Evidence of innocence

[Trevor Marriott]

This is mostly general remarks from Biggs, and it does not offer any answer to the question of how long she would have been likely to bleed. Which was what I asked.

If a witness discovered a body that was still bleeding relatively profusely, then the injuries are likely to have been inflicted more recently than 20 minutes previously..

Nichols body was not bleeding profusely far from it so that indicates she was probably killed much sooner

There is no definitive answere as to how long a body would take to bleed out but Dr Biggs gives us an insight into this issue when he says

I base this on my own observations of seeing blood leak out of bodies when I have been present at murder scenes some hours after death"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

If a witness discovered a body that was still bleeding relatively profusely, then the injuries are likely to have been inflicted more recently than 20 minutes previously..

Nichols body was not bleeding profusely far from it so that indicates she was probably killed much sooner

There is no definitive answere as to how long a body would take to bleed out but Dr Biggs gives us an insight into this issue when he says

I base this on my own observations of seeing blood leak out of bodies when I have been present at murder scenes some hours after death"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This is something that is no revelation, Trevor. It has been posted before, and nobody has challenged that the human body is sometimes unpredictable. Certainly, there are cases where people with massive damage have bled for a long time.

But what I am after is how long physicians would expect a body with the kind of damage Nichols had, placed in the kind of position that she was, to bleed. When Mizen looked at the body, around nine minutes or so after Lechmere left her, the blood was still running from the neck. And what Jason Payne James and Arne Thiblin said was that anything beyond three to five minutes would not be impossible per se (which is what Biggs says), but it would be less likely. And of course, nine minutes is a lot more than five minutes and every added minute would be less expected than the one preceding it.

I am not as much looking for "It COULD happen" as for "It WOULD happen" if you take my meaning. They are very different beasts.

[SuperShodan]

#4040 A comprehensive and interesting post, thanks for putting it up.


“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”


In order for the timing to work then Paul leaving home is moved by 6 - 7 minutes. I think this is taking a massive liberty. It would require Paul being very wrong with the time. And since he was required to be punctual at his work, and would likely have a good awareness of the time, I just don’t think this is credible. The one time in the day when you are most sure of the time is on your way to work and just before you clock in for work. I doubt this has changed at all for any working man in 130 years. Paul is clearly somebody who managed to arrive on time day after day. Being wrong by 6 or 7 minutes to my mind just isn’t plausible. I would add that I speak as somebody who has to clock in every day. Ask anyone the time when they are going to work and it’ll likely be very accurate. Their job depends on it. In short, when you are heading out to work, you will know the time.

Below is some newspaper reports of the inquest. In every one Paul is very sure of the time, leaving home at 03.45 (he would actually be in Bucks Row at 03.37) or just before 03.45 which would have him arrive in Bucks Row at 03.45. I just don’t see by any stretch of the imagination this can become 03.38.

[Doctored Whatsit]

It's also worth remembering, Paul was questioned for a long period by the police, before he appeared at the inquest. If there were any big discrepancies between his and Cross's stories the police would have highlighted them at the inquest.

This is a very important point which should not be ignored. At the inquest Mizen said "Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman". Lechmere said that this was not so, and that he told Mizen that Nichols was "dead or drunk, while the other man (Paul) stated he believed her to be dead". Either Mizen or Lechmere is lying on oath, so it was crucial that the police establish from Paul what really happened. If Paul did not corroborate Lechmere's story, then surely the latter would have been in big trouble. So they interviewed Paul for some time, and the result ....

Abberline's report of 19th September stated that Cross and Paul found PC Mizen, "and acquainted him of what they had seen". Swanson reported on 19th October that Cross and Paul, after finding the body, "they informed PC Mizen". Also, in his summing up, the coroner also had chosen to ignore Mizen's claim. It would seem to be crystal clear that after investigating the circumstances, the two most senior police officers in the investigation reached the simple conclusion that as Lechmere and Paul were together when they spoke to Mizen, then Lechmere absolutely could not have lied to Mizen. So, to put it bluntly, Swanson and Abberline believed that Mizen must have lied on oath!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or she was killed elsewhere at an earlier time.

It could be suggested by some but I don’t think that for a second.

[Fisherman]

#4040 A comprehensive and interesting post, thanks for putting it up.


“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”


In order for the timing to work then Paul leaving home is moved by 6 - 7 minutes. I think this is taking a massive liberty. It would require Paul being very wrong with the time. And since he was required to be punctual at his work, and would likely have a good awareness of the time, I just don’t think this is credible. The one time in the day when you are most sure of the time is on your way to work and just before you clock in for work. I doubt this has changed at all for any working man in 130 years. Paul is clearly somebody who managed to arrive on time day after day. Being wrong by 6 or 7 minutes to my mind just isn’t plausible. I would add that I speak as somebody who has to clock in every day. Ask anyone the time when they are going to work and it’ll likely be very accurate. Their job depends on it. In short, when you are heading out to work, you will know the time.

Below is some newspaper reports of the inquest. In every one Paul is very sure of the time, leaving home at 03.45 (he would actually be in Bucks Row at 03.37) or just before 03.45 which would have him arrive in Bucks Row at 03.45. I just don’t see by any stretch of the imagination this can become 03.38.

Exactly, it IS taking massive liberties with Pauls timing, given as "Exactly 3.45" in the Lloyds article, presumably for the reason that he had checked it.

Then again, what should the naysayers do? They HAVE to take massive liberties in order to shoehorn their take on things in. Having the body found by PC Neil at 3.45 would require that Thain also was alerted at the same time as per the PC.s. In that case, if he was sent pronto to get Llewellyn (and it´s hard to imagine Neil first playing a game of scrapple with Thain before suddenly saying "For Gods sake Jack, run for Dr Llewellyn!"), then he set off at around 3.46-3.47. And then he seemingly DID get to play that game of Scrapple after all, since it took him between 8-14 minutes to cover a two minute stretch.

Taking massive liberties is the way one amends such things.

Thinking that a jury would buy it is another matter altogether.

[Herlock Sholmes]

For another person to equal Lechmere in likelihood as a killer, he must equal the carman on every point. We must have a proven existence on the spot at the same time as Lechmere was there, in order to get an equal nearness to the blood evidence, we must have a proven trek on his behalf that equals Lechmeres morning trek and so on. That, of course, is impossible.
What you see to be proposing is that there COULD have been somebody else at the site before Lechmere, and this somebody COULD have killed Nichols and so on. And since such a person is not impossible, he is equally likely to Lechmere to be the killer.

It all touches on philosophy more than anything else. I think the easiest thing to do is to say that there IS no such persons existence proven, and so claiming that somebody exists who equals Lechmere in culpability is simply wrong.No such person exists, nor must any suchg poerson ever have existed. It is the dreaded phantom killer we are speaking of here, nothing else. And it was you who quoted the saying about "If my aunt had bollocks, she would have been my uncle", not me ...

Personally all I think that we can say Fish is that no suspect can be placed at the scene as Lechmere obviously can. I don’t think that another suspect has to have been equal on every point. For example, your point about the locations being near to places familiar/connected to Lechmere. We disagree on the importance of this of course but we can’t say that the killer, whoever he was, must have had a connection to the locations. Might we not also suggest a ‘what if?’ It’s disputed of course but ‘what if’ the killer had some medical knowledge. We couldn’t attribute this to Lechmere but it might apply to another suspect.

[Fisherman]

This is a very important point which should not be ignored. At the inquest Mizen said "Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman". Lechmere said that this was not so, and that he told Mizen that Nichols was "dead or drunk, while the other man (Paul) stated he believed her to be dead". Either Mizen or Lechmere is lying on oath, so it was crucial that the police establish from Paul what really happened. If Paul did not corroborate Lechmere's story, then surely the latter would have been in big trouble. So they interviewed Paul for some time, and the result ....

And if Paul never heard what Lechmere told Mizen? Then what happnes to your assertions? How could Paul corroborate or deny any of the suggested punch lines in such a case?

Abberline's report of 19th September stated that Cross and Paul found PC Mizen, "and acquainted him of what they had seen".

"They". The entity. Abberline does NOT establish in any way that Paul participated in the conversation, and as we both know, Mizen had to be reminded of his presence on the scene. In all the papers, Mizen is quoted as speaking about one man who approaced him. He never says that two men approached him. This is very well known at this stage, but you keep comng back with the old canard that it would be an established fact that Paul spoke to Mizen.

Swanson reported on 19th October that Cross and Paul, after finding the body, "they informed PC Mizen".

Same again. No fact established.

Also, in his summing up, the coroner also had chosen to ignore Mizen's claim.

Not mentioning is not equal to refuting, I´m afraid.

It would seem to be crystal clear that after investigating the circumstances, the two most senior police officers in the investigation reached the simple conclusion that as Lechmere and Paul were together when they spoke to Mizen, then Lechmere absolutely could not have lied to Mizen. So, to put it bluntly, Swanson and Abberline believed that Mizen must have lied on oath!

One of those two senior officers, the much more senior officer in fact, also said that Lechmere found the body at 3.45 in that October report. And we DO trust what he said, do we not?
It is not proven by a country mile that Lechmere and Paul were together as Mizen was spoken to. You entertain the idea that Lechmere would never have dared to lie in case Paul would refute him. But you have no problem accepting that Mizen would have lied about how one person only approached him? As if Paul could not have refuted that too - if it was false?

And a cherry-picking we go, hey-ho, hey-ho...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Jeff Hamm: Post #4040

Thanks Jeff, a concise and clear analysis of the 'missing time' debate.

It really is time this part of the Lechmere argument was put to bed.

Exactly Al. It’s simply a non-starter.

[Fisherman]

Personally all I think that we can say Fish is that no suspect can be placed at the scene as Lechmere obviously can.

Exactly. There is nothing at all that suggests the presence of another killer, and it is not until we can clear Lechmere definitively that any such person is required, to be frank.

I don’t think that another suspect has to have been equal on every point.

Well, he can´t be - but to be equal to Lechmere in terms of culpability, he HAS to be.

For example, your point about the locations being near to places familiar/connected to Lechmere. We disagree on the importance of this of course but we can’t say that the killer, whoever he was, must have had a connection to the locations.

Nope, very true. But it cannot be denied that a proven link to a murder site makes an accusation act much stronger than the lack of it.

Might we not also suggest a ‘what if?’ It’s disputed of course but ‘what if’ the killer had some medical knowledge. We couldn’t attribute this to Lechmere but it might apply to another suspect.

I think that is a bit of an unlucky comparison. A link to a murder site cannot be questioned, it is a case of "on" or "off". The medical insights always were hotly disputed and remain so. When the police found the totally unskilled vagrant Danny Rolling, that concluded the hunt for a murderer about whom experts had said that he had the insights and skill level of a trained physician. The murders, if you are interested, were called the Gainsville Killer case. They elucidate the problem.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

This is the ‘gap’ argument killed stone dead. It couldn’t have been put better or more fairly and without bias. Excellent post Jeff.

[Herlock Sholmes]

#4040 A comprehensive and interesting post, thanks for putting it up.


“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”


In order for the timing to work then Paul leaving home is moved by 6 - 7 minutes. I think this is taking a massive liberty. It would require Paul being very wrong with the time. And since he was required to be punctual at his work, and would likely have a good awareness of the time, I just don’t think this is credible. The one time in the day when you are most sure of the time is on your way to work and just before you clock in for work. I doubt this has changed at all for any working man in 130 years. Paul is clearly somebody who managed to arrive on time day after day. Being wrong by 6 or 7 minutes to my mind just isn’t plausible. I would add that I speak as somebody who has to clock in every day. Ask anyone the time when they are going to work and it’ll likely be very accurate. Their job depends on it. In short, when you are heading out to work, you will know the time.

Below is some newspaper reports of the inquest. In every one Paul is very sure of the time, leaving home at 03.45 (he would actually be in Bucks Row at 03.37) or just before 03.45 which would have him arrive in Bucks Row at 03.45. I just don’t see by any stretch of the imagination this can become 03.38.

So to accommodate Paul we have to dismiss Neil and Mizen. It’s very, very clear that Lechmere discovered the body very close to 3.40. This has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt by now.

[FrankO]

It remains crooked to me.

I hadn’t expected anything else from you, Christer.

Neil did NOT find the body as such, Lechmere did,...

I did NOT claim or say that he did.

... and so Baxter would have needed to make it clear that he suddenly changed who he spoke of.

He didn’t suddenly change who he spoke of. He presented the sequence of events in chronological order, beginning with Lechmere finding the body and ending with Neil finding it before Mizen, who had been sent to the scene by Lechmere and Paul, arrived at the crime scene. All logical and easy to follow. So, I don’t see any need why he needed to make anything any clearer. It was clear that he ended with Neil, in the meantime, finding the body and that meantime, as Neil had deposed, was ‘at about 3.45’.

And he never did, meaning that he laid down that Lechmere was the finder and that the finding took place at 3.45 in one unbroken passage.

It’s like you’re watching some kind of Escher-like version of the evidence I’m looking at, Christer. Baxter doesn’t lay down that Lechmere found the body at 3.45. I don’t see how you can see it like that. Where comes the 3.45 in “cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m” from? What 3.45 is he referencing? And why?

If I was to do that kind of things as a journalist, I would be severly reprimanded by my superiors for misleading the audience.

I’m not disputing your knowledge of and experience with the work of a journalist (you are one and I’m not), but it was not the journalist who presented the sequence of events, it was Baxter and as far as I’m concerned, he couldn’t have done a better job presenting the sequence of events beginning with Lechmere finding the body and ending with Neil doing so a short time afterwards. And, seeing that the carmen met Mizen about 300 yards (or less than 4 minutes) distant from the crime scene and Mizen finding Neil already there makes the final sentence a perfectly logical ending to the summing up of the aforementioned sequence of events: the time at which the body was found (by Lechmere) cannot have been far from a quarter to four a.m. (the time that Neil independently discovered it).

So no, it is not a train that I would embark on under any circumstances!

That, of course, is your own call, Christer.

Swanson altered his take on things and since he did it only after the summary at the inquest, the clear implication becomes one where the collected knowledge about the timings shifted.

Since I don't see Baxter changing the timing, I don't agree with it and don't know why Swanson altered his timing. It would be interesting to know why he did do that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a note for information and comparison on the time required for Lechmere to have got from his house to work. David Barrat (Orsam) did the walk himself. Walking slowly he did it in 31 minutes. Lechmere would hardly have been ambling along of course. Walking more purposefully he did it in 24 minutes. Walking at a ‘very fast pace’ he did it in 13 and a half minutes.

Obviously we can’t know how quickly Lechmere walked but even if he didn’t walk at David’s ‘very fast pace’ but a bit quicker than his mid-range walk then it’s obvious that Lech could have made the walk in under 20 minutes.

[Mark J D]

Just a note for information and comparison on the time required for Lechmere to have got from his house to work. David Barrat (Orsam) did the walk himself. [...]

What is 'the walk' for purposes of this experiment? Can you link us to the relevant source?

Thanks.

M.