Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Abby Normal]

I have no way of agreeing about when you arrived at work, Steve.

... but I DO agree that victorian working men may have had good reason to arrive a few minutes before starting time, more so than we have today. However, if we accept this, then we must also accept that the employers had immaculate timings to offer - their clocks could not be a few minutes off, since that would possibly get innocent workers into trouble. Which is why I think that there was a clock at Pauls place of work that the employers went by, and that they had legal reason to do so - this clock will have been correct and checked frequently.
Similarly, anybody with an interest to stay employed and who had a timepiece, would have been acutely aware of how important it was for that timepiece to correctly relate to the employers ditto. Which is why I think Paul knew exactly what the time was on that morning, and in its turn that is why I say that we need to listen to him. Not least since we know that he claimed to have been late! If, as you suggest Steve, he wanted to be some little time ahead of the starting time at work, then leaving home at 3.40 would ensure that this succeeded - the 17 minute walk would be completed at 3.57, and he would be in the clear.
If, however, he didn't leave home until 3.44, arriving in Bucks Row EXACTLY at 3.45, he would stand to arrive a minute late at work, so he would effectively be late and he would have reason to hurry to make up for that lost time.

If Pauls timepiece was totally unreliable he would A/ need not to rely on it, and B/ not have said with confidence that it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he passed into Bucks Row.

I am a stickler for times myself, and I think I recognize that in Paul too.

fish
we were talking about how long it would take lech to get to work every day. do you know how long his walk to pickfords would normally be?

[Fisherman]

hi fish
how long did lechs walk to pickfords usually take?

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.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

not aimed at me I know, however its not an easy question.
It would depend on what route he took, and how fast he walked.

We know he started at 4.00 and normally left at 3.20, so he allowed 40 minutes. However, we do not know if that means he aimed to arrive at 4.00 or if he turned up a few minutes earlier.

My Start time when i worked was 9.00am, but i was always there by 8.50.

I hope Fish will agree on that at least.

Steve

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?

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby,

not aimed at me I know, however its not an easy question.
It would depend on what route he took, and how fast he walked.

We know he started at 4.00 and normally left at 3.20, so he allowed 40 minutes. However, we do not know if that means he aimed to arrive at 4.00 or if he turned up a few minutes earlier.

My Start time when i worked was 9.00am, but i was always there by 8.50.

I hope Fish will agree on that at least.

Steve

I have no way of agreeing about when you arrived at work, Steve.

... but I DO agree that victorian working men may have had good reason to arrive a few minutes before starting time, more so than we have today. However, if we accept this, then we must also accept that the employers had immaculate timings to offer - their clocks could not be a few minutes off, since that would possibly get innocent workers into trouble. Which is why I think that there was a clock at Pauls place of work that the employers went by, and that they had legal reason to do so - this clock will have been correct and checked frequently.
Similarly, anybody with an interest to stay employed and who had a timepiece, would have been acutely aware of how important it was for that timepiece to correctly relate to the employers ditto. Which is why I think Paul knew exactly what the time was on that morning, and in its turn that is why I say that we need to listen to him. Not least since we know that he claimed to have been late! If, as you suggest Steve, he wanted to be some little time ahead of the starting time at work, then leaving home at 3.40 would ensure that this succeeded - the 17 minute walk would be completed at 3.57, and he would be in the clear.
If, however, he didn't leave home until 3.44, arriving in Bucks Row EXACTLY at 3.45, he would stand to arrive a minute late at work, so he would effectively be late and he would have reason to hurry to make up for that lost time.

If Pauls timepiece was totally unreliable he would A/ need not to rely on it, and B/ not have said with confidence that it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he passed into Bucks Row.

I am a stickler for times myself, and I think I recognize that in Paul too.

[Fisherman]

He may well have been correct, there is no way of knowing, but how accurate is that type of guess work/estimate, to tell 4 minutes from 5 or 3.
If he had a watch, that would be different.

I have therefore suggested a variation of 30 seconds, does it effect the case, yes it may well do to a small degree, but that's all coming up.

Steve

I am not establishing any measurement of accuracy, Steve - I am saying that Paul said "no more than four minutes", and that this assessement is what we have to go by. Once we add or detract from it, we make a weaker case, and the more we detract or add, the weaker it gets. That is not equivalent to any such suggestion necessarily being wrong, but it is a general guideline that we need to relate to.

Once we say "He was probably 30 seconds wrong there, and who knows if that other guy was not three minutes wrong there, and that wording should probably read A, not B, plus there is no need to accept that the timing X is correct, we allow ourselves learoom to do just about anything. Just about as in "adjust about". I have given my reasons for why I think Paul must be our safest bet, and as long as nobody has presented any good reason for me to abandon that stance, I will stay by it. But believe me, if such a reason comes along, I will leave it!

Saying that Neils "at 3.45" is an exact timing is not going to do the trick, however. I think that he had a half-hour beat, and that he simply may have counted backwards to find at which point in time he was due in Bucks Row, and then he took it from there. According to that schedule, he was there "at" 10.45, 11.15, 11.45, 01.15, 01.15, 02.15, 02.45, 03.15 and 03.45. And once he had testified on the first day of the inquest, the two other PC:s were likely to follow suit. In the initial articles, we have this wording in the East London Advertiser: " The facts are that Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four on Friday morning, when he discovered a woman between 35 and 40 years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done traversing the throat from left to right."

"About" a quarter to four. Other papers say "at" a quarter to four. Regardless, it may well be that both wordings rely on Neils half-hour orbit timings - and they could well have been off quite a lot if he had no timepiece to check them by.

[Elamarna]

hi fish
how long did lechs walk to pickfords usually take?

Hi Abby,

not aimed at me I know, however its not an easy question.
It would depend on what route he took, and how fast he walked.

We know he started at 4.00 and normally left at 3.20, so he allowed 40 minutes. However, we do not know if that means he aimed to arrive at 4.00 or if he turned up a few minutes earlier.

My Start time when i worked was 9.00am, but i was always there by 8.50.

I hope Fish will agree on that at least.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Suggest away, Steve, be my guest. As long as we both accept that Paul may well have been perfectly correct, you are free to offer any alternative scenario you feel like, and even to point to how it - if it was true - can strengthen the idea that Lechmere was not guilty. That's the thing about suggestions - if they are true, they can change a whole lot. The bummer is how suggestions must always remain just that - suggestions.

And me oh my, has a LOT been suggested out here.

He may well have been correct, there is no way of knowing, but how accurate is that type of guess work/estimate? To tell 4 minutes from 5 or 3?

If he had a watch, that would be different.

I have therefore suggested a variation of 30 seconds, does it effect the case, yes it may well do to a small degree, but that's all coming up.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Not Sure why looking at options is difficult for you Christer,

we have agreed that Paul probably did not see the body until he spoke to Lechmere, the 25 seconds is only if he had noticed it before, we both feel this is highly unlikely I think.
However, I include it for completeness,

The last sentence merely says that given i do not feel 4mph is likely, i am prepared to add 30 seconds for a slightly slower pace, and the option above if needed, which it isn't.

Not sure what confuses you? We seem to be debating 4mph v 3.5mph, either of which is equally possible, however I see 3.5 as being more probable.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

Suggest away, Steve, be my guest. As long as we both accept that Paul may well have been perfectly correct, you are free to offer any alternative scenario you feel like, and even to point to how it - if it was true - can strengthen the idea that Lechmere was not guilty. That's the thing about suggestions - if they are true, they can change a whole lot. The bummer is how suggestions must always remain just that - suggestions.

And me oh my, has a LOT been suggested out here.

hi fish
how long did lechs walk to pickfords usually take?

[Fisherman]

In which case mentioning that 21st Century athletes can walk at 7mph, is irrelevant to the debate, more interesting would be a comparison between athletic ability in 1888 and today.
Paul's Assessment is a rough guide, nothing more, unless it can be shown that he poised a watch, or had some other way of measuring the time in Bucks Row, therefore suggesting differences of 30-60 is perfectly acceptable and reasonable.


Steve

Suggest away, Steve, be my guest. As long as we both accept that Paul may well have been perfectly correct, you are free to offer any alternative scenario you feel like, and even to point to how it - if it was true - can strengthen the idea that Lechmere was not guilty. That's the thing about suggestions - if they are true, they can change a whole lot. The bummer is how suggestions must always remain just that - suggestions.

And me oh my, has a LOT been suggested out here.

[Fisherman]

No one is trying to dismiss or debunk Paul's Estimation of 4 minutes, merely questioning and suggesting alternatives, given that it is only an Estimate.

Steve

Suggest away, by all means.

[Fisherman]

To a degree it depends on when the estimate of 4 minutes begins, when does Paul first see the body?
When he sees Lechmere, as per Lloyds(although that could be retrospective and debatable)?
Or when the conversation starts as per the inquest reports?

The Morning Advertiser has a middle of the road variant: " As I was passing up Buck's-row I saw a man standing in the roadway. When I got close up to him, he said, "Come and look at this woman;" and together we went across the road. There was a woman lying across the gateway, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her hands and face; they were cold. I sent the other man for a policeman." So Paul sees Lechmere at some stage, and he will reasonably have focused on him since he spoke of how there were villains and robbers in the area. Then, when he comes up to Lechmere, the latter points out the presence of a woman on the pavement. Nowhere is there any hint at all that Paul saw her the moment he saw Lechmere, and so the reasonable solution is that he noticed Nichols when pointed to her.
The Times reinforces this picture: " As witness approached him he walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him. He then touched witness on the shoulder, and said, "Come and look at this woman here." Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway." Apparently, Paul saw the woman as he followed Lechmere across the road.
So in all probability, the four minutes Paul spoke of cannot be taxed for half a minute or forty seconds without doing damage on the facts.

We have however already discounted the Lloyds account about coming towards him a little, and given these points are closely connected in the Lloyds account should we not discount this issue of seeing the body at that point too?

I know I discounted the notion of Lechmeres 40 yard stroll, but I never knew you did. So much the better when you agree, however!

It also depends greatly on the speed they are walking, I see you have now moved from 2 minutes to 2.5 minutes, I still think that is too quick(its over 4 mph) and i prefer to stick with 3.5mph, above average and only 30 seconds slower.
We have no way of knowing how long it really took, it was only an estimate, unless Paul had watch on him, of which there is no knowledge or evidence., and so

The one important thing to keep I'm mind is that Pauls assessment of four minutes cannot be in any way discounted, regardless of our personal preferences when choosing walking speeds and deciding distances.

The Lloyds Weekly account says the man came a little towards him, OK lets discount that, I have no problem there at all.

You would get a lot of problems if you didn't agree, let's just say that. But fine - you DO agree.

Therefore, lets accept that Lechmere stays still, he does not move.

So he said, and so Paul said - two commendable reasons to accept that this was so. The Lloyds passage will in all probability refer to how Lechmere moved sideways when Paul veered off to avoid him. That meant that Lechmere HAD TO approach Paul. But not by taking a 40 yard stroll.

So we now have a distance of 30-40 yards, between the two Carmen, Paul gives no distance so we have only Lechmere's account: that's about 25-30 seconds.
The conversation cannot start until they come together

Actually, it of course can. It seemingly didn't, though - Paul walked closer to Lechmere, decided to give him a wide berth, Lechmere cut him off, put his hand on Pauls shoulder and spoke to him. So that's what happened. It is reasonably well documented.


While, i happily coincide the 30 yards walk towards Paul may very probably be wrong; the timing required to be added to events remains.

Not sure what you mean here. Paul had apparently not noticed the body until Lechmere showed it to him. So no previous time should be added to the four minute assessment made by Paul - that timing starts when Lechmere shows him the body, and that would have happened around a minute or a minute and a half after Paul entered Bucks Row. He had a 130 yard stretch to cover, roughly, and he did it in a hurried fashion.

It seems clear that a period of 25-30 seconds needs to be added to events from the time the Carmen become aware of each other, and very probably before Paul becomes aware of the body.

Yes, BEFORE Paul sees the body. So to what do we add those 25-30 seconds? Certainly not to the 1-1,5 minute timing it would have taken Paul to walk down Bucks Row to the nmurder site.

Therefore, I see the estimate to Mizen to be 30 seconds out if we go from the conversation, and up to a minute if from when Paul first sees Lechmere.

Sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever to me. Maybe I am slow on the uptake, but I fail to see the relevance of it.


Steve

See the above in bold.

[Elamarna]

And still, people competing in walking at speeds up to around seven miles per hour! Athletic walking is of course something that people normally don't engage in, but it is nevertheless a sport that requires one foot on the ground at all times, meaning that it is NOT running.
Regardless of this piece of information, it applies that people can walk quickly when required, just as it applies that Pauls assessment of "no more than four minutes" cannot be discounted in any shape or form.

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!). I am merely pointing out that a sprinter can easily cover 300 yards in about 45 seconds and a walking athlete can do it in much under two minutes. Make of that what you will, as long as you don't make it into an assertion that I am comparing Lechmere and Paul to Jesse Owens and Usain Bolt!

In which case mentioning that 21st Century athletes can walk at 7mph, is irrelevant to the debate, more interesting would be a comparison between athletic ability in 1888 and today.
Paul's Assessment is a rough guide, nothing more, unless it can be shown that he poised a watch, or had some other way of measuring the time in Bucks Row, therefore suggesting differences of 30-60 is perfectly acceptable and reasonable.


Steve

[Elamarna]

I am not saying that they made seven miles per hour, I am saying that modern day athletes CAN walk at that speed - for 20 miles. Accordingly, the carmen would have been able to keep a decent speed for 300 yards. Not seven miles per hour, but perhaps more than four. At any rate, the Paul perspective cannot be dismissed (or "debunked" as you like to put things) on the grounds.
See the above in bold.

No one is trying to dismiss or debunk Paul's Estimation of 4 minutes, merely questioning and suggesting alternatives, given that it is only an Estimate.

Steve

[Fisherman]

This is an interesting article on walking speed: https://www.healthline.com/health/average Jogging speed is defined as 4-6 miles an hour. Anything faster than 6mph is defined as running.

And still, people competing in walking at speeds up to around seven miles per hour! Athletic walking is of course something that people normally don't engage in, but it is nevertheless a sport that requires one foot on the ground at all times, meaning that it is NOT running.
regardless of this piece of information, it applies that people can walk quickly when required, just as it applies that Pauls assessment of "no more than four minutes" cannot be discounted in any shape or form.

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!). I am merely pointing out that a sprinter can easily cover 300 yards in about 45 seconds and a walking athlete can do it in much under two minutes. Make of that what you will, as long as you don't make it into an assertion that I am comparing Lechmere and Paul to Jesse Owens and Usain Bolt!