Window of Time for Nichols murder

[JeffHamm]

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?

Sorry Fisherman, but when someone gives a subjective relative time "just before 3:45", that leaves a wide margin of error. Basically, clocks sound the half hour, and the quarter hours, etc, so if Paul's at home, knows the half hour has passed but not yet the quarter to, then saying he left "just before 3:45" simply tells us a bit of time passed since the half hour but not the full 15 minutes. 3:35 entirely fits that, so does 3:44 of course.

And yes, he might still have been late because he probably wasn't expecting to be spending time examining dead bodies, and chatting to police. Both of those activities could have used up his time and he resulted in being late. If his clock is always a few minutes fast, relative to others, there isn't even that problem to deal with.

Police record the time of events, like finding bodies. It's part of their job. Not sure if PC Neil had a time piece on him though. Still, there's room for the times to be off a minute or two with all of them, and the events all fit together fairly well, except when Paul entering Buck's Row is carved in stone. That throws the whole of the testimony into conflict, and that's what rubs me wrong about the whole thing.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

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

If it took - as you suggest - around seven or eight minutes to examine the body and trek to Mizen, then, given that the trek as such is covered in two minutes flat (not least if you are late and hurrying along), that examination would have gone on for up towards six minutes! By two carmen who were late for work. How feasible is that? And how could they miss out on the blood for six long minutes of examination?

Am I correct in saying that the ones you refer to as "absolutely everybody" are the three PC:s? Who may have agreed on 3.45 beforehand? And who we cannot allow to have been wrong whereas the man who gave an exact timing should be regarded as having been ten minutes adrift - and wrong about being late?

Here´s a piece of advice. Shut the eye you are using. Open the other one. Then look again. And the time that does not fit in one end suddenly fits very well in the other one!

As for more mileage, I am not arguing as I do on account of trying to achieve any mileage. I am arguing as I do because I think that is what the facts tell me. Such a thing can sometimes be detrimental to support your suspect, but - contrary to what is suggested by some out here - I prefer being honest to myself and the facts to scoring points that I do not think are correct in the first place. I have of course said many a time that if Lechmere was the killer, then he is not to be trusted on his departure timing. That should go without saying.
Why you quote Evans and Skinner to promote the idea that the trek took up to four minutes, I don't know. They say the exact same thing that I say: not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he saw the body. And the trek is far too short to demand four minutes walking!

[Elamarna]

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.

I am not talking of Thain or Mizen.
Neil said At 3.45 that in English is an exact time.

No debate needed, that's how it works, to add exactly is superfluous.

No Confusing intended, just the Truth.
Your timingsin the above message to Jeff are wrong in my estimation, fully explained in the now very near future.

Steve

[Fisherman]

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 alobe 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

A small remark - there is no reason at all nor any evidence to support that the examination and exchange between the carmen took "at least" two minutes. Instead, we have Paul asserting us that the whole matter, the trek included, took no more than four minutes at least, and since the trek to Mizen would have taken around two minutes, that leaves us with the suggestion that the exchange, far from taking "at least" two minutes, instead took "at most" two minutes. Unless, of course, the entirely unreliable Paul was wrong. Again.

The true charm of your post lies in your saying that it remains possible that Lechmere killed Nichols. Indeed it does, and nothing much points away from it to be fair.

PS. Alternative innocent explanations are not pointers against guilt on behalf of Lechmere, they are only alternative possibilities. And the more pointers to guilt there are, the less credible a defense built on presumptions of alternative innocent explanations being at play becomes. "When the coincidences add up, mount up - and they do in his case - it becomes one coincidence too many" as a wise man said.

[Elamarna]

Why you quote Evans and Skinner to promote the idea that the trek took up to four minutes, I don't know. They say the exact same thing that I say: not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he saw the body. And the trek is far too short to demand four minutes walking!

At average walking speed today(3.1mph), it's around 3.5 minutes.
AT above average (3.5mph) it's about 3minutes
At faster (4mph) it's 2 minutes 40 seconds.

Either of the bottom two would have been good enough to get both to work on time that day, if we discount the Murder.

Steve

[Elamarna]

A small remark - there is no reason at all nor any evidence to support that the examination and exchange between the carmen took "at least" two minutes. Instead, we have Paul asserting us that the whole matter, the trek included, took no more than four minutes at least, and since the trek to Mizen would have taken around two minutes, that leaves us with the suggestion that the exchange, far from taking "at least" two minutes, instead took "at most" two minutes. Unless, of course, the entirely unreliable Paul was wrong. Again.

It is you who are wrong Christer.
Lechmere walks at least 20 or 30 yards towards Paul. They then walk back to the body, they examine it and then head off. To allow 2 minutes seems very reasonable.

Sorry 2 minutes to Mizen? only if they are walking at over 5 mph, there is no evidence to suggest such.

The true charm of your post lies in your saying that it remains possible that Lechmere killed Nichols. Indeed it does, and nothing much points away from it to be fair.

Only a fool excludes what cannot be completely discounted.
A great deal points away from his being the Killer, that you cannot or are unwilling to see that speaks volumes.

PS. Alternative innocent explanations are not pointers against guilt on behalf of Lechmere, they are only alternative possibilities. And the more pointers to guilt there are, the less credible a defense built on presumptions of alternative innocent explanations being at play becomes. "When the coincidences add up, mount up - and they do in his case - it becomes one coincidence too many" as a wise man said.

Only when those coincidences are genuine and not contrived or constructed at a later date

Steve

[Fisherman]

Sorry Fisherman, but when someone gives a subjective relative time "just before 3:45", that leaves a wide margin of error. Basically, clocks sound the half hour, and the quarter hours, etc, so if Paul's at home, knows the half hour has passed but not yet the quarter to, then saying he left "just before 3:45" simply tells us a bit of time passed since the half hour but not the full 15 minutes. 3:35 entirely fits that, so does 3:44 of course.

And yes, he might still have been late because he probably wasn't expecting to be spending time examining dead bodies, and chatting to police. Both of those activities could have used up his time and he resulted in being late. If his clock is always a few minutes fast, relative to others, there isn't even that problem to deal with.

Police record the time of events, like finding bodies. It's part of their job. Not sure if PC Neil had a time piece on him though. Still, there's room for the times to be off a minute or two with all of them, and the events all fit together fairly well, except when Paul entering Buck's Row is carved in stone. That throws the whole of the testimony into conflict, and that's what rubs me wrong about the whole thing.

- Jeff

Nope. 3.35 is not and has never been "just before 3.45". 3.35 is not even just before 3.40. 3.35 is just before 3.36.

We can - and I suppose you will - quibble about this for an eternity, but personally I find such things less than fruitful. The main thing is that "just before 3.45" DOES fit precisely with what Paul said to Lloyds, and that this time apparently meant that Paul was late. Please note that if the time was 3.37 and he commenced work at 4 AM, that he would not have been late, and he would have found out that he was in error on that point as he arrived at work.

As I say, there is no way around it.

Paul was late BEFORE finding Nichols! He said so: I was late and hurrying along the street when I found this man standing in the middle of the street. He was therefore late before that stage, meaning that 3.45 was too late for him to enter Bucks Row. Once again, that is entirely consistent with having a 17 minute trek from Forster Street to work and beginning at 4 AM.

Why is there a 2 minute limit to how wrong the PC:s can have been if they had no timepieces? How is that even remotely possible? Why is 4 or 5 minutes ruled out? How do we know that they did not agree to say 3.45 at the inquest, so as not to leave conflicting timings?

The reason Pauls timing is so strong is because he qualified it by saying that it was exactly 3.45 as he passed into Bucks Row. Not when he found the body, not when he left home (that happened "just before 3.45"), but when he got into Bucks Row. It is a strong piece of testimony, and it is supported by other details, as I keep saying over and over again.

If he was actually NOT late for work, then why did he not say so?

The truly fantastic thing about all of this is how it has been flatly claimed that the suggestion that Paul arrived in Bucks Row at 3.45 has been"debunked"! Not that you made that whopper of a claim, but the mere fact that such things occur in these discussions says a lot!

[Fisherman]

I am not talking of Thain or Mizen.
Neil said At 3.45 that in English is an exact time.

No debate needed, that's how it works, to add exactly is superfluous.

No Confusing intended, just the Truth.
Your timingsin the above message to Jeff are wrong in my estimation, fully explained in the now very near future.

Steve

Steve, what you will do in the very near future is not to publish the truth. It is to publish what you THINK may have been the truth.

And no, no matter how many times you claim that saying at 3.45 means exactly 3.45, it does not magically turn into truth. People who say I had a nap at 3.30 do not necessarily mean that they laid down at 3.30.00. They mean that they had a nap at around 3.30.

All we can say about Neils testimony is that he apparently thought that its was around 3.45 as he got to the body. What he based that take on, we don't know. How exact he would have been able to say that was, we don't know. If the coroner had asked him "Could that time be some minutes off?", we don't know that he would have said "No, that is not possible. When I say at 3.45, I mean 3.45.00 precisely".

If that is the kind of argument you are going to use in your opus, then I´ll get the shaving cream and razor right now, and you may just as well start undressing.

[Fisherman]

At average walking speed today(3.1mph), it's around 3.5 minutes.
AT above average (3.5mph) it's about 3minutes
At faster (4mph) it's 2 minutes 40 seconds.

Either of the bottom two would have been good enough to get both to work on time that day, if we discount the Murder.

Steve

Yes, because they would have rushed, which is what we do when we are late. However, rushing from Doveton Street to Bucks Row, starting out at 3.30, would NOT have produced Lechmere at the murder spot at 3.45. Not at 3.40.

And I know - "maybe that was just an estimate, and maybe he got it wrong". Yes, maybe, but it IS and REMAINS the time he gave, which IS and REMAINS a time that does not sit well with the picture on the whole.

Where do you have Mizen in your measurements, by the way? Exactly? And have you noticed how a trek time of 3.30 means that the interaction. between the carmen, the examination included, would have taken less than 30 seconds if Paul was correct in saying that it took at most 4 minutes to do the whole thing?

[FrankO]

How could I NOT leave all options open? Why would I opt for one option only when I have no way to rule others out? It is not how I work, Frank.

I have no answers to your questions, Christer. I just know that you posted what’s below and that this gave me the very distinct impression (wrongly, I know) that when you wrote this you went for one option only and, at that point, had been going for one option only for some time. It surprised me a little, but there you go.

In no other murder did the killer do any hiding of the wounds, he instead left the victims on display.

In no other mutilation murder was the killer quite possibly disturbed, as you’ll agree.

Lechmere was adamant that not a soul was in the street - why would the killer hear Lechmere, while Lechmere didn't hear the killer?

The killer had every reason to listen for sounds, whilst Lechmere had none. Memory is far from infallible, Christer; the killer may very well have worn silent shoes, too – this would, in fact, have been a very smart thing for him to do; the killer may have softly walked away in the rhythm of Lechmere’s footsteps – that would only have been a logical thing to do, if he was to walk away.

Why would the killer linger long enough for Lechmere to draw closer?

I don’t think he would. He would have walked away only seconds after hearing Lechmere for the first time.

How much stalling could he bank on, when there was a very large chance that the blood would have run out all over the street?

Why should he have banked on blood having run out all over the street? And why should he bank on Lechmere to see blood if there had been any around (and not below) her body? After all, it was a very dark spot there, so dark, even, that Paul wasn't able to see that her eyes were wide open. And even if blood would have run out all over the street, then "so be it" the narcistic psychopath could very well have thought. But if it wouldn’t have, then at least Lechmere wouldn’t immediately see that the woman’s abdomen was cut and the killer would have an extra set of seconds to get further away from the crime spot. Every second would have counted. And if Lechmere wasn't the killer, the actual killer could not have hoped for his ploy to turn out any better than it did: the abdominal wounds weren't discovered by Lechmere at all and went undetected for an hour or so!

Did he arrange the clothing so as to soak the blood up?

That’s written in the stars, Christer.

I find the suggestion a bad one, I'm afraid. /

Because I am not changing my mind any time soon…

Knowing that your view is that the case is effectively closed (or, at least, you write that here every now & then), I would not have expected anything else, Christer.

[Fisherman]

It is you who are wrong Christer.
Lechmere walks at least 20 or 30 yards towards Paul. They then walk back to the body, they examine it and then head off. To allow 2 minutes seems very reasonable.

Sorry 2 minutes to Mizen? only if they are walking at over 5 mph, there is no evidence to suggest such.



Only a fool excludes what cannot be completely discounted.
A great deal points away from his being the Killer, that you cannot or are unwilling to see that speaks volumes.




Only when those coincidences are genuine and not contrived or constructed at a later date

Steve

Interesting! From where do you get the 30 yards walk?

And you did not say 2 minutes, you said "at least two minutes". Regardless, you will find it hard to fit Pauls approximation in.

Professional athlete can walk 20 miles at a pace of close to 7 miles per hour. The carmen had a couple of hundred yards to cover. And they were late. If it took 2 minutes flat, 2.30 or a little more is not very insteresting, since these approximations all can be fitted in with what Paul said. And to be frank, I don't think we know the exact distance that was covered, since we don't know exactly where Mizen was a ten yard stretch can make a significant difference.

I have no problems seeing that he COULD be innocent, Steve. What I am saying is that nothing much points factually away from guilt, though! Yes, carmen with families and steady works do not regularly kill people, I know. It is, however more of a generalist truth than any real argument against Lechmeres guilt. In that context, such arguments go lame very quickly. What is it you think speak most for his innocence, which little detail tells us that he was probably not guilty. Factually?

[Elamarna]

Nope. 3.35 is not and has never been "just before 3.45". 3.35 is not even just before 3.40. 3.35 is just before 3.36.

We can - and I suppose you will - quibble about this for an eternity, but personally I find such things less than fruitful. The main thing is that "just before 3.45" DOES fit precisely with what Paul said to Lloyds, and that this time apparently meant that Paul was late. Please note that if the time was 3.37 and he commenced work at 4 AM, that he would not have been late, and he would have found out that he was in error on that point as he arrived at work.

As I say, there is no way around it.

Paul was late BEFORE finding Nichols! He said so: I was late and hurrying along the street when I found this man standing in the middle of the street. He was therefore late before that stage, meaning that 3.45 was too late for him to enter Bucks Row. Once again, that is entirely consistent with having a 17 minute trek from Forster Street to work and beginning at 4 AM.

Why is there a 2 minute limit to how wrong the PC:s can have been if they had no timepieces? How is that even remotely possible? Why is 4 or 5 minutes ruled out? How do we know that they did not agree to say 3.45 at the inquest, so as not to leave conflicting timings?

The reason Pauls timing is so strong is because he qualified it by saying that it was exactly 3.45 as he passed into Bucks Row. Not when he found the body, not when he left home (that happened "just before 3.45"), but when he got into Bucks Row. It is a strong piece of testimony, and it is supported by other details, as I keep saying over and over again.

If he was actually NOT late for work, then why did he not say so?

The truly fantastic thing about all of this is how it has been flatly claimed that the suggestion that Paul arrived in Bucks Row at 3.45 has been"debunked"! Not that you made that whopper of a claim, but the mere fact that such things occur in these discussions says a lot!

Once again missing the point Christer,
That Paul believed he was late is not disputed.
It's simply that he was mistaken.

We do not know what time he stated work we assume 4am.
And even if that is correct and he left home at 3.45 GMT, on the dot, he would still arrive at work before 4am walking at 3.5 mph.
Where do you get this 17minutes from its 1364 yards from door to door, that would mean walking at a 2.5 mph!!(i suspect you use Google Maps)

You see Paul's time as being strong because you need it to be so, not because it is.

That you do not see that the 3.45 time is completely debunked on so many levels, (evidential, syncronization)is testimony to the nature of your thinking.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Yes, because they would have rushed, which is what we do when we are late. However, rushing from Doveton Street to Bucks Row, starting out at 3.30, would NOT have produced Lechmere at the murder spot at 3.45. Not at 3.40.

And I know - "maybe that was just an estimate, and maybe he got it wrong". Yes, maybe, but it IS and REMAINS the time he gave, which IS and REMAINS a time that does not sit well with the picture on the whole.

Where do you have Mizen in your measurements, by the way? Exactly? And have you noticed how a trek time of 3.30 means that the interaction. between the carmen, the examination included, would have taken less than 30 seconds if Paul was correct in saying that it took at most 4 minutes to do the whole thing?

Interesting point on the placement of Mizen.
I assume, he is at the junction between Bakers Row/Hanbury/Old Montague.
He may be a few yards in either direction, the testimony is unclear.
In my work rather than here, I give various options, the times are only seconds different .

Again, you are taking Paul as being accurate ?
Unless he had a watch on him, such would be impossible. I suggest he is 30 seconds or so out.

We also have the issue of when does he see the body, that is also open to debate.
The approach of Lechmere to Paul, back to the body, and examination could not have taken only 30 seconds. The Maths do not work.

Steve

[Fisherman]

[/COLOR][/I][/B]I have no answers to your questions, Christer. I just know that you posted what’s below and that this gave me the very distinct impression (wrongly, I know) that when you wrote this you went for one option only and, at that point, had been going for one option only for some time. It surprised me a little, but there you go.

[/FONT][/SIZE]
[/FONT][/COLOR][/I][/B]In no other mutilation murder was the killer quite possibly disturbed, as you’ll agree.

The killer had every reason to listen for sounds, whilst Lechmere had none. Memory is far from infallible, Christer; the killer may very well have worn silent shoes, too – this would, in fact, have been a very smart thing for him to do; the killer may have softly walked away in the rhythm of Lechmere’s footsteps – that would only have been a logical thing to do, if he was to walk away.

I don’t think he would. He would have walked away only seconds after hearing Lechmere for the first time.

Why should he have banked on blood having run out all over the street? And why should he bank on Lechmere to see blood if there had been any around (and not below) her body? After all, it was a very dark spot there, so dark, even, that Paul wasn't able to see that her eyes were wide open. And even if blood would have run out all over the street, then "so be it" the narcistic psychopath could very well have thought. But if it wouldn’t have, then at least Lechmere wouldn’t immediately see that the woman’s abdomen was cut and the killer would have an extra set of seconds to get further away from the crime spot. Every second would have counted. And if Lechmere wasn't the killer, the actual killer could not have hoped for his ploy to turn out any better than it did: the abdominal wounds weren't discovered by Lechmere at all and went undetected for an hour or so!

That’s written in the stars, Christer.

[I]Knowing that your view is that the case is effectively closed (or, at least, you write that here every now & then), I would not have expected anything else, Christer.

Hi Frank! A few points:

Will killers who like leaving their victims on display hide the wounds of a victim if they think that victim is about to be found? Are there any examples of this practice? The funny thing is that such a measure would be most useful in one scenario only - the one where a killer is still in place at the murder site when somebody comes along. And isn't it even more funny that Lechmere did not happen upon any of the other victims, but just had to stumble over Nichols where the wounds suggest a ruse on behalf of a killer who stayed put? It was a one in five chance, going on the C5 series, one in 6 if we add Tabram. And isn't it funny how Nichols was still bleeding many minutes after Lechmere left? In the Tabram case, the Chapman case and the Kelly case, this was not a possibility, the finders found coagulated blood in those cases. And that would have exonerated Lechmere, but no. And as if that was not enough, why oh why did the rest of the victims fall prey to a killer who seemingly had scouted Lechmeres movements, and wanted to frame him? Why was not a single victim out of the Tabram/Nichols/Chaopman/Kelly chain killed in a spot that was far away from his working trek? Not a single one? And why did Stride have to be killed close to his mother´s place, just as Eddowes had to fall prey more or less alongside his old working trek from James Street?
'These are all matters that sit perfectly well with the suggestion that he was the killer. And what does he do? Does he clear these things up? No, he instead uses an alternative name than. the one he regularly used otherwidein authority contacts! And to top things off, the PC he spoke to on the murder night tells us that he gave information that was totally in sync with a desire to escape the police unsearched!
What will it take to make you agree with Scobie, Frank? Scobie, who says that he acted in a suspicious manner and that a jury would take a dislike to him own account of that.
I know full well that we can produce alternative innocent explanations, and I know full well that any half decent defense lawyer would be able to cast doubt over the guilty scenario, no questions asked out answered. But does that detract in any way from how there IS a guilty scenario readily offered up by the facts as it stands? I don't think so.

[Fisherman]

Once again missing the point Christer,
That Paul believed he was late is not disputed.
It's simply that he was mistaken.

We do not know what time he stated work we assume 4am.
And even if that is correct and he left home at 3.45 GMT, on the dot, he would still arrive at work before 4am walking at 3.5 mph.
Where do you get this 17minutes from its 1364 yards from door to door, that would mean walking at a 2.5 mph!!(i suspect you use Google Maps)

You see Paul's time as being strong because you need it to be so, not because it is.

That you do not see that the 3.45 time is completely debunked on so many levels, (evidential, syncronization)is testimony to the nature of your thinking.


Steve

IF Paul was mistaken, then why did he not say so to the inquest? Why would we assume that he was mistaken at all, when he clearly says that he WAS late? What kind off serious research disputes that? Throughout the proceedings, he assured papers and inquest alike that this was a morning on which he was late. When we are late, we find confirmation for that when we arrive at work, by looking at the clock, by being told so by out employers and working mates. If we suddenly realize that we are mistaken, why would we not tell this to the inquest?
Your wish calls for a massive mistake on Pauls behalf, a mistake there is nothing at all to prove.

What makes you think that I "need" Pauls time to be correct, by the way? Why would I need that? If I had been provided with proof that Paul was in Bucks Row at 3.40, it would not change the viability of Lechmeres guilt at all, would it?

And now you add yourself to the rather pitiful little clique that claims that the 3.45 time has been debunked. Not only that, you claim that I cannot prove any time synchronization, but YOU claim that synchronization debunks the time! That's is priceless, Steve. I think I may need to take a long hard look at the price of toilet paper the day your book arrives...