Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Elamarna]

Nope. I am not discussing how clocks can be wrong any more. It is beyond silly.

You have had my reason for why I think the clock at Pauls work will have been accurate.

You have had my reason for why I think that Pauls clock corresponded to the clock at his work, and was therefore also probably accurate.

If you don't like it, so be it. But don't claim that I avoid any questions.

I see, of course you are avoiding giving cogent and reasoned replies.
You are not addressing the issues, so be it
It's about par for the course.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Okay. This afternoon I covered 2.04 km in 18:29 at my normal walking speed (I naturally walk fast.) That means that I would cover 300 metres (328 yards) in about 2 minutes 45 seconds (if my calculations are correct!). Expressed another way, my average speed was 6.6 km per hour, so 300 metres would, on that basis, have been covered in just under 164 seconds (2 minutes 44 seconds).

My walk was mainly straight, with just a couple of turnings, and there were no obstacles, i.e. people getting in the way. That said, I'm significantly older than the carmen!

I would therefore agree that it is perfectly possible that the carmen covered 300 yards in around 2 and half to 3 minutes, even on the basis of their "normal" walking speed (if they were fast walkers), especially as they would be used to walking significant distances on a regular basis.

Yes Perfectly correct any time from 2.30-3.00 would be possible and likely in the circumstances.
4mph gives the distance at around 2.40, and 3.5 mph at around 3.00, slower does not seem reasonable.


Steve

[Fisherman]

It would help in replying if you used the quote facility, but somethings never change.u





Not answering I see, if the clocks are not synchronized, they are not accurate. if that is the case they cannot be used to say the Paul's time is Correct.




Given he does not mention one, NO he does not. And again evading the question.



How does he set a clock in Foster Street with the clock at work?
Even if he does, it only synchronizes the two clocks it does not mean they are accurate or correct.





To believe that something is certain does not mean that it is. only that you believe it to be so.




still, no meaningful response




As i suspected, Google Maps, using present day changes to routes and not renowned for it time accuracy.
Unfortunately its incorrect for 1888, at average waling speed of 3.1 mph its alittle under 15 minutes. to do it in 17 minutes it means a walking speed of a shade over 2.5mph



I have read. The question was asked of you in post #552, until your response to Abby above and myself, there was no mention of a source for 17 minutes, if I am wrong please point me at it.,

I see that you are not reading, or at least ignoring the details over 17 minutes.




Reliability is not the same as accuracy as you are well aware.


Steve

Nope. I am not discussing how clocks can be wrong any more. It is beyond silly.

You have had my reason for why I think the clock at Pauls work will have been accurate.

You have had my reason for why I think that Pauls clock corresponded to the clock at his work, and was therefore also probably accurate.

If you don't like it, so be it. But don't claim that I avoid any questions.

Here´s a famed film quote, just for you: "You can run me, you can starve me, you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
It just got to that point, I'm afraid, and I owe it to myself to leave when that happens.

[Fisherman]

I have read it, that you attempt to promote a piece of Journalistic creation over an inquest report, says all one need to know about your integrity.
The level of arrogance in the posts has not changed.


Steve

And that you claim that what was written in the paper must have been "a piece of journalistic creation" instead of accepting that the reporter took down what he was told is testimony to YOUR integrity.

Given the choice, I would go for my integrity any day in the week, Saturdays and Sundays included.

[Elamarna]

It would help in replying if you used the quote facility, but somethings never change.u

Please point me to where I said the clocks were synchronized. This is the new favorite term the naysayers - clock synchronization. Well, it will be taken from you, for the simple reason that nobody has suggested that there was any such synchronization.
What I AM saying is that it would make extraordinary sense to see to it that your clock corresponded with the one that ruled whether you had a work or not to go to. And since Paul said that it was EXACTLY 3.45, it seems he relied heavily on HIS clock. One has to wonder why - maybe he had not been tutored by you on clock synchronization?

Not answering I see, if the clocks are not synchronized, they are not accurate. if that is the case they cannot be used to say the Paul's time is Correct.

Accurate enough for him to trust that it was exactly 3.45 as he walked down Bucks Row. he seems to be proud of that clock of his, does he not?

Given he does not mention one, NO he does not. And again evading the question.

The ordinary way of doing such a thing is to set it to the same time as the work clock and then check that it tells the correct time. Then you follow it up as time passes (excuse the pun). Many clocks were remarkably correct, you know. And once you say with confidence "it was EXACTLY 3.45, you have a lot of confidence in your clock.

How does he set a clock in Foster Street with the clock at work?
Even if he does, it only synchronizes the two clocks it does not mean they are accurate or correct.

I am not the one suggesting things - YOU are the one suggesting all sorts of things on my behalf! For all I know, he could have had a clock at home, a watch on his person or he can have used a public clock that he knew was exact. I could not cafe less. What carries weight is his certainty.

To believe that something is certain does not mean that it is. only that you believe it to be so.

The same answer as above, even.

still, no meaningful response

Its more like Google maps.

As i suspected, Google Maps, using present day changes to routes and not renowned for it time accuracy.
Unfortunately its incorrect for 1888, at average waling speed of 3.1 mph its alittle under 15 minutes. to do it in 17 minutes it means a walking speed of a shade over 2.5mph

You have had the answer numerous times by now. Read, please. Read!

I have read. The question was asked of you in post #552, until your response to Abby above and myself, there was no mention of a source for 17 minutes, if I am wrong please point me at it.,

I see that you are not reading, or at least ignoring the details over 17 minutes.

Very good, Steve! A clock can indeed be 100 per cent reliable. Let's not forget that. And who is more likely to quote times as exact ones - the guy with the totally unreliable clock or the one who knows that he can rely on the time he gets?

Reliability is not the same as accuracy as you are well aware.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Okay. This afternoon I covered 2.04 km in 18:29 at my normal walking speed (I naturally walk fast.) That means that I would cover 300 metres (328 yards) in about 2 minutes 45 seconds (if my calculations are correct!). Expressed another way, my average speed was 6.6 km per hour, so 300 metres would, on that basis, have been covered in just under 164 seconds (2 minutes 44 seconds).

My walk was mainly straight, with just a couple of turnings, and there were no obstacles, i.e. people getting in the way. That said, I'm significantly older than the carmen!

I would therefore agree that it is perfectly possible that the carmen covered 300 yards in around 2-3 minutes, even on the basis of their "normal" walking speed (if they were fast walkers), especially as they would be used to walking significant distances on a regular basis.

Which is the exact message I am trying to get across! I only wish I had not mentioned todays athletes...

[John G]

Sigh! I wrote: "I find it kind of typical that once I point to how people Can walk at speeds at around seven miles per hour, there is an immediate outcry based on a faulty belief that I would have somehow claimed that Lechmere and Paul did (not that you are doing it, but others seem to!)"

And now you did it!

I know quite well that the carmen did not walk like that. But it IS an example of how fast a person can walk, when walking is at a maximum speed - seven miles per hour.

I suggest that the carmen hurried as best as they could and made the 300 yards stretch somewhere around 2-3 minutes, allowing for Pauls approximation to be correct.

Okay. This afternoon I covered 2.04 km in 18:29 at my normal walking speed (I naturally walk fast.) That means that I would cover 300 metres (328 yards) in about 2 minutes 45 seconds (if my calculations are correct!). Expressed another way, my average speed was 6.6 km per hour, so 300 metres would, on that basis, have been covered in just under 164 seconds (2 minutes 44 seconds).

My walk was mainly straight, with just a couple of turnings, and there were no obstacles, i.e. people getting in the way. That said, I'm significantly older than the carmen!

I would therefore agree that it is perfectly possible that the carmen covered 300 yards in around 2 to 3 minutes, even on the basis of their "normal" walking speed (if they were fast walkers), especially as they would be used to walking significant distances on a regular basis.

[Fisherman]

I have no issues with that, especially as the routes has changed considerably to the east of Bucks Row.

Surely you must have SOME issues with it? Are you just going to let it pass?

[Fisherman]

Abby

At speeds above an average of 3.1 mph, using the routes then available it could be done in under 30 minutes.

Steve

One may need to inhale the fact that "late" does not necessarily mean that you will get too late to your destination - it means that you are behind your usual schedule. There are two sorts of lates - the one that relates to your journey towards a given goal and the one that describes whether you reached that goal in time or not. That is why we many times say "I am late" before we arrive a that goal - just like Paul did. Just as our wives, wawing us off, can say "You will be late for work" in a predicting manner, they may just as well say "You are late, my dear". A late start can be mended at times.

[Elamarna]

Read the bold above. I mean it: READ it.

I have read it, that you attempt to promote a piece of Journalistic creation over an inquest report, says all one need to know about your integrity.
The level of arrogance in the posts has not changed.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Please tell how the clocks were synchronized, and what was the source used? This is imaginative thinking.

Please point me to where I said the clocks were synchronized. This is the new favorite term the naysayers - clock synchronization. Well, it will be taken from you, for the simple reason that nobody has suggested that there was any such synchronization.
What I AM saying is that it would make extraordinary sense to see to it that your clock corresponded with the one that ruled whether you had a work or not to go to. And since Paul said that it was EXACTLY 3.45, it seems he relied heavily on HIS clock. One has to wonder why - maybe he had not been tutored by you on clock synchronization?


He may have had a time piece in the house, however how accurate was it?

Accurate enough for him to trust that it was exactly 3.45 as he walked down Bucks Row. He seems to be proud of that clock, does he not?

How was it synchronized with the supposed clock highly accurate, at work.

The ordinary way of doing such a thing is to set it to the same time as the work clock and then check that it tells the correct time. Then you follow it up as time passes (excuse the pun). Many clocks were remarkably correct, you know. And once you say with confidence "it was EXACTLY 3.45, you have a lot of confidence in your clock.

Are you suggesting he had a watch on him ?

I am not the one suggesting things - YOU are the one suggesting all sorts of things on my behalf! For all I know, he could have had a clock at home, a watch on his person or he can have used a public clock that he knew was exact. I could not care less. What carries weight is his certainty.

If so how was that time piece synchronized and what source was used? The same question as above.

The same answer as above, even.

I see we have this fictional 17 minutes appearing again. Where does this 17 minute walk come from, it appears to be imagination.

Its more like Google maps.

The distance from 30 Foster St to his place of work is approx 1364 yards, depending on his exact workplace, which is unknown. to take 17 minutes he is walking at just over 2.5mph.
I asked you earlier where this 17 minutes comes from? I ask you again?

You have had the answer numerous times by now. Read, please. Read!

Who is saying it was totally unreliable? A clock or watch can be 100% reliable but will give the wrong time if not synchronized with GMT, which it was not.

That is all that is being said.

Very good, Steve! A clock can indeed be 100 per cent reliable. Let's not forget that. And who is more likely to quote times as exact ones - the guy with the totally unreliable clock or the one who knows that he can rely on the time he gets?

Steve

See the above in bold. And read, read, read. And then we may perhaps be more productive than speaking about our knowledge that clocks can be incorrect? Yes?

[Elamarna]

Yup - the exact double of Pauls walk, that took 17 minutes according to Google Maps. Which is why I say that Lechmere would normally have afforded 40 minutes, starting out at 3.20, whereas Paul would have started out at 3.40, allowing him 20 minutes. And so I believe we can conclude that Paul was due at work at 4 AM in the mornings, just as Lechmere was. And normally, Paul would pass Bucks Row at 3.41, some fourteen minutes after Lechmere, who would have passed it at 3.27. That all explains why the two had not seen each other before. But they should not have seen each other on the murder morning either, since Lechmere should have passed some eight minutes ahead of Paul.
But he didn't, did he?

Christer

Google maps is notorious for getting walking times incorrect, why not just measure the distance on the OS for the time, and then do the maths yourself, it only takes 2 minutes in total.

[Elamarna]

thanks-a 34 minute walk?

Abby

At speeds above an average of 3.1 mph, using the routes then available it could be done in under 30 minutes.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Google maps has the distance Doveton Street - Broad Street Place down as 34 minutes. That will be a decent indicator. But given that it is a fair distance, differences in walking speed and traffic may influence it to a significant degree.

I have no issues with that, especially as the routes has changed considerably to the east of Bucks Row.

[Elamarna]

thanks El
I think someone who seemed to be rather anal, and held down a job where punctuality was crucial for over twenty years that he would be giving himself plenty of time to arrive early! Im thinking like you he would plan on getting there at least ten minutes early every day.

Now if he normally left at 3:20. then isn't it more likely that between the two times we have for when he left for work that fateful morning-3:20 and 3:30, that the more likely time he left that day was 3:20?

Hi Abby

if one wishes to start from the premise that he is lying of course.
He said he was late, it happens. so was Paul apparently, was he being untruthful too?

Steve