Evidence of innocence

[FISHY1118]

You don’t need a medical background though. If she wasn’t there at 3.15 but was there at 3.45 then she had to have been killed between those 2 times.

Yes, but like dr llewellyn i wouldnt have known those times when inspecting the body , therefor his all be it limited medical opinion was required to give a t.o.d , that was after all his job .

[Trevor Marriott]

>>I don’t see anything crooked about this line of thinking, but that may just be me.<<

It's not you. Baxter said nothing to the jury about disbelieving the policemen's timings, therefore the CANNOT have been disputing them.

well there was no specific evidence to dispute it, at the time they took his evidence of face value because they could not diprove it , but I know how police officers conduct themselves in years gone by so I am very sceptical of his evidence

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[drstrange169]

Don't get me wrong Trevor, I wasn't talking about whether their story was or wasn't actually true, just that Baxter believed it to be true because he didn't warn the jury not to believe them.

[FISHY1118]

Stride 1am
Kelly 2am approx
Eddowes 1.30am approx
Chapman Between 1.45am-3.45am also
Mckenzie 12.45am
Coles 2.15am

The only evidence to support that belief comes from the police officer who as i have stated may have been less than liberal with the truth, or he could have genuinely missed the body when he supposedly passed by at 3.15am.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nichols is last spotted alive at 2,.30am, its a 10 /15 minute walk to bucks row, killed at 2.50am . So by your logic trevor 1 full hour goes by and no one discovers her body that is if p.c niel is lying too. what are the odds of that seriously ? re chapman , long and cadousch were they mistaken to or lying which one , please explain .?

[JeffHamm]

The 15 minute gap refers to the suggestion that Charles Cross/Lechmere, the carman who found Nichol’s body in Buck’s Row, left his home for work at 3:30 am and is spotted in the middle of the road in the vicinity of her body 3:45 am by Robert Paul. The “gap” is the time between his departure from home and the time he is reported to be seen by Robert Paul. While we do not know the exact route he was travelling, I’ve presented two possible routes for consideration. Both are of similar distance (differing by just over 50 feet). If I had to guess which was the more probable, I would favour route A on the basis of it sticking to the main roads a bit longer. Given the area was known to be risky this seems likely. However, as that is the longer of the two, and since my opinion is only that, the most conservative option for this examination is to consider the shorter of the two.

The other assumption we have to make is his walking speed. Obviously this is something we cannot know. In most simulations I’ve performed I’ve chosen the average walking speed for an adult, which is 3.1mph. I obtained this value from some research studies, but unfortunately did not record the details of the article at the time. However, a quick search just now (5/1/2022) produced this table online (found at: https://www.healthline.com/health/ex...e-speed-by-age). While this table is simply presented without reference to where the website obtained it, and without describing how the data was collected, the values correspond to what I’ve seen before. Interestingly, though, they do link to a published article (open access: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...type=printable). The walking speed values are presented in m/s, which when converted to mph, produce values in the range of 2.84 to 3.00 mph. But, the above article is reporting the median speed, while the other articles are reporting the average speed (which is technically calculated by averaging the reciprocals, meaning averaging the hours per mile, and then converting to miles per hour). I won’t be using the median speeds, but for those interested when I combine the tabled values for those under 49 years old, the average of the median speeds was 2.85 mph.


This also indicates that 3.1 mph would be reasonable estimate for this unknown value. The fastest value listed here, though is 3.2 mph, and again, to lean on the side of caution, I will use that value here. Our estimated travel times for the two routes would then be 7m 28s and 7m 17s.

Possible Routes:
A) Distance: 2103.322 ft ............... B) Distance: 2051.819 ft
Travel time: 7m 28s (at 3.2 mph) ...............Travel time: 7m 17s (at 3.2 mph)


The 15 minute gap notion suggests Cross/Lechmere leaves his home at 3:30. On a Victorian clock, though, 3:30 could mean the time was anywhere between 3:30:00 and 3:30:59. I will therefore split the difference and 3:30 will be considered 3:30:30, and so any of the times I present should be viewed with a +-30 second window.

With this in mind, if Cross/Lechmere leaves home at 3:30:30, walking at 3.2 mph (the upper limit in the table), and takes the shorter of the two routes, he should arrive at the crime scene at 3:37:47.

The basis for the 15 minute gap notion is that Robert Paul comes across Cross/Lechmere at 3:45:30 (note, I’ve accounted for 3:45 to refer to anything between 3:45:00 and 3:45:59 so as not to artificially reduce the 15 minute window to 14m 30s due to setting his departure time at 3:30:30). This leaves 7 minutes and 43 seconds unaccounted for, which I will refer to as the “window of opportunity”. It is this 7 m 43 second window of opportunity that is presented as evidence to suggest that it was during that time Cross/Lechmere murders Mary Ann Nichols and is Jack the Ripper. Indeed, based upon the above assumptions, and based upon the fact that we know JtR was able to perform quite extensive mutilations in the Eddowes case with a roughly similar amount of time available to him, the suggestion is certainly a reasonable one provided our assumptions are correct.

If, for example, my assumption about the route is incorrect, and the slightly longer route was the one he followed, then the window of opportunity would reduce by 11 seconds, to 7 m 32 seconds. Or, if we chose the slow end of the speeds in the walking table above (3.0 mph), then the window of opportunity shrinks to 7m 14s or 7m 02s based upon the shorter or longer route being chosen. Even if we choose the average median walking speed of 2.85 mph combined with the longer route, the window of opportunity is still at least 6m 37s for the longer route (6m 50s for the shorter).

In short, none of those, however, really make a difference of concern as even the smallest of those windows of opportunity is more than sufficient time to raise suspicion given we know JtR performed far greater mutilations on Eddowes with a broadly speaking similar amount time available.

The main question is whether or not this window of opportunity is justified, given the evidence we have. If even the widest of these windows, 7m 43s, can be accounted for then this would mean the evidence does not necessarily mean Cross/Lechmere had the opportunity to kill Nichols. In fact, given that the start and end time used in this calculation must come from different clocks, and the window of opportunity is well below 10 minutes, it is already the case that what we may be seeing is nothing more than the variability of Victorian clocks! However, I do not expect that to convince anybody although in the analysis of things, we're already at the point where one could not say in a court of law that there even was a window of opportunity. All it would take is a defense lawyer to ask "could that be explained by the two clocks being out of sync with the typical range?", and the answer would be "Yes", leading to "So you cannot state with certainty there was any window of opportunity", leading to "No, I cannot".

But where's the fun in that?

In order to examine this question, we must now look at the other two critical assumptions being made in calculating the window of opportunity. First, the time at which Cross/Lechmere left for work (3:30:30 +- 30) and second is the time at which he is spotted by Robert Paul (3:45:30 +-30).

I will start with the second of these two (the 3:45 end).

Cross/Lechmere testifies that after having first spotted what he thought was a piece of tarpaulin, he started to cross the street, but stopped when he realized it was a woman. At that point, he indicates he notices Robert Paul coming down Buck’s Row about 40 yards away. This is corroborated by Robert Paul who testifies he noticed Cross/Lechmere standing in the middle of the street, although he does not indicate the distance between them. Cross/Lechmere waits for Paul to reach him (25 seconds to cover 120 feet at 3.2 mph), and asks him to examine the woman with him.

After Cross/Lechmere and Paul meet up at the crime scene, they engage in a cursory examination of Nichols. While they fear she may be dead, they also think she may simply be drunk and passed out. In either case, they recognize she requires assistance, and as they both are on their way to work, they head off in search of a police officer. They find PC Mizen at the end of Old Montague Street, a distance of 931.079 feet, or 3m 18s away at 3.2 mph. Allowing for the 25 seconds for Paul to reach Cross/Lechmere, and 30 seconds for their interaction and cursory examination of Nichols, which must have been brief given they did not notice her throat had been cut, we have 4m 13s between the time Cross/Lechmere first spots Paul and when they find PC Mizen engaged in knocking up people. Note, Paul testifies that “Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman.” (referring to when they found PC Mizen), and a 30 second interaction combined with the 3m 18s estimated travel time is under 4 minutes (3m 48s), and so is consistent with his testimony. I’m not including the 25s for closing the distance between Paul and Cross/Lechmere because Paul specifically indicates the less than 4 minutes is from when he first saw the woman, not when he first saw Cross/Lechmere. One could quibble about how much of the 30 second interaction should be included, arguing that some of that would be taken up with the initial meeting with Cross/Lechmere and before they went to examine Nichols, but given the entire 30 seconds creates no conflict, reducing that further is neither here nor there for our purposes.



PC Mizen records the time of this meeting as 3:45 (so 3:45:30). The police were expected to be aware of the time as part of their job, and moreover given PC Mizen is knocking up people, acting as a sort of human alarm clock, PC Mizen must be viewed as being particularly aware of the time. If Cross/Lechmere and Paul meet PC Mizen at 3:45:30, and we work backwards based upon their 4m 13s from when they first become aware of each other (well, at least from when Cross/Lechmere becomes aware of Paul) until finding PC Mizen, this means that Cross/Lechmere and Paul started their interaction at 3:41:17, and not 3:45:30.

Where does this conflict with regards to Cross/Lechmere’s location at 3:45 come from? In the “15 minute gap” proposal, he is supposed to be in Buck’s Row at 3:45, but PC Mizen testifies that at 3:45 Cross/Lechmere and Paul are with him, at the end of Old Montague Street. Assuming he cannot be in two places at the same time, something appears to be amiss.

The 3:45 time for his presence in Buck’s Row is based upon statements made by Robert Paul indicating the time he left home. And given Robert Paul encounters Cross/Lechmere in Buck’s Row, they of course were there at the same time. While in an article in Lloyds he states it was exactly 3:45 when he entered Buck's Row, this article is not made under oath, nor do the details of other aspects of his claims correspond to other information. However, in his official inquest testimony, Robert Paul does not state a specific time for being in Buck’s Row, but in the Times coverage we see “He left home about a quarter to 4.” (This is not mentioned in the Daily Telegraph's coverage, which shows up under the boards "inquest statements" for Nichols).

Paul lived at 30 Foster Street, which is roughly 2m 25 seconds from the crime scene (at 3.2 mph), which would work out to him leaving home at 3:38:52 (2 m 25s prior to the start of his interaction with Cross/Lechmere at 3:41:17). Some may feel that 6m 38s before 3:45:30 is too long to be described as “about 3:45”, however, given Paul had no reason to be exceptionally aware of the time, other than to be sure he left with enough time to get to work, his memory for the time he left cannot be viewed as having reason to be all that accurate. We don't even know how he knows the time at all, though the assumption is he owned a clock of some sort, but maybe he was knocked up, for example. And also, if Paul's clock is not in sync with PC Mizen's clock, well, yah, boring stuff happens again, and this 6m 38s might just be noise anyway.

Regardless, the distance between Foster Street and Corbett’s Court is 0.769 miles, and at 3.2 mph would require 15 minutes to traverse (14m 25s). While we do not know for a fact that Paul’s work day started at 4:00 am, it seems reasonable to presume the work day would tend to start “on the hour”. As such, leaving for work, knowing it requires him 15 minutes to get there, would generally mean 3:45 is a sort of deadline time, and so leaving for work is something he did “about 3:45”, but in all likelihood, would include a "buffer zone" of extra time to ensure he was not late. That amount could vary somewhat.

There are a number of other factors, however, that one must also consider. First, Robert Paul and PC Mizen are referencing different clocks when they state their times. Clocks in 1888 were not synchronized, and two clocks differing by 10 minutes was common. Without having to consider anything further, the differences in the time of day may simply reflect Robert Paul’s clock being “fast” relative to PC Mizen’s (yah, the boring explanation, but really, we may be looking at nothing at all, which would be boring). Robert Paul is also reconstructing a time for his departure where the only really important aspect is that he would want to have left no later than 3:45, and so he’s always leaving “about 3:45”, but not quite 3:45. Planning to arrive at work 5-10 minutes early is pretty normal behavior and so being 6m 38s ahead of 3:45 is entirely plausible, and in my view, consistent with a description one might give on a typical day by saying they left for work “about 3:45”. In otherwords, 6m 38s seems to me to be a fairly typical "buffer zone" one might expect to ensure getting to work on time.

There are other reasons why Paul’s inexact time statement of “about 3:45” should not be used as the time at which Cross/Lechmere is first spotted in Buck’s Row in order to determine the window of opportunity he may have had. PC Neil, who discovers Nichol’s body after Cross/Lechmere and Paul have departed the scene, records his time of discovery as being 3:45 as well. Moreover, PC Neil summons PC Thain to his assistance, who also reports this occurring at about 3:45. We now have two police officers, whose jobs require them to be aware of the time, particularly when an event occurs (like discovery of a body), both indicating they were at the crime scene at 3:45. Moreover, we have a third police officer, PC Mizen, who is knocking up people, recording Cross/Lechmere and Paul at Old Montague Street at 3:45.

After what appears to be a fairly brief encounter with PC Mizen, Cross/Lechmere and Paul both head off to work. PC Mizen may have knocked up one or two more residences, and then headed to Buck’s Row, which is a distance that requires 3m 18s at 3.2 mph (I’m assuming he doesn’t cover that at “patrol speed”, which was regulated to be 2.5 mph). When he arrives, PC Neil is alone as PC Thain has already left to fetch Dr. Llewellyn. Given PC Thain has to come down Buck’s Row, interact with PC Neil, and then head off to fetch the doctor, this 3m 18s plus window between PC Mizen’s meeting with Cross/Lechmere and Paul accounts for how that could occur (plus because some time is required for the discussion with the two carmen, and possibly for him to finish knocking up at least one more resident – though this latter activity is disputed, it would require very little time and so again, is neither here nor there for our purposes).

Finally, we also have Baxter in his summing up of the events as indicating that the body was discovered “not far off of 3:45”. Given that PC Neil testified to his discovery of the body being at 3:45, and given that it was clear that Cross/Lechmere and Paul had come across Nichols prior to PC Neil, and given that within that interval they had only made it as far as PC Mizen, it is clear that their discovery must have been “not far off 3:45”. We must remember, there was no time of day testified to as to when the two carmen were at the body. The closest we have is Paul’s statement that he left home “about 3:45”, which is inexact. Baxter is referencing the carmen’s discovery relative to a time he has confidence in, namely, that of PC Neil.

In short, we have 3 witnesses, all police officers, who officially testify that Cross/Lechmere and Paul were not in Buck’s Row at 3:45. We also have Baxter’s summation where he indicates their discovery was “not far off 3:45”, which clearly refers to PC Neil’s discovery time, and so Baxter acknowledges the carmen found the body prior to that, but not by a large amount of time. Certainly within 5 minutes is accurately described by the phrase “not far off.” Balancing an inexact reference to time by Paul against the times stated by the police during the execution of their duties in which time is considered an important detail, it is considered unreasonable (unreasonable in the logical sense, not the pejorative one) to estimate the Cross/Lechmere window of opportunity based upon it ending at 3:45. Rather, it appears that at 3:45 they were in the company of PC Mizen. And as stated earlier, the travel times and other events shift the time that Cross/Lechmere can be placed in Buck’s Row to 3:41:17, and when compared to his expected arrival time of 3:37:47, this reduces the window of opportunity to 3m 30s.

This window of opportunity may still be sufficient time for Cross/Lechmere to murder and mutilate Nichols before moving away, unseen by Paul, and secreting the knife while doing so.

However, we have only examined the end time employed in the calculation of this window of opportunity. We have yet to consider the start time, which is given as 3:30:30.

In the majority of reports of his inquest testimony, Cross/Lechmere indicates an inexact time for his departure for work, and states he left “about 3:30”. For reasons similar to Paul, this inexact time cannot be considered as being a definite starting point. All it would take is for Cross/Lechmere to have left at 3:33:30, which is accurately described as being “about 3:30”, and there is no window of opportunity left. To note, 3m 30s is very close to only half of the 6m 38s duration that appears to be reflected in Paul’s use of the term “about” when referencing his departure as being “about 3:45”. Moreover, the start time is based upon whatever clock Cross/Lechmere had available to him, while the end times are based upon the police times. All it requires is for those clocks to be out of sync by 3 m 30s, well within the ranges that clocks differed in Victorian times. Finally, even that 3m 30s window of opportunity is based upon Cross/Lechmere walking at the high end of the walking speeds we have available, and taking the shorter, but requires going off the main street, route to work. Any other combination of choices for the calculation of his journeys reduces this window of opportunity, albeit these choices will not account for all of it.

In short, the window of opportunity reduces to the point where it vanishes into the range of expected errors and becomes indistinguishable from the noise. Time on clocks was highly variable, memory for the exact time one “left for work” on any given day will be crude, at best. And of course walking speeds and routes are neither constant speeds, nor always the most efficient paths.
It should not be misconstrued that this examination proves Cross/Lechmere could not have killed Nichols. All that would be required, after all, is that he simply left before the time he testified to. However, what this examination shows is that there is nothing within the evidence itself that indicates Cross/Lechmere had any window of opportunity at all. And if one cannot demonstrate there must have been a window of opportunity, then one can do nothing more convincing than simply speculate it could have existed.

- Jeff

[Scott Nelson]

Somebody could have been using the water closet Cross used in the early morning before departing. So he pisses enroute somewhere. A delay of a minute or two in his trek. This is not intended as a joke. There are other examples of possible activities that could have contributed to calculated delays.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Scott,

Somebody could have been using the water closet Cross used in the early morning before departing. So he pisses enroute somewhere. A delay of a minute or two in his trek. This is not intended as a joke. There are other examples of possible activities that could have contributed to calculated delays.

Sure, unknown things like that could have taken place and could be considered if one feels the need to include any delays. From the analysis I've done above, in my rather lengthy post (even for me), it doesn't appear any delays at all need to be suggested though.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

Good post Jeff.

Another factor to consider is the encounter between Cross and Paul.

In his infamous interview Paul claimed,

“I saw a man standing where the woman was.”

The problem is Paul makes no mention in this interview or the inquest testimony that he could see the body until Cross points it out. If Cross was, in fact, “where the body was” Paul should have seen Mrs Nichols AND Cross, but he didn’t.

Cross claimed,

“As I got to Buck's-row, by the gateway of the wool warehouse, I saw someone lying at the entrance to the gateway. It looked like a dark figure. I walked into the centre of the road, and saw that it was a woman.”
Echo

“he was walking on the right hand side of Buck’s-row he saw something lying on the other side of the road.”
Dover Express

“In the dark he could not tell at first what it was. It looked like a tarpaulin sheet, but walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman.”
E.L.O.

“it looked in the distance like tarpaulin. When he got nearer he found it was a woman.”
Star




At the inquest, Paul confirms Cross’s account,

“he saw a man standing in the middle of the road.”
The Times

As the map shows Cross was about 80 metres down Buck’s Row when Paul saw him.

Cross then said,

“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.”




Assuming the Cross guess of the distance was correct, this means Paul walked about 40 metres up Buck’s Row before Cross heard him.




If Cross was the killer, how did he traverse the 40 metres from the body to were Paul saw him without being noticed?





And since it was only about 40 metres from where Mrs Nichols lay to the corner of the Board School, why didn't Cross simply disappear before Paul could get anywhere near him?



At no time, either in the Lloyds interview or in the inquest reports did Paul cast suspicion on Cross, which, if he really was with the body, seems extraordinarily odd. However if we follow Cross's account everything falls into place.

We also have Mrs Lilley's account of hearing voices and she lived opposite the wool warehouse gateway.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Scott,



Sure, unknown things like that could have taken place and could be considered if one feels the need to include any delays. From the analysis I've done above, in my rather lengthy post (even for me), it doesn't appear any delays at all need to be suggested though.

- Jeff

One fairly obvious discrepancy is Paul's estimate of only four minutes passing between seeing the body and meeting up with Mizen. If the walk was 3 min., 20 seconds, that it would only leave him 40 seconds at the crime scene, which seems too brief.

Add a minute or 90 seconds, push Crossmere's departure to 3:31, and admit that no one's internal clocks were synchronized, and the only "missing time" is in a UFO abduction scene from The X-Files.

[drstrange169]

>>Somebody could have been using the water closet Cross used in the early morning before departing. So he pisses enroute somewhere<<

There were public urinals in Cambridge Heath Road, which was Cross most likely route.

[JeffHamm]

Hi rj,

One fairly obvious discrepancy is Paul's estimate of only four minutes passing between seeing the body and meeting up with Mizen. If the walk was 3 min., 20 seconds, that it would only leave him 40 seconds at the crime scene, which seems too brief.

Add a minute or 90 seconds, push Crossmere's departure to 3:31, and admit that no one's internal clocks were synchronized, and the only "missing time" is in a UFO abduction scene from The X-Files.

Yah, I think I suggested 30 seconds in my long post. I know that seems brief, but I've taken the 4 minutes to be from the point he gets right at the body and starts checking her, rather than from the point he literally "sees" it (when he first reaches Cross/Lechmere).

And, 30 seconds seems like enough time to touch her to feel her temperature, suggest moving her, then trying to pull her dress down a bit and heading off. Given they didn't notice her throat was cut, or the blood, I don't think they were actually attending to her for more than that. It was dark, so a cursory examination like that might miss those things, but I would think if they were poking around her for a minute or more then it would have become a lot more apparent to them that all was very far from being well.

Of course, that's just my opinion. Certainly if the time the two men were at the body is extended to a minute or 90 seconds, the window of opportunity simply shrinks even more.

In my presentation above I went with the shortest examination time that would allow them to do what the said, to avoid being accused of eating up time unnecessarily. While I don't think I will avoid such accusations all the same, but I went with the fastest walking speeds, the shortest routes, and as short a delay at the body as I thought reasonable to do as they said.

And, as I allude to a few times and as you point out, given the inaccuracies of Victorian clocks what looks like a "window of opportunity", sometimes referred to as the "missing time", is within the sort ranges that clocks differed at that time. So I agree fully with you and we can't even be sure there is any time missing without doing anything at all!

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi drstrange,

Good post Jeff.

Another factor to consider is the encounter between Cross and Paul.

In his infamous interview Paul claimed,

“I saw a man standing where the woman was.”

The problem is Paul makes no mention in this interview or the inquest testimony that he could see the body until Cross points it out. If Cross was, in fact, “where the body was” Paul should have seen Mrs Nichols AND Cross, but he didn’t.

Cross claimed,

“As I got to Buck's-row, by the gateway of the wool warehouse, I saw someone lying at the entrance to the gateway. It looked like a dark figure. I walked into the centre of the road, and saw that it was a woman.”
Echo

“he was walking on the right hand side of Buck’s-row he saw something lying on the other side of the road.”
Dover Express

“In the dark he could not tell at first what it was. It looked like a tarpaulin sheet, but walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman.”
E.L.O.

“it looked in the distance like tarpaulin. When he got nearer he found it was a woman.”
Star




At the inquest, Paul confirms Cross’s account,

“he saw a man standing in the middle of the road.”
The Times

As the map shows Cross was about 80 metres down Buck’s Row when Paul saw him.

Cross then said,

“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.”




Assuming the Cross guess of the distance was correct, this means Paul walked about 40 metres up Buck’s Row before Cross heard him.




If Cross was the killer, how did he traverse the 40 metres from the body to were Paul saw him without being noticed?





And since it was only about 40 metres from where Mrs Nichols lay to the corner of the Board School, why didn't Cross simply disappear before Paul could get anywhere near him?



At no time, either in the Lloyds interview or in the inquest reports did Paul cast suspicion on Cross, which, if he really was with the body, seems extraordinarily odd. However if we follow Cross's account everything falls into place.

We also have Mrs Lilley's account of hearing voices and she lived opposite the wool warehouse gateway.

Interesting. So the wool warehouse where Cross/Lechmere was standing was roughly 17.5 meters from her body by the looks of it.

One thing, I know Paul says he sees Cross standing in the middle of the road, but I wasn't aware he states where he himself was at the time he spots Cross. You have him at the entrance to Buck's Row. Does he say somewhere that he saw the man when he entered Buck's Row (which would suggest he sees Cross before Cross hears him)? I'm not aware of that quote, or it's never stuck with me, so I've always worked with Cross's 40 yards only. I thought he was closer than 17.5 metres, but I never knew where the wool warehouse was, so I tended to place him almost across the street from the body.

So if Cross/Lechmere and Paul first meet 17.5 metres from the body, that would take them 12 seconds to traverse before they start their checking of her. Not a lot of time, but it does mean there's even less time in the window of opportunity than I had suggested.

Anyway, I agree with you, if Paul sees Cross/Lechmere before Cross/Lechmere hears Paul, then there's no time for Cross/Lechmere to move away from the body and not be noticed doing so. And if Paul sees Cross/Lechmere pretty much as soon as he entered Buck's Row, there never was time for Cross/Lechmere to move 17.5 metres. If one then suggests Cross/Lechmere hears Paul approaching Buck's Row, as you say, why move 17.5 metres closer to the person, rather than just moving the same amount of distance and vanish around the corner?

This is why I like having maps, and marking on them the relative locations, and working out the distances involved. These types of details, once drawn out and measured, can clarify what is going on. Often, when just writing about it, or just thinking in words, we lose that spatial information that can be really important. Much appreciated.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

Hello Jeff,

I deliberately didn't say where Paul saw Cross, because that's an unknown.

I gave the position Cross said he heard Paul.




And the distance Paul would have traveled to that point.



At what part of that distance Paul saw Cross, we don't know, but as you can see it is a short distance to choose from.

[Dickere]

No, but on the other side of the coin, people who believe Lech to be guilty say that he could have traversed past George yard on his way to work the night Martha was murdered . The same with Hanbury St with Annie. Either way there is no proof , just speculation but his possible work routes are sometimes seen as evidence that Lech was guilty , or innocent if you will
Regards Darryl

Understood Darryl, and thanks for the reply.

There is a difference though. You point out people say Lechmere 'could have' etc, whereas Trevor asserted that he did walk that way each day as fact.

[Dickere]

You don’t need a medical background though. If she wasn’t there at 3.15 but was there at 3.45 then she had to have been killed between those 2 times.

Or she was killed elsewhere at an earlier time.