Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Abby Normal]

Abby

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

Steve

even so-who leaves work planning on getting there at the nick of time every day? not someone who works somewhere where times are crucial, like the delivery service, and has held the same said job for over twenty years. Lech seems the anal type too. If he said his usual time he left for work was 3:20 then that makes sense and sounds to me like around when he probably left work that day.

I think if he was running late from the start and left at 3:30 that day he would have made that clear to the police. Plus if he was running that late I doubt he would have hesitated one more second once he saw that it was a woman lying there. his arse would be skiddadling down the road to get to work.

[JeffHamm]

...
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
...

Hi Steve,

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 (so about 0.43 of the first distance). If the former took Cross/Lechmere 7 minutes (which so far seems to be accepted), the latter would be 3 minutes at the same speed (0.43 x 7 = 3.01), and 3 minutes is "no more than 4 minutes".

Given there's going to be error associated with measuring the distances, and variation in walking speeds, there is wiggle room of course, but I too have tended to think the time is closer to 3 minutes than 2.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

no not at all. Lech could have been mistaken. he could have left out if he dilly dallied somewhere on the way before bucks row. he may have been going through her clothes to look for money. who knows?

and the first mention of them being late for work only comes after they've stopped to look at her. not that they were running late from the start.

its really quite simple. the time lech said he left for work dosnt add up-he said he usually left home around 3:20. on this occasion we have 3:20 or 3:30. even if its 3:30 (which I doubt)it still dosnt add up- hes in bucks row much sooner than his AND Pauls stories would seem to indicate. Lechs version of events has him stopping to look at Polly a few seconds before Paul arrives, a minute at most. add to that paul said he entered bucks row at 3:45 and backs that up later by saying he left home shortly before that.

at most we have lech in bucks row if he left home at 3:30 for at least 7 minutes before Paul arrives, if he left at 3:20 (more the likelier-when he said he usually left for work) hes in bucks row at least for 17 minutes before Paul arrives.

But your asking that both Paul and lech be off on there times. and in the same direction-late and by the same amount-five minutes or more. nope not buying that at all. oh and lech and paul both happen to be late on the morning of her murder? that's a lot of coincidences and fine tuning for me.

and I go with Pauls timings over the cops because he marks his time with something that had just happened moments before-leaving home. not only that hes marking the time after also-being late for work. and of course hes the one actually describing the critical factor here-when he himself AND lech were in bucks row.what were actually talking about.

you yourself added that two of the cops said something happened at 3:45 which we know is impossible, so theres a red flag for relying on the policemans timing also.

guilty or innocent-I don't care which -the timing is off according to Lechs own words (and backed up by Paul).

Abby,

the arrival time of Lechmere is based on assuming he leaves home at 3.30, which is not what is ever said, it's about" or "around" 3.30.
That makes a big difference.
We are also back to accepting Paul's 3.45 as being synchronized to the time of Lechmere; if it not, and it almost certainly is not, Paul's Statement in no way backs up a 7-minute gap.

We won't agree it appears.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,


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 (so about 0.43 of the first distance). If the former took Cross/Lechmere 7 minutes (which so far seems to be accepted), the latter would be 3 minutes at the same speed (0.43 x 7 = 3.01), and 3 minutes is "no more than 4 minutes".

Given there's going to be error associated with measuring the distances, and variation in walking speeds, there is wiggle room of course, but I too have tended to think the time is closer to 3 minutes than 2.

- Jeff

Jeff,

yes Isee 3 minutes as being perfectly acceptable, maybe a shade under or over, and of course we need to allow for the exchange between the two carmen and the examination of the body.
Paul's not more than 4 minutes of course is from the time he sees the body, not from the time he leaves it.

Oddly enough both Christer and I have suggested 60-90 seconds for the exchange and examination.
so that would give 4-4.5 minutes would it not?

I am old school by the way, i work in imperial for this work, mainly because that was in use at the time,so i convert all the distances into yards.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

Abby,

the arrival time of Lechmere is based on assuming he leaves home at 3.30, which is not what is ever said, it's about" or "around" 3.30.
That makes a big difference.
We are also back to accepting Paul's 3.45 as being synchronized to the time of Lechmere; if it not, and it almost certainly is not, Paul's Statement in no way backs up a 7-minute gap.

We won't agree it appears.


Steve

Hi el
perhaps not. However i concede the possibility that lech could have left after 3:30 and paul was off his time by 5 minutes or so.

but lean towrds not, it just seems like alot of fine tuning to me to make it work.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff,

yes Isee 3 minutes as being perfectly acceptable, maybe a shade under or over, and of course we need to allow for the exchange between the two carmen and the examination of the body.
Paul's not more than 4 minutes of course is from the time he sees the body, not from the time he leaves it.

Oddly enough both Christer and I have suggested 60-90 seconds for the exchange and examination.
so that would give 4-4.5 minutes would it not?

I am old school by the way, i work in imperial for this work, mainly because that was in use at the time,so i convert all the distances into yards.


Steve

Yes, that puts it at 4 to 4.5 minutes. The measurement tools on the website came up in meters, so I just grabbed the values. Probably could have set it to yards, or just done the conversion, but it was the ratio of the distances that I wanted to get the relative times. The 3 minutes is based upon the same walking speed, I think one could reasonably suggest they both might have walked a bit faster, now that they've been unexpectedly delayed and are both trying to get to work on time. So one could shave off a few seconds, but we're already in the stated time range so that would be a bit pedantic.

- Jeff

[FrankO]

Basically, I would have covered 300 yards in about 2 and half minutes, but if I walked much faster than that it would, I think, amount to border line jogging!

Out of curiosity, John, how tall are you?

[Abby Normal]

Hi el
perhaps not. However i concede the possibility that lech could have left after 3:30 and paul was off his time by 5 minutes or so.

but lean towrds not, it just seems like alot of fine tuning to me to make it work.

hi el
and just clarify-I don't necessarily think that the lech timing off issue means he has to be the killer (or that he was really late or mistaken about his times). there could be other reasons why he misled police.

I don't know how many times Ive seen about a person of interest/ witness where they initially lied to police about where and or when they were some place only later to admit when pressed it was a lie due to something they were ashamed/worried about. for example-one guy was cheating on his wife another was selling drugs, one guy was jerking off!! Perhaps lech left like he usually did at 3:20 just like he said and dilly dallied along the way somewhere-stopped of at a friends for a morning pop, say hello to his mistress. maybe he was rifling through pollys clothes or belongings to see what he could steal. who knows?

I just find all the fine tuning, coincidences and other stuff to exonerate him of everything a bit much.
after all this is a guy who had a discrepancy with a cop about who said what and left a woman in obvious need of help lying in the street. It wouldn't surprise me if he had other flaws that could perhaps explain the timing issue.

[drstrange169]

RE: Post #520

Christer: >>I am and have always been honest. I am less certain about you, to put it mildly.<<

And yet you avoid offering examples, just more insults.


Christer: >>By the way, you have had an answer to your flawed suggestion that I have not any answers to your questions on the Mizen thread. <<

Hang on … but, didn’t you write in that same thread that I didn’t ask you any questions?

Mizen thread post # 143, Christer wrote “… DON´T tell me that you have already posted the questions - do it again, and do it now. No yellowbelly hiding, please. Put up or shut up. My money is on you failing to produce any question at al”

Another example of your honesty, perhaps? Certainly an example of your unfounded abuse of posters.



Re: Post #522

>>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.<<

Define “exact timing” in Victorian Britain? Greenwich Meantime?

Are you claiming Paul had a direct source to that?

How is any time Paul claimed, true or not, relevant when ALL the other witnesses give a different, yet unified time?

But all this is a deliberate scam, semantics to avoid the real facts.

It matters not whether Paul believed he knew or did actually know. What matters is, was his time the same as Xmere’s, Mizen’s, Thain, Neil and Perkis’s time? Because ALL those other people support each other. And remember Mizen job on that night at that hour was to tell people the time.

No matter how much you twist it, that is the ONLY relevant part.



Re: Post #524

>> I have never claimed that any of the times are proven to have been in sync.<<

This is blatantly untrue. For your theory to work you HAVE TO claim they were in sync. You have no case otherwise.

Full stop. End of story.

If you don’t have sync, you cannot say there is a discrepancy in the timing because you don't have enough information to claim it as a fact.

Did I miss where you pointed that out? Certainly not in your TV show, certainly not in posts here over the years.

I can, however, quote you verbatim stating the time discrepancy as a fact.

On the other hand, Cross does have a timing that could be corroborated by four independent witnesses and Pickfords.


>>This is how Dust operates: Tell him that you have never claimed that the timings must have been in sync, and he will tell you that he does not know what opinion you are of. <<

We all know what you opinions are, nobody is in any doubt. What you will not provide, in this instance, is credible evidence to support them.

Where have you said or written that the lack of sync in the timings calls into question the discrepancy?

Hello???


>>The boards can be checked for the answer or he can take my word for it, but he chooses to claim that it is an unanswered question.<<


I just checked, perhaps you could point your specific answers out? You know, the answers you used to flatly denied I asked.

I'm sure you are a nice guy and I have no problems generally with you, but please don't claim that you are always honest with us on these boards.

[Great Aunt]

A little late joining this .... the killer could have thrown the knife on to a low roof, maybe? It might have clattered but not too close by to cause any suspicion ... just a thought. Cheers.

[Errata]

A little late joining this .... the killer could have thrown the knife on to a low roof, maybe? It might have clattered but not too close by to cause any suspicion ... just a thought. Cheers.

We all learned to throw knives to play spread, which obviously horrified adults, so most of us would arrow the knives up to stick in the wood of the barn gables when we saw grown ups coming. Eventually they’d fall back down. Or some poor schmuck would have to hang out the hay loft to retrieve them.

[Scott Nelson]

Or hide them in your mouths. That's how sword swallowers got their start.