What exactly is the methodological reason for ignoring the testimony of a sworn policeman?

Correct, but it does fit with the sworn testimony of Lechmere.

I have therefore produced almost a generic Time Line, which while not including the claimed communication, certainly allows for it.

The same approach is taken over Lechmere being the killer, while it is not in the time line; it could be!

The Time Line is flexible enough to allow for both his being the killer or him communicating with the killer.

But the time was fixed by Mizen, Niel and Thain. Not by likelihood.

The timing for the arrival at the body is reasonably firm, I allow for a small variation.

However Pierre the timing for the "death cut" is not fixed by the three officers, their testimony depending on the interpretation of several words allows one to construct several possible timelines for the "death cut", no more.

The Time Line looks at all possibilities:

22 minutes at one extreme being almost impossible given the testimony and the science.

Around 7 minutes, certainly possible according to the testimony and the science, and that is accepting only one interpretation of the testimony of the police officers.

I have also said it could be much shorter if Lechmere is the killer.

The timings are arrived at by assessing the testimony and the science involved.

I use the word likelihood purely because nothing is impossible as Payne-James rightly states with the blood flow issue, just some things are more improbable than others.

And following three sworn policeman gives you a very short time period.

Yes Pierre, agreed, and the Time Line allows for the smallest possible period but also gives longer, agreed improbable, alternatives.

While my personal current preference is 2-3 minutes( based on the science, a different interpretation of the police evidence to that used by Fisherman, and other research I am currently working on); I certainly do not exclude the possibility of the timing being a few seconds.

And please note I am talking about the "death cut", not the entire attack.

No, but working from the assumption that three sworn policemen were right and Paul was almost right.

Pierre, I am working from the presumption that all of those quoted are almost right with there timings.

Your timings are not established historical facts. Mine are.

Pierre, that entirely depends on how you wish to view what is said in the testimony.
You are taking as given that all 3 officers had accurate synchronized time pieces. Given that such was highly unusually until relatively recently, such an assumption cannot be taken to be a 100% probability.

If we do not make that assumption, we are left with another probability, that while all times are honestly given they are only close approximations.

We simply do not know that those timings by the 3 Police are synchronized with each other.

Th
e alternative Time Line merely sought to allow for these probably variations, and I do not see that the timings suggest are at odds with the sworn testimony.



I do however question your statement that the killer was waiting in Buck's Row at 3:33 exactly, what source are you using for this statement?



Steve

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jerry,

You beat me to it.

PC Watkin—"I next came into Mitre-square at 1.44."

Inspector Collard—'[I] proceeded myself to Mitre-square, arriving there about two or three minutes past two."

Dr. Brown—"[I] reached the place of the murder about twenty minutes past two."

Dr. Sequeira—"[I] I arrived at five minutes to two o'clock."

DC Halse—"At two minutes to two o'clock on the Sunday morning, when near Aldgate Church . . ."

Dr. Blackwell—"I arrived at 1.16 am."

Thanks for the list of officials, Simon
Did you find many civilians ?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;402472]The points raised by Simon were these:

1. Robert Paul walking up Buck’s Row on his way to work
2. Charles Cross standing by Polly’s body
3. PC Neil discovering Polly’s body
4. PC Thain being signalled by PC Neil
5. PC Mizen encountering Cross and Paul 300 yards away at the corner of Bakers Row and Old Montague Street.

It should be noted that one of these points, point number 2, differs from the other ones insomuch as how the person spoken of - Charles Lechmere - did NOT state that he stood by the body at 3.45.

It was in this case the police reports that arrived at the conclusion that he did so around that remove in time.

Wrong. The three (3!) police witnesses stated that Neil was at the murder site 3:45, that Thain saw the lantern of Neil from the murder site at 3:45 and that the carmen reached Mizen at 3:45.

Therefore, Lechmere was not at the murder site at 3:45. From that historically secured point in time, the only secure point for an historian who does not destroy the sources but analyzes them and establishes facts on them, you must construct the minutiae backwards in time.

That is the only possible method if you want to establish history from the sources available to us.

The other four points are all points where the time was given by the persons spoken of.

We can conclude that the largest time span that would have been involved, is the span between points 1 and 5; the time between when Robert Paul walked up Buck´s Row, late for work, and the time at which Lechmere and Paul arrived up at Baker´s Row/Hanbury Street, where Mizen stood.
And Robert Paul gives an estimation of four minutes at most between when he first noticed Lechmere in the street and when the two arrived at Mizen. So, technically speaking, if Paul is on the money - and nothing seems to speak against it - we may have had all of the drama unfolding between 3.43 and 3.47, if we work from the assumption that Robert Paul was two minutes out on the time.

Much talk for nothing. But I must point out to you this: "... if we work from the assumption that Robert Paul was two minutes out on the time.":

You can not work FROM an hypothesis about one single person without making mistakes when three (3!) testimonies of sworn policemen contradict your assumption!

The "remove in time" you wish to construct to make Lechmere Jack the Ripper is your own removing the data in the sources from the sources by ignoring them.

It really, really is nothing much to quibble about, and it need not contain any sinister implications, conspiracies, lies or misleadings at all.

Yes, it is much.

It is the testimony of three (3!) sworn policemen and the testimony, among these, from Mizen that Lechmere did tell him that there was a policeman at the murder site. There is also Lechmere giving his name Cross. There is also another sighting of a policeman in the case of the Pinchin Street murder. That source is independent from the sources containing the statements of Mizen. Arnold behaved like Lechmere. He did not give his real name and he also changed his testimony.

[Fisherman]

Hi David,

Problem solved? Not quite.

Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper [page 7], 2nd September 1888—

"On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. 'It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's Row to my work as a carman for Covent Garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along; when I saw a man standing where the woman was.'"

This puts Cross and Paul in Bucks Row at 3.45 am.

And on Page 1—

"Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. Every word he had said was true."

Regards,

Simon

What problem do you recognize here, Simon? Paul could not guarantee any loger time space betwen his own "finding" of the body and Neils ditto than the time it took to walk out of Bucks Row, plus the examination time.
So where does that land us? Two minutes? Three? That how "long before the police" Paul could furnish.

[Fisherman]

I feel fairly happy with a time of around 3:38 am for Lechmere "finding" Polly Nichols lying in Bucks Row. He and Paul headed off in the direction of what is now Vallance Street perhaps. This is also the direction from which Neil approached since I think he said he saw Polly on the right side of the road. Why did Lechmere and Paul not see or hear Neil (and vice versa) - just a short window of time for them to miss each other.

I'll throw in another thought which may fit, especially in a scenario where the abdominal injuries were inflicted first and caused the near death of Polly. The killer was still there but hiding from sight having been disturbed by the approach of Lechmere. When the carmen were out of range, he went back to the woman and slashed the neck before making good his getaway - likely as not in the direction of Brady Street. Or, if he lived or worked in one of the buildings close by, that could have made things easier for him. Perhaps he felt the need to be absolutely sure that Polly would be unable to provide a description, or even a name because she may have known him.

Why are you "fairly happy" about 3.38? Could you feel the same enthusiasm for 3.45? If not, why?

If 3.38 was the time, then we would have had Thain arriving at the spot at around 3.43. The he was immediately sent to fetch Llewellyn who lived a very short walk away, a matter of perhaps three or four minutes. And Llewellyn said that he was fetched up at arund 3.55-4.00.
So why did it take Thain twelve minutes to cover a three or four minute stretch?

If Paul was on the money - and he was the only one to claim an exact time, he said it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he passed down Bucks Row - then he would have arrived at the murder spot at 3.46, examined the woman and left. Then Neil arrived at around 3.49, and summoned Thain, who would have sttod by Neils side by 3.50, just about. He was the informed and sent to fetch Llewellyn, so he should have been at the doctors house at around 3.54. And the doctor said 3.55 to 4.00.

I think that makes for a much more likely scenario.

On the idea that the killer cut the abdomen, was disturbed by Lechmere and Paul, waited for them to examine the woman, and then returned to the body:
If the killer left the body for fear of being detected, would he not leave permanently, on account of the risk of having the carmen notice the damage done to the trunk and sounding the alarm? He would be in a precarious position in such a case.
Also, if he cut the neck to ensure silence and death, how was he to know that the woman would not speak to the carmen, who would then be able to pass the information on?
If the killer left by way of Brady Street, then he would risk running into Thain, who would not have been far off. Walking down Bucks Row to Brady Street would take a minute, during which time the PC drew closer to the junction.

Also, how long does it take to cut a neck? Five seconds? Four? Three?
Why not do it BEFORE he left the body? If he had time to cover the wounds, then surely he had time to cut the neck?

The more probable thing is of course that the cutting took place in one sequence. That is reasonably the normal order of the day. But if we can invent an extra killer hey presto, then why can we not invent a series of divided cuttings? I´ll freely give you that.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;402492]

Now there´s a conundrum if I ever saw one...

The problem of total generalization is inherit in people´s brains.

The past does not allow for total generalizations when you study sources from human activity.

[MysterySinger]

I feel fairly happy with a time of around 3:38 am for Lechmere "finding" Polly Nichols lying in Bucks Row. He and Paul headed off in the direction of what is now Vallance Street perhaps. This is also the direction from which Neil approached since I think he said he saw Polly on the right side of the road. Why did Lechmere and Paul not see or hear Neil (and vice versa) - just a short window of time for them to miss each other.

I'll throw in another thought which may fit, especially in a scenario where the abdominal injuries were inflicted first and caused the near death of Polly. The killer was still there but hiding from sight having been disturbed by the approach of Lechmere. When the carmen were out of range, he went back to the woman and slashed the neck before making good his getaway - likely as not in the direction of Brady Street. Or, if he lived or worked in one of the buildings close by, that could have made things easier for him. Perhaps he felt the need to be absolutely sure that Polly would be unable to provide a description, or even a name because she may have known him.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Problem solved? Not quite.

Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper [page 7], 2nd September 1888—

"On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. 'It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's Row to my work as a carman for Covent Garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along; when I saw a man standing where the woman was.'"

This puts Cross and Paul in Bucks Row at 3.45 am.

And on Page 1—

"Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. Every word he had said was true."

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=jerryd;402486]

Pierre,

You are saying testimony from "sworn policemen" is reliable, but aren't you trying to prove a "sworn policeman" was a serial killer.

Now there´s a conundrum if I ever saw one...

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=jerryd;402486]

Pierre,

You are saying testimony from "sworn policemen" is reliable, but aren't you trying to prove a "sworn policeman" was a serial killer.

Hi Jerry,

Not a sworn police constable at an inquest.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;402465]

I suppose I am the target for this post of yours, Steve, and I am happy to offer some thoughts.

The time frame in which you put the killer´s meeting with Nichols in Bucks Row is 3.25-3.35. The time frame during which Neil said that the streets were totally empty and silent, reciprocated by for example the Purkisses, was 3.15-3.45.
The Phantom killer would therefore have evaded detection as he moved on the streets. Of course, Nichols did so too, so it´s by no means an impossible thing. But it adds to the number of improbabilities required for the Phantom to have existed.

And he was detected. Sworn PC Mizen stated at the inquest that the carman told him that he had seen a policeman at the murder site. You choose to ignore the testimonies of sworn policemen just to make a killer of an innocent man.

And as you can see, your idea about a ghost who is not seen is wrong. He was seen at the murder site by Lechmere. Lechmere was afraid to have the name of his own family in the papers so he gave the name Cross. But you ignore sworn police constable Mizen. You also choose to ignore a scared witness and instead you try to make him a killer.

You make the assumption that the killer may have seen Lechmere, whereas the latter did perhaps not see the killer. One wonders to what end he spent time pulling the dress down in such a case.

A dress can easily be pulled down twice: once over the abdomen and once towards the knees.

You allow for a 22 minute passage of time before Mizen saw the body, at which state it was still bleeding. Jason Payne-James said that the one thing that helped him deal with proponents who wanted to drag time spaces out further and further from his own estimation, was that sooner or later he would be able to point out that the suggestions were absurd. Does not a 22 minute time frame end up there, Steve?

You see in my Minutiae that what you call the blood evidence corresponds perfectly with Lechmere seing the killer as well as with the sworn testimonies of the three police constables.

Finally, I can only echo an earlier poster: Why on earth would we suggest and favour a Phantom killer over a man we KNOW for a fact was there, and who we know for a fact offered an alternative name to the police?

Just because you do not know who he was does not mean he did not exist.

Buck´s Row was the closest murder site to where Lechmere was living. That is the only reason why Lechmere was at Buck´s Row and happened to see the killer.

I am sorry, Fisherman. I do think that the person you call the "phantom killer" was seen by Lechmere and was interrupted.

Best wishes, Pierre

[jerryd]

[QUOTE=Pierre;402484]

Hi Steve,

What exactly is the methodological reason for ignoring the testimonies of three sworn policemen?



No, it it based on the assumption that the testimonies of three sworn policemen are reliable.



But that does not correspond with the sworn testimony of PC Mizen. What exactly is the methodological reason for ignoring the testimony of a sworn policeman?



But the time was fixed by Mizen, Niel and Thain. Not by likelihood.



And following three sworn policeman gives you a very short time period.



No, but working from the asspumtion that three sworn policemen were right and Paul was almost right.



Your timings are not established historical facts. Mine are.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

You are saying testimony from "sworn policemen" is reliable, but aren't you trying to prove a "sworn policeman" was a serial killer.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;402455]

Hi Pierre,

The timings are too exact in my opinion, and in some instances appear to be invention, such as the killer waiting at a set time.

Alternative below

3:20-3:30 A carman goes to work from 22 Doveton Street
3:25-3:35 A killer meets A woman in Bucks Row
3:25-3:35 the killer kills and starts mutilating the woman, hear steps and pulls down the dress of the woman
3:30-3:40 The carman is seen by the killer, he may see the killer in return.
3.30-3:40 The carman sees the body, another carman on his way to work comes along
3:35-3:40 The two carmen examine the woman
3:35-3:40 The two carmen decide to go and look for a policeman
3:38-3:45 PC Neil finds the woman. Notes blood is oozing from the neck
3:40-3:45. PC Thain is signalled by the lantern of Neil
3:38-3:42 PC Mizen is told about the woman and the PC in Buck´s
Row
3:42-3:48 PC Mizen arrives in Buck's Row.

Hi Steve,

What exactly is the methodological reason for ignoring the testimonies of three sworn policemen?

The above scenario is based on the assumption, Lechmere was not the killer, but can be easily adjusted to allow for such.

No, it it based on the assumption that the testimonies of three sworn policemen are reliable.

It also assumes that while Lechmere COULD have seen the killer, he was not in a position to exchange conversation with him, and did not notice how he was dressed, again these assumptions can be adjusted with no change to proposed timeline.

But that does not correspond with the sworn testimony of PC Mizen. What exactly is the methodological reason for ignoring the testimony of a sworn policeman?

Timings approximate and obviously allow for a degree of flexibility.

The timeline allows for a maximum of 22 minutes between the death cut and the arrival of Mizen, which seems highly unlikely and a minimum of 7 minutes between the two occurrences, which seems more likely.

But the time was fixed by Mizen, Niel and Thain. Not by likelihood.

It also allows for a maximum of 15 minutes between the death cut and Lechmere arriving, this is very unlikely in my view, or alternatively a minimum of a few seconds.

My current view is that this period should be towards the lower end, certainly within 5 minutes and very probably within 2-3 minutes.

And following three sworn policeman gives you a very short time period.

This of course is working from the assumption that Lechmere was not the killer and he was not disturbed by Paul.

No, but working from the asspumtion that three sworn policemen were right and Paul was almost right.

The contrary assumptions are easily allowed for in the above timings.

Your timings are not established historical facts. Mine are.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

3:30 A carman goes to work from 22 Doveton Street
3:33 A killer waits in Buck´s Row
3:36 A woman walks through Buck´s Row
3:37 The killer murders the woman
3:38 The killer starts mutilating the woman, hear steps behind him and pulls down the dress of the woman
3:38 The carman sees a policeman and a woman in Buck´s Row. The policeman asks for assistance and walks away
3.39 The carman stands puzzled in the middle of the road. Another carman on his way to work comes along
3:40 The two carmen examine the woman
3:42 The two carmen decide to go and look for a policeman
3:44 Neil finds the woman. The blood is oozing from the neck
3:45 Thain is signalled by the lantern of Neil
3:45 PC Mizen is told about the woman and the PC in Buck´s Row

"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."

Neil is not far from 3.45. He is 1 minute from 3.45.
Thain is not far from 3.45. He is at 3.45.
Mizen is not far from 3.45. He is informed at 3.45.
These three observations must be refuted as must the statement of the coroner if you want another time for the finding of the body.
Paul estimated 4 minutes from seeing the victim to finding Mizen. 1 minute more is estimated here since Paul is one witness whereas the police witnesses are three. Paul therefore can not be considered as reliable as the policemen. The statements of the sworn policemen are the most reliable statements. They correspond perfectly. But just 1 minute is given in favour of the policemen and not more.
There can be only one minute for Lechmere standing in the road preceeding the event of Lechmere and Paul examining the victim. The examination could not have taken less than two minutes. I have chosen to hypothesize this since the examination contained some steps and communication between the carmen. Therefore Lechmere arrived at 3:38 at the murder scene. He did not have the time to find, murder and try to mutilate a woman.

Pierre