Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Elamarna]

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.

Good Point John, i have settled on 3.5mph as my preferred time, but give options up to 5mph.

[Elamarna]

The maths work eminently if we have an examination time of a minute to a minute and a half, and then a two and a half minute trek to Mizen. That puts us on four minutes, which is what Paul said.

I am still waiting for you to explain where you got the 20-30 yard walk you suggest Lechmere undertook towards Paul. Lechmere said that he hear Paul approaching when the latter was 30 to 40 yards away, and assuming Paul did not stop short, it is hard to imagine how Lechmere could have covered the same distance in the opposite direction before Paul had time to move. And as it happens, the evidence points in the direction of Paul being the only one to move before Lechmere reached out for him:
"He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." (Daily Telegraph)

It was only when Paul came up to Lechmere that he struck up a conversation with him. No 30-40 yard stroll there!



If we look at the Morning Advertiser, it becomes even more clear: "At the same time I heard a man coming up the street in the same direction as I had come, so I waited for him to come up. When he came up, I said, "Come and look over here; there is a woman."

Lechmere tells us that he WAITED for Paul to come up, not that he undertook a lengthy expedition to greet him.

And Paul says the same thing: "... I saw a man standing in the roadway. When I got close up to him, he said, "Come and look at this woman". So Paul saw him standing (which does not equate to taking a stroll of 40 yards), and PAUL got close up to Lechmere, it was not the other way around.

Is there any factual evidence behind your claim? At all? From where did you get the idea...? I am intrigued.

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?

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?

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

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

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


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

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.

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.


Steve

[John G]

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.

[Fisherman]

Except I didn't suggest it took 7-8 minutes, I said " 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. "

So, 3:37 to 4:43 is exactly 6 minutes by my calculations.

I cut the travel to 3 minutes, not the full 4, so you want to cut it to 2, ok. Let's have the whole thing start 2 minutes later then, and now we end up at PC Mizen at 3:44. Or let's say it takes them 3minutes 30 for the body and 2 minutes 30 for the walk to PC Mizen, now we've got 7 minutes, and so on. We're in margin of error territory here, and guess what, we can play those games, but we end up with Cross/Lechmere and Paul meeting PC Mizen when PC Mizen says he met them, 3:45, give or take a minute or two. And PC Neil is finding the body. And PC Thain comes and joins him, there's enough time for PC Thain to be sent for the doctor whom he arouses somewhere close to 4 o'clock. Thain returns after PC Mizen arrives and has been sent for the ambulance as when PC Thain returns he does not see PC Mizen. All of these events make sense, and are not hard to fit together in terms of testified times if we anchor to PC Neil finding the body at 3:45.

We can play with the odd minute here or there, because time estimates are notoriously error prone. We have PC Neil saying in his testimony he found the body at 3:45, not about 3:45, but at 3:45, that means what it says, at 3:45, not at 3:44 or 3:46, but at 3:45. We do not have Paul saying anything specific or exact about times in his sworn testimony. Paul gives subjective relative times, that can fit PC Neil's specific time he found the body. Paul's subjective relative times also lead to a sequence of events that allow he and Cross/Lechmere to meet up with PC Mizen at the time he testifies they met him, also 3:45. So Paul has to leave his house before 3:45 in time to get to PC Mizen, and account for all of the unexpected activity that occurred in Buck's Row, and his stating that he left "just before 3:45" gives a wide range because it's not saying he left AT any particular time.

The interaction with PC Mizen would be the two men, both of whom would be asked to give details, presumably written down, tell their views on things, and so forth. I Don't think it was a quick "Hey, go check on the dead body in Buck's Row." "Alright", type of exchange. There would be more to it than that, and personally, I find it a bit strange they were allowed to move along and were not required to come with him for further questioning. I'm sure that interaction would have lasted a few minutes. Paul's time gets eaten up on his way to work, and he's late. Hardly a surprise given he would normally not have two unusual delays, both which would use up time.

We don't know how long any particular event took, but we do have some events that occur at the same time (meeting PC Mizen and PC Neil finding the body). Both are recorded as being at 3:45. Even when allowing for some slop due to different clocks, it still means that Paul isn't entering Buck's Row at 3:45. Lloyds got it wrong, or Paul was mistaken despite his claim to exactness if you want to insist on him actually saying that rather than the reporter beefing up the text.



And the doctor, as now there won't be time to get to his house to awaken him at or shortly before 4:00. And PC Thain, who testifies that "Nothing attracted his attention until about 3:45 a.m, when he was signaled by a brother constable ...", though "about" is not as exact as saying "At". So we've got PC Neil and PC Thain both testifying that the body was found at, or about, 3:45, PC Mizen testifying that he was meeting with Cross/Lechmere and Paul at 3:45. And 3:45 for finding the body gives enough time to work out what to do, and to send PC Thain off to get the doctor at or shortly before 4:00 am. All that fits. But shift everything to accomadate an error prone newspaper article not given under oath, and everybody is wrong so that Paul's Lloyd's article is forced to be right.



As they say, all advice should be listened to, but not necessarily followed.


I didn't mean it in a disparaging way, though I see how it might have come across that way, sorry. All I meant was I think you would have a stronger case, and given everything people are pointing out, perhaps a minor change in your belief of the accuracy of the Lloyd's article is called for.

The quote doesn't say the exact same thing, it's from the coroner, which means it's not Paul's testimony, and so his statement can be viewed, as I interpreted it to mean, as starting from when they saw the body and left. For example, if he said "the time from when they saw the movie and found the PC was 4 minutes" you wouldn't assume the movie was included in that 4 minutes of time.

Using the measurement tools here https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoo...4&layers=6&b=1 I got a distance of 652 metres from Doveton Street to the murder site, and 280 metres to where they meet PC Mizen. If the former took Cross/Lechmere 7 minutes, the latter would be about 3 minutes, which is "no more than 4 minutes", and even fits my earlier guess. The interaction between Paul and Cross/Lechemere cannot reasonably have taken less than 3 minutes, and I would hazard a guess closer to 5 (from the point Cross/Lechmere starts waiting for Paul to the point they leave). So that would mean meeting 6-8 minutes prior to meeting PC Mizen, at 3:45, meaning they meet somewhere between 3:39 and 3:37. I measured the distance from Paul's house to the murder site at 197 metres, and at the same walking speed that would take 2minutes 11 seconds, meaning Paul left home between 3:37 and 3:35, entirely consisent with his sworn testimony of "just before 3:45" (yes, 7-10 minutes fits a "just before" description). Everything is within the ranges expected given the testimony given at the inquest, none of which fits arriving in Buck's Row at 3:45, the east end of which is only about 77 metres from Paul's home. So yes, he could have left at 3:44, entered Buck's Row at 3:45, but then everything else is wrong, and since Lloyd's got pretty much everything else wrong in that article, I'm not putting any weight on them getting that one detail correct, particularly when everything else points to it being the source of the error.

Obviously, we see and weigh the evidence differently.

- Jeff

That was too long a text for me to pick up the will to read extensively, sorry. I went over it in a more shallow way, and all I can say is that A/ I remain at my stance that Paul was quite likely correct, and B/ adding "exactly" on the journalists behalf would not be "beefing up the text" at all. It would only be a very weird thing to do. I am a journalist myself, and I know these things quite well.

[Fisherman]

Neither do I. Never said it does, nor will I ever, Christer. He is a person of interest, but that's as far as it goes for me with the evidence we're left with - which is not a lot.

In spite of not being a lot, it is nevertheless much, much more than there is in any other suspects case. And it is directly case related in factual terms, not just some information that detective superintendent so-and-so leaned towards mr Trouserbee being the guilty party, since (totally undefined) information had led him to think so. Nor is it based on wrongful prejudices against the suspect in terms of flawed accusations of him being a sexually insane person or anything like that.
There are massive warning lamps glowing by Lechmere´s side. When a PC testifies that he has been led to believe that a colleague of his had the matter in hand, the thumbscrews MUST go on, not least when we are dealing with a character who was found alone with a still bleeding victim, and who had reason to pass the other murder sites.

That´s how I do my homework, Frank. If you do yours differently, I'm fine with that. Almost...

[Fisherman]

The insults, and the attack on a work, not yet seen?
Certainly that shows no bias and predetermination at all.

Steve

It shows how I will shred it to little pieces if you use the kind of argumentation I exemplified with.

If you don't, you may well be in the clear.

So it all hinges on the overall quality of your reasoning, which is as it should be. And fair warning has been given about what I will accept and what I will not.

I cannot be asked to pass verdict over a book I have not seen, can I?

[Fisherman]

I said 20 or 30, the only evidence we have is from Lechmere, who says he sees Paul at about 40 yards, and goes towards him. 20 to 30 seems reasonable given Paul is coming towards him.
If we say that Lechmere merely is waiting, not moving Paul still has to reach him.

We most emphatically say that Lechmere was waiting! We most emphatically refuse any 30 or 40 yard stroll on his behalf towards Paul!! And Paul says that the four minute time he gave was from the moment he saw the woman until he reached Mizen. And it was Lechmere who showed him the body, meaning that we will reasonably have to strike the 40 yard walk out from the proceedings, or at the very least accept it as a viable thing to do.


We cannot compare, non athletes in 1888 to modern day athletes, such strains any degree of credibility.
They had approx 316 yards to cover, we can make a range if you like of 300-330.

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.

And has I say , I believe Paul is aleast 30 seconds out in his estimation, it is only an estimation, unless there is evidence he had a watch on him.

Yes, it is an estimation. And if we don't like it, we can alter it in any direction we want to make it fit better with our own perspective. Personally, I think that an estimation is much better than no estimation at all, and so I leave it unaltered, and reason that this is the soundest thing to do.

See the above in bold.

[FrankO]

But does that detract in any way from how there IS a guilty scenario offered up by the facts? I don't think so.

Neither do I. Never said it does, nor will I ever, Christer. He is a person of interest, but that's as far as it goes for me with the evidence we're left with - which is not a lot.

[Fisherman]

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

The maths work eminently if we have an examination time of a minute to a minute and a half, and then a two and a half minute trek to Mizen. That puts us on four minutes, which is what Paul said.

I am still waiting for you to explain where you got the 20-30 yard walk you suggest Lechmere undertook towards Paul. Lechmere said that he hear Paul approaching when the latter was 30 to 40 yards away, and assuming Paul did not stop short, it is hard to imagine how Lechmere could have covered the same distance in the opposite direction before Paul had time to move. And as it happens, the evidence points in the direction of Paul being the only one to move before Lechmere reached out for him:
"He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." (Daily Telegraph)

It was only when Paul came up to Lechmere that he struck up a conversation with him. No 30-40 yard stroll there!

If we look at the Morning Advertiser, it becomes even more clear: "At the same time I heard a man coming up the street in the same direction as I had come, so I waited for him to come up. When he came up, I said, "Come and look over here; there is a woman."

Lechmere tells us that he WAITED for Paul to come up, not that he undertook a lengthy expedition to greet him.

And Paul says the same thing: "... I saw a man standing in the roadway. When I got close up to him, he said, "Come and look at this woman". So Paul saw him standing (which does not equate to taking a stroll of 40 yards), and PAUL got close up to Lechmere, it was not the other way around.

Is there any factual evidence behind your claim? At all? From where did you get the idea...? I am intrigued.

[JeffHamm]

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 isn covered in two minutes flat, that examination would have gone on for up towards six minutes! By two carmen who were late for work.

Except I didn't suggest it took 7-8 minutes, I said " 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. "

So, 3:37 to 4:43 is exactly 6 minutes by my calculations.

I cut the travel to 3 minutes, not the full 4, so you want to cut it to 2, ok. Let's have the whole thing start 2 minutes later then, and now we end up at PC Mizen at 3:44. Or let's say it takes them 3minutes 30 for the body and 2 minutes 30 for the walk to PC Mizen, now we've got 7 minutes, and so on. We're in margin of error territory here, and guess what, we can play those games, but we end up with Cross/Lechmere and Paul meeting PC Mizen when PC Mizen says he met them, 3:45, give or take a minute or two. And PC Neil is finding the body. And PC Thain comes and joins him, there's enough time for PC Thain to be sent for the doctor whom he arouses somewhere close to 4 o'clock. Thain returns after PC Mizen arrives and has been sent for the ambulance as when PC Thain returns he does not see PC Mizen. All of these events make sense, and are not hard to fit together in terms of testified times if we anchor to PC Neil finding the body at 3:45.

We can play with the odd minute here or there, because time estimates are notoriously error prone. We have PC Neil saying in his testimony he found the body at 3:45, not about 3:45, but at 3:45, that means what it says, at 3:45, not at 3:44 or 3:46, but at 3:45. We do not have Paul saying anything specific or exact about times in his sworn testimony. Paul gives subjective relative times, that can fit PC Neil's specific time he found the body. Paul's subjective relative times also lead to a sequence of events that allow he and Cross/Lechmere to meet up with PC Mizen at the time he testifies they met him, also 3:45. So Paul has to leave his house before 3:45 in time to get to PC Mizen, and account for all of the unexpected activity that occurred in Buck's Row, and his stating that he left "just before 3:45" gives a wide range because it's not saying he left AT any particular time.

The interaction with PC Mizen would be the two men, both of whom would be asked to give details, presumably written down, tell their views on things, and so forth. I Don't think it was a quick "Hey, go check on the dead body in Buck's Row." "Alright", type of exchange. There would be more to it than that, and personally, I find it a bit strange they were allowed to move along and were not required to come with him for further questioning. I'm sure that interaction would have lasted a few minutes. Paul's time gets eaten up on his way to work, and he's late. Hardly a surprise given he would normally not have two unusual delays, both which would use up time.

We don't know how long any particular event took, but we do have some events that occur at the same time (meeting PC Mizen and PC Neil finding the body). Both are recorded as being at 3:45. Even when allowing for some slop due to different clocks, it still means that Paul isn't entering Buck's Row at 3:45. Lloyds got it wrong, or Paul was mistaken despite his claim to exactness if you want to insist on him actually saying that rather than the reporter beefing up the text.

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?

And the doctor, as now there won't be time to get to his house to awaken him at or shortly before 4:00. And PC Thain, who testifies that "Nothing attracted his attention until about 3:45 a.m, when he was signaled by a brother constable ...", though "about" is not as exact as saying "At". So we've got PC Neil and PC Thain both testifying that the body was found at, or about, 3:45, PC Mizen testifying that he was meeting with Cross/Lechmere and Paul at 3:45. And 3:45 for finding the body gives enough time to work out what to do, and to send PC Thain off to get the doctor at or shortly before 4:00 am. All that fits. But shift everything to accomadate an error prone newspaper article not given under oath, and everybody is wrong so that Paul's Lloyd's article is forced to be right.

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 they say, all advice should be listened to, but not necessarily followed.

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 didn't mean it in a disparaging way, though I see how it might have come across that way, sorry. All I meant was I think you would have a stronger case, and given everything people are pointing out, perhaps a minor change in your belief of the accuracy of the Lloyd's article is called for.

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!

The quote doesn't say the exact same thing, it's from the coroner, which means it's not Paul's testimony, and so his statement can be viewed, as I interpreted it to mean, as starting from when they saw the body and left. For example, if he said "the time from when they saw the movie and found the PC was 4 minutes" you wouldn't assume the movie was included in that 4 minutes of time.

Using the measurement tools here https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoo...4&layers=6&b=1 I got a distance of 652 metres from Doveton Street to the murder site, and 280 metres to where they meet PC Mizen. If the former took Cross/Lechmere 7 minutes, the latter would be about 3 minutes, which is "no more than 4 minutes", and even fits my earlier guess. The interaction between Paul and Cross/Lechemere cannot reasonably have taken less than 3 minutes, and I would hazard a guess closer to 5 (from the point Cross/Lechmere starts waiting for Paul to the point they leave). So that would mean meeting 6-8 minutes prior to meeting PC Mizen, at 3:45, meaning they meet somewhere between 3:39 and 3:37. I measured the distance from Paul's house to the murder site at 197 metres, and at the same walking speed that would take 2minutes 11 seconds, meaning Paul left home between 3:37 and 3:35, entirely consisent with his sworn testimony of "just before 3:45" (yes, 7-10 minutes fits a "just before" description). Everything is within the ranges expected given the testimony given at the inquest, none of which fits arriving in Buck's Row at 3:45, the east end of which is only about 77 metres from Paul's home. So yes, he could have left at 3:44, entered Buck's Row at 3:45, but then everything else is wrong, and since Lloyd's got pretty much everything else wrong in that article, I'm not putting any weight on them getting that one detail correct, particularly when everything else points to it being the source of the error.

Obviously, we see and weigh the evidence differently.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

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...

The insults, and the attack on a work, not yet seen?
Certainly that shows no bias and predetermination at all.

Steve

[Elamarna]

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

I said 20 or 30, the only evidence we have is from Lechmere, who says he sees Paul at about 40 yards, and goes towards him. 20 to 30 seems reasonable given Paul is coming towards him.
If we say that Lechmere merely is waiting, not moving Paul still has to reach him.

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.

We cannot compare, non athletes in 1888 to modern day athletes, such strains any degree of credibility.
They had approx 316 yards to cover, we can make a range if you like of 300-330.

And has I say , I believe Paul is aleast 30 seconds out in his estimation, it is only an estimation, unless there is evidence he had a watch on him.

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?

We disagree

[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...

[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.

[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