Window of Time for Nichols murder

[JeffHamm]

Going off the times that were given by the parties, I would proffer the following:

Neil says he "found" polly at 3:45am and last patrolled Buck's Row at 3:15.
Mizen says he encountered Paul and Cross (the other man) also at 3:45am.
Paul says he encountered Lechmere also at 3:45am.
Given that all three cannot be correct as to the time, I would go with the odds of two-to-one that Paul was a few minutes out and that both Neil and Mizen were correct. That Paul meets Lechmere at 3:43 and they both find Mizen at 3:45 - the same time Neil finds Polly around the corner in the now empty street.

I assume from this that Paul came across Lechmere a little before his "exactly" 3:45am - probably around 3:42 or 3:43am.
Lechmere stated he left home at 3:30am. 7 minute walk to Bucks Row, puts him on the scene at 3:37am.

Even if he left home at 3:30am (when he usually left home at 3:20am), he was still with Polly for at least 5-8 minutes before Paul arrives. That's a long time to be doing nothing - I cannot hold my breath for that long...

The attending physician estimated the time of death around 3:30am (half an hour before he attended the scene at 4:00am).

Despite the fact that we will never know the truth, I think that in all probability it was Lechmere who killed Polly Nichols.

Hi Snidery Mark,

Let's say Cross/Lechmere arrives at 3:37. Paul is coming up behind him so he waits, taps his shoulder, says come check this out. Let's give a minute for all of that. 3:38.
Now, they both look at what they see, Paul checks her for breathing, etc, suggests moving her, Cross declines, and they decide what to do is find a PC as both have to get to work and as far as they know, she's either drunk or dead (but if the latter they don't suspect murder, but probably died from drink as they neither acts particularly concerned). So, another 2 mintes? 3:40. They head off and find PC Mizen, which Paul I think it is testifies it was no more than 4 minutes, so let's say 3, so they meet PC Mizen around 4:43, and we're now well within the margin of error of reported times. There's no 5-8 missing minutes, because Paul and Cross/Lechmere need to use up some time in order to complete all of the interactions they discuss, and I've only given them 3 minutes for that. Give them 5, and everything lines up, except Paul's "entered Buck's Row at Exactly 3:45". But the above, which would suggest Paul left after 3:30 but before 3:45 (probably around 3:35ish), would mean his testimony of leaving home "about 3:45" fits with that as 3:35, after 3:30 but before 3:45, which makes it "about 3:45".

The only issue is the Lloyd's article that reports Paul saying he entered Buck's Row at exactly 3:45, which makes every other time people testified to wrong, and oddly, wrong by similar amounts in the same direction. And, given that report isn't of sworn testimony, but an interview (with other errors), it's hard to know if Paul actually said "exactly" or if the reporter put that in themselves. We don't actually know for sure Paul claimed such exactness, and given that he doesn't claim it when under oath, even if he did that doesn't mean much. Confidence in his estimation of the time is not the same thing as accuracy in his estimation of the time. There's really nothing in the reported times that doesn't fit with the testimony of what people claimed to be doing as far as I can see.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

The only issue is the Lloyd's article that reports Paul saying he entered Buck's Row at exactly 3:45, which makes every other time people testified to wrong, and oddly, wrong by similar amounts in the same direction.

I´m afraid that is not true. Dr Llewellyn said he was contacted by Thain at four AM or just before, and that time is totally in line with Paul arriving at the body at around 3.46.

You have Lechmere and Paul leaving the body at 3.40, but you fail to suggest when Neil arrived there. Are you suggesting that there was a five minute gap, and that Neil was there at 3.45? You say that the carmen perhaps met with Mizen at 3.43. He was informed quickly, it will have taken less than a minute, and then he finished his knocking up a person and set off to Bucks Row. Meaning that he would have turned the corner up at Bakers Row before 3.45. How do you suggest that Neil managed to flag down Thain, have him arrive at the site, inform him about that had happened and sent him to get Llewellyn while Mizen was still only a few yards down Bucks Row, making Neil think he was still up at Bakers Row?

It really does not work at all, does it? Thain was gone as Mizen arrived.

So, you see, it is not a question of there being a large number of things that were all in conflict with Paul being in Bucks Row at 3.45. There are the PC:s timing of 3.45, but this timing as never claimed to be exact by any of them. It may or it may not be exact, close or not very close.

And, given that report isn't of sworn testimony, but an interview (with other errors), it's hard to know if Paul actually said "exactly" or if the reporter put that in themselves. We don't actually know for sure Paul claimed such exactness, and given that he doesn't claim it when under oath, even if he did that doesn't mean much.

- Jeff

First, see the bold text above.
It is of course convenient to sweep information that does not fit us under the carpet. The problem is that other, more discerning, cleaners will protest and bring it back out from under the carpet.
Like it or not, Paul WAS quoted as saying exactly 3.45 in that interview. If it was wrong, then why is it that he says that he left home just before 3.45 at the inquest? it fits totally with what he told Lloyds, right? The two timings are mutually supportive of each other! So we DO have Paul - not the reporter - making two statements about the time that bolster each other and we may confidently note that - correct or not - Paul claimed to have left home just before 3.45 which would have taken him into Bucks Row at exactly 3.45.
The REAL clincher in all of this is what I said in my last post: Robert Paul does not say that he mistook himself when he thought he was late for work that day. He says that he WAS late for work, and being in Bucks Row at 3.45 must therefore be an example of how he SHOULD have been there earlier not to be late. As I said, his working trek was half as long as Lechmeres, more or less exactly so. So if he started working at 4.00 AM, a very reasonable suggestion, then he would have had 20 minutes to make the stretch if he started at 3.40. Similarly, Lechmere said he was late for work too, and he had started at 3.30, apparently, although he spoke of 3.20 as a starting time too. Reasonably, 3.20 would be the not late starting time, giving him 40 minutes to complete the double stretch Paul had to cover, normally allowing himself 20 minutes. Google maps has the stretches taking 17 and 34 minutes, respectively, which means that these estimations make total sense. We know that Lechmere started at 4.00, and it would be odd if Paul started at 3.56 or 4.03 or something such. 4 AM is the likeliest time, and if that was the case, then YES he would be late if he entered Bucks Row at 3.45, but NO, he would NOT be late at all if he arrived in the street at 3.37, as you propose. In such a case, he would have had oceans of time to spare. But he was nevertheless under the impression that he was late, he "hurried along the streets" and he said absolutely nothing about finding out in Corbetts Court that he had been wrong about being late.

How do you explain all of this, Jeff?

[JeffHamm]

First, see the bold text above.
It is of course convenient to sweep information that does not fit us under the carpet. The problem is that other, more discerning, cleaners will protest and bring it back out from under the carpet.
Like it or not, Paul DID say exactly 3.45 in that interview. If it was wrong, then why is it that he says that he left home just before 3.45 at the inquest? it fits totally with what he told Lloyds, right? The two timings are mutually supportive of each other! So we DO have Paul - not the reporter - making two statements about the time that bolster each other and we may confidently note that - correct or not - Paul claimed to have left home just before 3.45 which would have taken him into Bucks Row at exactly 3.45.
The REAL clincher in all of this is what In said in my last post: Robert Paul does not say that he mistook himself when he thought he was late for work that day. He says that he WAS late for work, and being in Bucks Row at 3.45 must therefore be an example of how he SHOULD have been there earlier not to be late. As I said, his working trek was half as long as Lechmeres, more or less exactly so. So if he started working at 4.00 AM, a very reasonable suggestion, then he would have had 20 minutes to make the stretch if he started at 3.40. Similarly, Lechmere said he was late for work too, and he had started at 3.30, apparently, although he spoke of 3.20 as a starting time too. Reasonably, 3.20 would be the not late starting time, giving him 40 minutes to complete the double stretch Paul had to cover, normally allowing himself 20 minutes. Google maps has the stretches taking 17 and 34 minutes, respectively, which means that these estimations make total sense. We know that Lechmere started at 4.00, and it would be odd if Paul started at 3.56 or 4.03 or something such. 4 AM is the likeliest time, and if that was the case, then YES he would be late if he entered Bucks Row at 3.45, but NO, he would NOT be late at all if he arrived in the street at 3.37, as you propose. In such a case, he would have had oceans of time to spare. But he was nevertheless under the impression that he was late, he "hurried along the streets" and he said absolutely nothing about finding out in Corbetts Court that he had been wrong about being late.

How do you explain all of this, Jeff?

I did, above. I wasn't there when Paul was interviewed, nor were you, all we have is what was written in the paper, and we both know that what is written as a quote is not always what was said in those interviews. Hence, we have one newspaper that reports Paul using the word "exactly".

Second, as I indicated, no matter how exactly Paul may have said exactly, confidence does not make his time accurate. Many of us here are far more confident in our statements than we are accurate - otherwise, there were about 20 Jacks to explain 5 (or so) murders.

Third, I didn't mention Neil directly, true, but I was suggesting, and will state now, that PC Neil probably did show up around and find Polly at his stated time of 3:45. If Paul is just entering Buck's row at 3:45, he has to get to the far end, 3:46, then go through all of the events that he testifies he and Cross/Lechmere went through (I suggested 3 minutes above and I won't change that here) 3:49, then he says it required no more than 4 minutes to get to PC Mizen (I went with 3 above) so now that's 3:52 (3:53 if you want the whole 4 minutes). So if they leave Polly at 3:49, PC Neil has to be far enough away so as not to have seen them (say 1 minute behind) so he doesn't arrive until 3:50. Now he has to figure out what he's found, summon help to him, organize what everyone should be doing, say 3 minutes (about the same amount of time as for Paul and Cross/Lechmere), 3:53, and then off to get the doctor before 4:00. Times short. Shift it back to PC Neil finding Polly at 3:45, when he said he did, and there's the time required to get the Doctor at the time he testifies. Go with 3:45 for Paul entering, then everybody else is reporting times about 5 minutes too early, and I don't buy that.

Anyway, if we go with Paul's Lloyd's article, he also says she was dead for much longer than Cross/Lechmere had, so again, Paul's Llloyd's article tells us that it can't be Cross/Lechmere. It also tells us that Paul forget that Cross/Lechmere was with him (which seems a harder thing to forget than the time you left the house). It also tells us that PC Mizen was knocking people up, so he probably knew the time as he would do so to a schedule, but he apparently gets it wrong, coincidently, in just the same way everybody else has to be wrong to make Paul right in his Lloyd's article, when if he leaves around 3:35, which is "around 3:45" as he states under oath, then nobody has to be out in their times by much of anything.

And, as I indicated, if they meet PC Mizen around 3:43, it would take 2 or 3 minutes to converse with him, and if he knocks up the rest of the row before heading (as Paul says he does in the Lloyd's article), and he also has to take the 3 or 4 minutes to get there, then he arrives well after PC Neil has found the body.

- Jeff

[Snidery_Mark]

Hello Mr Hamm, your comment...

"Hi Snidery Mark,

Let's say Cross/Lechmere arrives at 3:37. Paul is coming up behind him so he waits, taps his shoulder, says come check this out. Let's give a minute for all of that. 3:38."

... is not what I meant. I do not believe Paul was on the scene a tany time near 3:38. Paul states "exactly 3:45" but I think he is one or two minutes earlier than that at about 3:43am. That fits best with meeting Mizen at 3:45 with Cross/Lechmere and also with Neil's "discovery" of Polly also at 3:45. Given what Mr Christer says, above, that it is 34 minutes from Doveton St to where Cross works which would put Lechmere at Buck's Row a few minutes before 3:45 - even if Paul meets Lechmere at 3:43am, Lechmere would have been with the body for at least 6 minutes, given that it takes only 7 minutes to get to Buck's Row from Doveton Street.
If Lechmere leaves home at 3:30, he's at Buck's Row at 3:37. If Paul meets Cross at 3:45 (which he says), that's 8 minutes that Cross has been with the body. If, as I assume, Paul met Cross at 3:43 - then Cross has been with Polly for 6 minutes.
My estimation of the timing in Buck's Row is that Cross there at 3:35 - Paul there at 3:43 Paul and Cross to Mezin at 3:45 and Neil finds Polly at 3:45 as well.
Llewellyn arrives (via Thain) at 4:00 and states she has been dead no more than thirthy minutes or around 3:30 (my guess is 3:38, a minute or so after Cross meets her comatose in the gutter).

Just my opinion, but I doubt very much that Paul was in Buck's Row anytime prior to 3:42am.

[JeffHamm]

Hello Mr Hamm, your comment...

"Hi Snidery Mark,

[LEFT][COLOR=#171A1B][FONT=inherit]Let's say Cross/Lechmere arrives at 3:37. Paul is coming up behind him so he waits, taps his shoulder, says come check this out. Let's give a minute for all of that. 3:38."

... is not what I meant.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I realize that's not what you meant, I was presenting a counter-example, where Paul does arrive earlier.

I do not believe Paul was on the scene a tany time near 3:38. Paul states "exactly 3:45" but I think he is one or two minutes earlier than that at about 3:43am. That fits best with meeting Mizen at 3:45 with Cross/Lechmere and also with Neil's "discovery" of Polly also at 3:45.

....

Except, Paul states it took them no more than 4 minutes to get from the body to PC Mizen, so if he is only meeting Cross/Lechmere at 3:43, and even if we only use half that 4 minutes, then they have to leave immediately to get there at 3:45. But we know, Cross/Lechmere has to wait for Paul to get to him, Paul tries to sidestep, they eventually engage in a conversation, then Paul checks out the body for a while, for breathing, etc, they have to figure out what they're gong to do, and so forth. All of that has to be accounted for, meaning they can't have left the body for at least 3 minutes (and I'm making that short, 5 is probably more realistic). So 3:43 they meet, another 3 for their interaction, that's 3:46, and we're past the time PC Neil says he arrived and past the time PC Mizen says he was talking to the two of them. And we still have 2-4 minutes of walking time between the body and PC Mizen to account for.

Paul's "exactly 3:45 statement" in the Lloyds article also indicates that Paul found the body to have been dead for quite some time, far more time than Cross/Lechmere has. It also leaves out Cross/Lechmere altogether, as if only Paul were talking to PC Mizen, which we know is wrong. So the reporter who wrote that up either edited the story to make it "better" (which then means he may also have added in the "exactly" wording as well), or he just had really bad notes (also making the wording very suspect).

Under oath, Paul just says he left home about 3:45, which is a general estimate of time, and as I indicated above, something like 3:35 would line everything up easily, and it also is a time validly described as being "about 3:45", which Paul testified to.

Therefore, it seems to me that Paul must have arrived well before 3:45, and the Lloyd's article must be viewed as inaccurate reporting (which we know the rest of it is).

That's how I see it anyway.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

I did, above. I wasn't there when Paul was interviewed, nor were you, all we have is what was written in the paper, and we both know that what is written as a quote is not always what was said in those interviews. Hence, we have one newspaper that reports Paul using the word "exactly".

We do, And we have no information to the contrary. And it is not as if the reporter making up such a thing would sell a few extra copies, is it? If he had said that Paul thought he had seen the killer or something such, it Ould be a different story, but we do not. We have a rather unremarkable statement about time that was in no way journalistically sexy, and it therefore stands to reason that it is likely that it was what Paul said. Plus, once more, his inquest testimony is in line with it!

Second, as I indicated, no matter how exactly Paul may have said exactly, confidence does not make his time accurate. Many of us here are far more confident in our statements than we are accurate - otherwise, there were about 20 Jacks to explain 5 (or so) murders.

An exact timing is based on a timepiece, generally. Paul had a need to be in place at the correct time every morn ing, and so he would have taken precautions to ensure that he did. Confidence is no absolute clincher, but is is a strong indicator.

Third, I didn't mention Neil directly, true, but I was suggesting, and will state now, that PC Neil probably did show up around and find Polly at his stated time of 3:45. If Paul is just entering Buck's row at 3:45, he has to get to the far end, 3:46, then go through all of the events that he testifies he and Cross/Lechmere went through (I suggested 3 minutes above and I won't change that here) 3:49, then he says it required no more than 4 minutes to get to PC Mizen (I went with 3 above) so now that's 3:52 (3:53 if you want the whole 4 minutes). So if they leave Polly at 3:49, PC Neil has to be far enough away so as not to have seen them (say 1 minute behind) so he doesn't arrive until 3:50. Now he has to figure out what he's found, summon help to him, organize what everyone should be doing, say 3 minutes (about the same amount of time as for Paul and Cross/Lechmere), 3:53, and then off to get the doctor before 4:00. Times short. Shift it back to PC Neil finding Polly at 3:45, when he said he did, and there's the time required to get the Doctor at the time he testifies. Go with 3:45 for Paul entering, then everybody else is reporting times about 5 minutes too early, and I don't buy that.

What Paul said was the the examination AND the trek to Mizen took all in all no more than four minutes. So you have that wrong. "Everybody else" will be the three PC:s and they do not have anything g to hang their timings on. Paul did. He knew he was late, meaning that 3.45 was too late a time for him to get into Bucks Row.

Anyway, if we go with Paul's Lloyd's article, he also says she was dead for much longer than Cross/Lechmere had, so again, Paul's Llloyd's article tells us that it can't be Cross/Lechmere. It also tells us that Paul forget that Cross/Lechmere was with him (which seems a harder thing to forget than the time you left the house). It also tells us that PC Mizen was knocking people up, so he probably knew the time as he would do so to a schedule, but he apparently gets it wrong, coincidently, in just the same way everybody else has to be wrong to make Paul right in his Lloyd's article, when if he leaves around 3:35, which is "around 3:45" as he states under oath, then nobody has to be out in their times by much of anything.

You know as well as I do that Paul thought he felt the body twitch, so she could not have been all cold. You know as well as I do that Llewellyn found the body, but for the hands, warm as he examined it. We can therefore conclude that what Paul implied was wrong when it comes to the body temperature, and it seems that supports the idea that he was none too fond of the police. The timings are a separate matter.

And, as I indicated, if they meet PC Mizen around 3:43, it would take 2 or 3 minutes to converse with him, and if he knocks up the rest of the row before heading (as Paul says he does in the Lloyd's article), and he also has to take the 3 or 4 minutes to get there, then he arrives well after PC Neil has found the body.


- Jeff

See the bold text above.

It would not take two or three minutes to converse with him at all. Time this conversation, please:

-Officer, there is a woman lying flat on her back down there!

-Where?

-In Bucks Row. Another PC is there with her. I think she may be drunk or dead.

-Alright.

I timed that to around ten or fifteen seconds. Not three minutes by any stretch of the imagination. Plus, of course, if they met Mizen at 3.43, there would be seventeen minutes to four o clock, and Paul would not be late for work at all if he was due at 4 AM. And he was late, we know that because he tells us that he was.

[Fisherman]

Under oath, Paul just says he left home about 3:45, which is a general estimate of time, and as I indicated above, something like 3:35 would line everything up easily, and it also is a time validly described as being "about 3:45", which Paul testified to.

- Jeff

Slipping, slipping, Jeff...! Paul did NOT say "about 3.45", he said "I left home just before a quarter to four". Which is exactly (there is that word again) in line with knowing that you are in Bucks Row exactly 3.45. All the signs of a man who kept very close track of the time are there, and it is not something that should be taken lightly.

[Fisherman]

Here is the all-important quotation about how long it took for Paul to arrive at Brown´s, be contacted by Lechmere, examine the woman and get to Mizen: "Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman." (Daily Telegraph, September 18)

So less than four minutes elapsed between these two markers. It was not the trek that took four minutes at most, it was the arrival at the body, the discussion with Lechmere, the examination, the mentioning of how he was late and the suggestion to go find a PC AND the trek that took less than four minutes.

And, once again, note how Paul is very specific about the timings. Everything points to a man who was almost obsessed with getting his timings right!

[JeffHamm]

Slipping, slipping, Jeff...! Paul did NOT say "about 3.45", he said "I left home just before a quarter to four". Which is exactly (there is that word again) in line with knowing that you are in Bucks Row exactly 3.45. All the signs of a man who kept very close track of the time are there, and it is not something that should be taken lightly.

I've got Evans and Skinner in front of me here and the testimony reads "He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning, ...", so "about 3:45" is "about a quarter to 4", but saved me a few key strokes. The testimony is that as reported by in The Times. I don't know where you got your quote from as you didn't say, but clearly from a different source. Regardless, 3:35 is perfectly in line with saying "just before 3:45", it's in an acceptable range of times to fit that description. Particularly as the clocks aren't all going to strike 4 at exactly the same time. Put his home clock a couple minutes fast, and he's left earlier than he thinks, for example.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

I've got Evans and Skinner in front of me here and the testimony reads "He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning, ...", so "about 3:45" is "about a quarter to 4", but saved me a few key strokes. The testimony is that as reported by in The Times. I don't know where you got your quote from as you didn't say, but clearly from a different source. Regardless, 3:35 is perfectly in line with saying "just before 3:45", it's in an acceptable range of times to fit that description. Particularly as the clocks aren't all going to strike 4 at exactly the same time. Put his home clock a couple minutes fast, and he's left earlier than he thinks, for example.

- Jeff

I got the quotation from the Morning Advertiser, where what was said was quoted ad verbatim. Evans and Skinner is not an example of direct reporting from the inquest, I´m afraid. I could also have used for example the Daily News: "On the Friday he left home just before a quarter to four".

Just before a quarter to four is not equivalent to 3.35, by the way. If we are to allow for such extravagances in time estimation, then why would we not extend the same courtesy to the three PC:s, who never said that they were exact in the first place? How is it that they cannot have been a few minutes off if Paul could have been ten minutes off? I fail to see the logic of that reasoning.

If Pauls home clock was many a minute too fast, he would not have been late, he would only have thought that he was so, and he would have been taken out of that misconception as he arrived at work. But he never says that happened, he claims he WAS late that day.

There is no way around this, I´m afraid.

By the bye, did you notice how you are wrong about the timing of no more than four minutes that Paul gave? How it encompassed much more than the trek as such?

[JeffHamm]

Here is the all-important quotation about how long it took for Paul to arrive at Brown´s, be contacted by Lechmere, examine the woman and get to Mizen: "Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman." (Daily Telegraph, September 18)

So less than four minutes elapsed between these two markers. It was not the trek that took four minutes at most, it was the arrival at the body, the discussion with Lechmere, the examination, the mentioning of how he was late and the suggestion to go find a PC AND the trek that took less than four minutes.

And, once again, note how Paul is very specific about the timings. Everything points to a man who was almost obsessed with getting his timings right!

Well, in Evans and Skinner, that information is under:

By the CORONER. - The morning was a rather chilly one. Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen. Up to that time not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he saw the body. He had not met any one before he reached Buck's-Row, and did not see anyone running away.

So from what I have, that comes from the coroner's summing, not from Paul's testimony directly. Again, noting the subtle difference in the exact wording, making it unsafe to base too much on exact words.

But again, let's go with that as stated. So from the time he starts to check Polly over, for breathing, and all, and for them to decide to leave, and find PC Mizen, we'll use up the 4 minutes. We still need the initial encounter, and the interaction between Cross/Lechmere, Paul, and PC Mizen. It pretty much works out the same, with nobody being particularly wrong in their times.

But, force Paul to be entering Buck's Row at exactly 3:45, and everybody else must be wrong, absolutely everybody.

Sorry Fish, I know you're convinced, but I can't buy it. Personally, I'm not even sure why you argue this so vehemently, you would get more mileage by accepting Paul probably got his time a bit wrong, and just argue that clearly Cross/Lechmere left his house much earlier than he testified. Put the error/lie on him alone, and from that point on, everybody else just has to tell the truth within typical margins of error for time estimations.

Or has that possibility been shut down already?

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

Neil does not add any information to his timing, and so we cannot say whether he gave that timing as an approximation or as an exact timing. If it was an exact timing, he should have said so if he wanted that to be taken down as a fact.

Paul DID qualify HIS thing by saying that it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he passed down Bucks Row. And nobody who has not checked the time before would be anywhere near likely to say such a thing, which means that we must treat his timing with more than a shrug of the shoulders, in my view at least.

This is the difference inbetween Pauls and Neils given timings. One says "exactly" while the other does not.

It does not mean that either man is correct per se, but Paul lays more of a claim to be on the money than Neil does.

Your definition of what is exact is somewhat idiosyncratic, Neil does not need to qualify his time with word such as "exactly" or "about" because he already uses the qualifying term "AT" with no other comment.
I fully accept it may be different in Other languages, however in English, if one says "AT" a time with no other description, such as the "train departures At" it is deemed to be at that pricise time.
Hence if trains departs a minute later than advertised they are deemed to be late.

Steve

[Fisherman]

I think it is vital to understand that we are working to a tight time schedule in all of this. If we try to avoid controversy by swapping 3.37/3.45 for the time X as the point at which Paul arrived at Browns, we need to realize that he says that speaking to Lechmere and examining the woman and walking to Mizen all took no more than 4 minutes at most. That means that we have X + 4 minutes as Mizen is reached. We then have a conversation between Mizen and Lechmere that the PC described as a "man passing" who told him about Nichols. So it seems that Lechmere veers off and breaks the news on his feet, more or less. Certainly, it would not have taken a full minute, but lets say it took half a minute. Then we have Mizen finishing a knocking up errand. That means that he had started the errand before the carman spoke to him, that is to say, he had knocked on the window of a customer. Then that customer would have come to the window, Mizen would have said "rise and shine" and that was that. Let's say that these two matters, the information given by Lechmere and the "rise and shine" part took a minute, after which Mizen set out for Bucks Row.
The distance between the murder spot and Mizenwould have taken around two minutes to cover walking. That means that the contact between Paul and Lechmere and the ensuing examination of Nichols took two minutes tops, no more.
When we have Mizen spending a minute with Lechmere and his drowsy morning knock up customer, we therefore can add things up from X forwards. 2 minutes examination takes it to X + 2. The trek to Mizen takes us to X + 4. The conversation and knocking up business takes us to X + 5. The walk down to the murder spot on Mizens behalf takes us to X + 7.

The distance between the murder spot and Mizen can be very roughly divided into the Bucks Row stretch and the Bakers Row/Hanbury Street stretch as two similar distances. That means that Lechmere and Paul will have turned the corner of Bakers Row at around X + 3 minutes. Mizen will then have turned the same corner, but in the opposite direction, at around X + 6 minutes. That means that Neils arrival in Bucks Row, after the carmen had left the street, must have happened directly after X + 3 minutes. He will then have walked at a leisurely pace down to the murder spot, and it is reasonable to suggest that this would have taken him around 1,5 to 2 minutes, getting him to the spot at around X + 4,5 minutes - X + 5 minutes. Two minutes later, Mizen was in place with him, In the space inbetween all of this, would Neil have had time to flag down Thain and send him off? Well, let's say that Neil arrived at the murder spot at X + 4,5 minutes and examined the body for half a minute. It would then be X + 5 minutes, and perhaps he flagged Thain down at that stage. Thain would then open a minute walking to the spot, making it 3.46, and Neil would quickly dispatch him to Llewellyn at that same minute. That would be equivalent to when Mizen turned the corner up at Bakers Row, approaching the murder site. So when Neil had sent Thain on his way, he would immediately have seen the approaching Mizen. He would not be aware, though, that Mizen was already on his way - he would think that he was noticing his colleague up at Bakers Row, but that was impossible to do owing to the outlay of the streets.

But it all makes sense this way - there is not half a minute to spare anywhere, but it works, and it is in keeping with how Neil and the two assisting PC:s told their stories.

[Fisherman]

Your definition of what is exact is somewhat idiosyncratic, Neil does not need to qualify his time with word such as "exactly" or "about" because he already uses the qualifying term "AT" with no other comment.
I fully accept it may be different in Other languages, however in English, if one says "AT" a time with no other description, such as the "train departures At" it is deemed to be at that pricise time.
Hence if trains departs a minute later than advertised they are deemed to be late.

Steve

If Neil, Thain or Mizen had qualified their timings by saying that they know them to be exact, it would have been a different matter. If they had no timepieces and were out of earshot from useful city clocks, we get an entirely different picture. Even if they were within earshot of such a city clock, it would be entirely logical to say at 3.45 if they had heard that clock chine the quarter hour some minutes before. As has been pointed out (by Monty, I believe), PC:s used intervals of time in their assessments.

Paul is the only one to speak of an exact time, and that time is consistent with many other parameters of the drama. He was also adamant that he was late, and if he was in Bucks Row at 3.37 as suggested by Jeff, he would not have been late at ll if he commenced work at 4 AM, an entirely logical suggestion.

it has nothing to do with me not being a brit but everything to do with a brit trying to confuse the cards.

[Elamarna]

Going off the times that were given by the parties, I would proffer the following:

Neil says he "found" polly at 3:45am and last patrolled Buck's Row at 3:15.
Mizen says he encountered Paul and Cross (the other man) also at 3:45am.
Paul says he encountered Lechmere also at 3:45am.
Given that all three cannot be correct as to the time, I would go with the odds of two-to-one that Paul was a few minutes out and that both Neil and Mizen were correct. That Paul meets Lechmere at 3:43 and they both find Mizen at 3:45 - the same time Neil finds Polly around the corner in the now empty street.

I assume from this that Paul came across Lechmere a little before his "exactly" 3:45am - probably around 3:42 or 3:43am.
Lechmere stated he left home at 3:30am. 7 minute walk to Bucks Row, puts him on the scene at 3:37am.

Even if he left home at 3:30am (when he usually left home at 3:20am), he was still with Polly for at least 5-8 minutes before Paul arrives. That's a long time to be doing nothing - I cannot hold my breath for that long...

The attending physician estimated the time of death around 3:30am (half an hour before he attended the scene at 4:00am).

Despite the fact that we will never know the truth, I think that in all probability it was Lechmere who killed Polly Nichols.

Hi, S_M
You say there was a 5-8 minute gap.
The main problem you have is assuming any degree of syncronizied time between any of the participants.

Lechmere for instance is never reported as saying he leaves at 3.30; but at "about" or "around" 3.30.
That is very different, and one can assume a 2-3 minute range in direction.

How does his Time compare to that of Paul or Neil?
Absolute times are somewhat pointless with out synchronization.
Relative times, the gaps between events are more useful.

So looking at Lechmere, it takes approx 7 minutes to walk from home to the Murder Site, we can allow 20 or so seconds variation in either direction.
He then needs to find Nichols, attack her and not be seen moving from her body by Paul, that's at least a couple of minutes.

You have Neil arriving before 3.45, which obviously means Paul's time of 3.45 cannot be correct.

You also appear not to allow for the time taken from the moment that Lechmere and Paul leave the body until Neil arrives.
When one takes the information that the carmen did not see Neil and that he did not see them, we can estimate, depending on his exact beat, where he was and how far away he was.
The closest he could be is about 3 minutes away.

We need to also allow for the exchange between the two Carmen and the examination of Nichols.

So we Lechmere's arrival 7 minutes after he leaves home, then we have the attack, say 2 minutes, then the exchange between the carmen, another 2minutes at least, a total of 11 minutes at least, probably more since Lechmere leaves home.

When we take into account the gap between the carmen leaving and Neil arriving, we find that Suddenly that Gap, when Lechmere is supposed to be alone with the body , has gone.

While it remains possible that Lechmere, could have killed Nichols, he would have to have left home earlier than his 3.30, the TOD btw, is simply a rough estimation, such would not stand up in a present day court of law

Steve