Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[David Orsam]

Here we are, the Echo 3:rd of september:

By the Jury - Witness (Mizen) went to the spot directly Cross told him, and did not stop to knock any one up.

If this seems odd, since we know that he DID continue one errand, the explanation can be found in the Daily News of the next day:

juryA man - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?

Witness - No. I only finished knocking up one person.


So the jury DID ask whether Mizen continued knocking people up after having spoken to the carman, and he DID answer in the negative, apparently because he mean that he had stopped the knocking-up business by finishing an errand on which he had already commenced.
I donīt see him wasting any time here at all. But that is only if we may believe what he said at the inquest. And even if we donīt, it is an interesting exercise to try the angle that he was completely truthful; if he was, what does that tell us?

Nor do I see any time being wasted by Thain. Neil says that he called his colleague, and it seems it involved very little conversation:
Without disturbing the body he called a constable who was passing along Brady street. He came, and the witness said to him, "Here's a woman has cut her throat. Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn."
Why would he tell Thain to "run at once" for the doctor, only to then engage in a lenghty discussion with him about the aspects of the case, hidden from the inquest?
It makes no sense to me.

Is that directed at me?

Firstly I know that full well that Mizen only continued knocking up one person but that would have taken time.

Secondly, we don't know exactly how long Neil was alone with the body before Thain appeared.

Thirdly, that conversation between Neil and Thain was a summary presented for the court, perhaps designed to show how quickly they both acted. In the real world, the two men might have spent more time in conversation. I don't say they did, just that it's a possible explanation for any delay.

Fourthly, all these details really don't matter because ALL the timings mentioned were approximate only.

[Fisherman]

Ha! In the same post that you deny fixing times you then go on to refer to Lechmere and Paul having found the body at "3.45-3.46". No use of the word "about" and a range of a mere 60 seconds. That's what I mean about fixing the time - and elsewhere in this thread you have just said "3.45".

But that is SUGGESTING a time, not fixing it. I am presenting a schedule that makes sense to me, and when you do, you need to boil it down into as clear a picture as possible. That is why I give timings down to the minute - to clarify exactly how I think.
I thought I had already told you that I am not fixing times, that it canīt be done?

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: It's hardly a controversial statement Fisherman. For Swanson to have actually corrected the time of the investigating officer would have been a big step and, in the context of his timings in the Chapman case, is clearly not what happened.

David, I donīt know how I can be any clearer - the context of the Chapman case is in no way any guarantee that Swansons mind was not changed on the issue. Whether it was a big or a small step is irrelevant - the police would not be likely to skip over vital information because it was a "big step". That is not how it works - if they have changed their minds, then thay have done so because they had reason to. And it should not be kept from the reports.
Unless there is something of factual importance you have to say on the errand, I have said all I have to say on it. We are going round in circles by now, and it benefits nobody.

And I'm not really saying it was a "mistake" as such in the Nichols case. Like I've said, he could have had in mind the evidence of Paul that he left his house at about 3.45. It's just that he probably didn't go on to consider the evidence of Cross that he left his house at about 3.30 and how long the walk would have taken and that Neil found the body at about 3.45. I suspect that Abberline did have those things in mind and that Swanson hadn't understood that. In any event, for Swanson, 3.45 was good enough as an approximate time to communicate to the Home Office. Cross and Paul weren't suspects so it just didn't matter and it was impossible to get it down to an exact time in any case.

I donīt think it is a healthy approach to weigh in only the factors that seemingly speak for an earlier time. I think that ALL the factors apply, and I think that the combination of them would have been what led to the decision to alter the time.
But as I have already suggested, I think we are beginning to waste valuable time and space now.

[Fisherman]

Here we are, the Echo 3:rd of september:

By the Jury - Witness (Mizen) went to the spot directly Cross told him, and did not stop to knock any one up.

If this seems odd, since we know that he DID continue one errand, the explanation can be found in the Daily News of the next day:

juryA man - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?

Witness - No. I only finished knocking up one person.


So the jury DID ask whether Mizen continued knocking people up after having spoken to the carman, and he DID answer in the negative, apparently because he mean that he had stopped the knocking-up business by finishing an errand on which he had already commenced.
I donīt see him wasting any time here at all. But that is only if we may believe what he said at the inquest. And even if we donīt, it is an interesting exercise to try the angle that he was completely truthful; if he was, what does that tell us?

Nor do I see any time being wasted by Thain. Neil says that he called his colleague, and it seems it involved very little conversation:
Without disturbing the body he called a constable who was passing along Brady street. He came, and the witness said to him, "Here's a woman has cut her throat. Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn."
Why would he tell Thain to "run at once" for the doctor, only to then engage in a lenghty discussion with him about the aspects of the case, hidden from the inquest?
It makes no sense to me.

[David Orsam]

I am not fixing any times at all - how could I? I am saying that the scenario I present makes a lot of sense to me, whereas other suggested scenarios seem less likely to be true to me. That is not the same as fixing times and presenting things as facts. Anybody is welcome to challenge what I say.
In this case, a perfectly logical chain of events can be formed, pointing to Lechmere and Paul having found the body 3.45-3.46. After that, anybody could come up with suggestions of how the conversation between Thain and Neil would have been a lengthy one and how Mizen may have spent a lot of time finishing that knock-up errand of his (although he himself said that something along the lines of having headed more or less straight for Bucks Row, not spending much time on the knocking - I will find the exact quotation and post it). To me, these alternative time schedules seem less anchored in reality.

Ha! In the same post that you deny fixing times you then go on to refer to Lechmere and Paul having found the body at "3.45-3.46". No use of the word "about" and a range of a mere 60 seconds. That's what I mean about fixing the time - and elsewhere in this thread you have just said "3.45".

[David Orsam]

That is a pretty conclusive wording, telling me that you think that a mistake on Swansons behalf would somehow be much more likely than him having had a real reason for altering the time.

It's hardly a controversial statement Fisherman. For Swanson to have actually corrected the time of the investigating officer would have been a big step and, in the context of his timings in the Chapman case, is clearly not what happened.

And I'm not really saying it was a "mistake" as such in the Nichols case. Like I've said, he could have had in mind the evidence of Paul that he left his house at about 3.45. It's just that he probably didn't go on to consider the evidence of Cross that he left his house at about 3.30 and how long the walk would have taken and that Neil found the body at about 3.45. I suspect that Abberline did have those things in mind and that Swanson hadn't understood that. In any event, for Swanson, 3.45 was good enough as an approximate time to communicate to the Home Office. Cross and Paul weren't suspects so it just didn't matter and it was impossible to get it down to an exact time in any case.

[harry]

Billiou,
Policeman coming or policeman going, my point is that there was mention of another person in Bucks Row who cannot be accounted for.If the person was coming he would have passed Cross and Paul.
Yes the paper may have got it wrong,on the other hand it may have been the only one to get it correct.A reporter might misreport the odd word,but a whole sentence?
How does a policeman sound like.Depending on his walk,a soldier or someone wearing similar footwear, which was common at the time.
Neil had to use his flashlight to see the wound and blood on Nicholls throat.Cross and Paul must have been within a foot of the wound and saw neither.Does say something about the lack of light surely.But then the paper may have misreported that too.

[Fisherman]

Equally you don't include ANY time for conversations or any waiting around. Mizen of course did not go immediately to Bucks Row but finished knocking up. We don't know precisely how long it took for Cross and Paul to find Mizen. This is all in the context of approximate times in the first place. You keep taking an approximate time and turning it into a fixed time and then drawing conclusions from that.

I am not fixing any times at all - how could I? I am saying that the scenario I present makes a lot of sense to me, whereas other suggested scenarios seem less likely to be true to me. That is not the same as fixing times and presenting things as facts. Anybody is welcome to challenge what I say.
In this case, a perfectly logical chain of events can be formed, pointing to Lechmere and Paul having found the body 3.45-3.46. After that, anybody could come up with suggestions of how the conversation between Thain and Neil would have been a lengthy one and how Mizen may have spent a lot of time finishing that knock-up errand of his (although he himself said that something along the lines of having headed more or less straight for Bucks Row, not spending much time on the knocking - I will find the exact quotation and post it). To me, these alternative time schedules seem less anchored in reality.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: That will do me Fisherman which shows why the Chapman timings are relevant to this discussion.

Once we know that mistakes have been made in another investigation, it shows us that mistakes could have been done with the Nichols timings too. But on the whole, that is not much of a surprise is it? Anyone, anywhere can make mistakes. Noone is infallible.
What I object against is the notion that we should favour the view that Swanson would be more likely than not to get the times wrong. I am sure that we can find many investiagtions where he got the times right. And if they should be awarded the same precedence, then we are back to square one.
The time was changed. There was an ongoing investigation. There is every reason to believe that the finds and the work that was done was the reason for it.
I donīt think that we should make the assumption that Swansons alteration was in conflict with what Abberline thought. Both men could well have agreed by October 19:th that the original thoughs about the times were probably incorrect.



This makes me laugh. Senior people in an organization tend to be "big picture" individuals who leave details to the juniors. That's really my point. Swanson was applying a broad brush approach. He wasn't re-investigating the murders he was providing a summary of the evidence to the Home Office.

Iīm always glad to put a smile on somebodyīs face. But I donīt think Swanson was unaquainted with the details at all - he had access to all the material, and it was to him Anderson trusted when it came to creating an overall picture.
You make the assumption that the decision about 3.40 was taken and fixed, and that Swanson somehow forgot about that when compiling his report. I think that there will be a reason for the change. Regardless of where the report was headed, it applies that there was an ongoing investigation, and that the facts would have been mulled over more than one time.



I didn't say he was "bound to get it wrong" but when one looks at the Chapman timings it's obvious that he is not being precise about timings in his reports to the Home Office.

Yes, but once again, that is only fully relevant to the Chapman case. The assumption must be that he was as thorough as he could, and made as good a job as possible when he compiled the Home Office report. COuld it be that he was doing it with his left hand, not really being very interested in getting it right? Yes, anything can happen, more or less. But it is a question of probabilitites, and as I have already stated, I think it is much more probable that there will be a factrelated reason for a change as the one we see here.

I realize that you did not say that Swanson was bound to get it wrong, but it seems you favour the suggestion: "The fact that Swanson's timings are not accurate in the Chapman case must provide a strong indication that they are not accurate in the Nichols case either".
That is a pretty conclusive wording, telling me that you think that a mistake on Swansons behalf would somehow be much more likely than him having had a real reason for altering the time.


His function wasn't to be an investigative officer in the case. It was to review the evidence from his office in Scotland Yard and, in October, to present a summary of the evidence to the Home Office. Hence it is unlikely in the extreme that he was ever in any position to be able to amend the timings of the detective inspector who DID investigate the case and speak to the witnesses.

But he did not have to do that on his own, did he? It is just as likely that people below him in rank were the ones who saw the need to change the time. It nevertheless applied that once this happened, the matter must be put before Swanson. And the exact reason was that he was the central information source that Anderson relied upon. And he (Anderson) would not want Swanson to be kept out of the picture in any respect - he expected him to be up to scratch on every little point and aspect of the case.
There is really nothing much more I can say about it all. I remain at my stance that the alteration of the time was a very conscious step taken for factrelated reasons. And it is the fina word of the man supposedly in charge.

[David Orsam]

And it could have been 3:35 or even 3:40 and the much needed 7 minutes disappears totally.

I have said all along that any theory that relies on exact times in 1888 is doomed.

Precisely! (if I may use such an inappropriate word in the circumstances)

[David Orsam]

I can certainly see a logical development of matters here, involving how Paul explained how he knew the time exactly - if that was what he did. Conjecture, yes - but anything but baseless conjecture.

I suggest you are seeing what you want to see but I will grant you that you could be right in the sense that Swanson might have had in mind a reading of Paul's witness statement which is where he got his time of "3.45" from. But if Swanson was doing no more than repeating Paul's evidence it gets us (and you) nowhere.

[GUT]

How can a time containing the word "about" be accurate?



Given that Cross said he left his house at "about" 3.30 he could have left at 3.25 or 3.20. Or, being the murderer, he could have been lying and actually left at 3.00am or earlier. Either way, he could have had plenty of time to murder Nichols. What we can't say, however, is that there is a "missing" period of 7-10 minutes in the evidence. The reason for that is that we don't know what time Cross actually left his house.

And it could have been 3:35 or even 3:40 and the much needed 7 minutes disappears totally.

I have said all along that any theory that relies on exact times in 1888 is doomed.

[David Orsam]

Of course it matters. When he said "Just before a quarter to four", that seemingly corroborates the time he gave in the inerview.

You've missed the point here. I'm saying that EVEN if Paul said he left his house at "exactly" 3.45 he might well not have been correct because he might have been using an inaccurate watch or clock. If his timepiece was just five minutes out it would explain everything. It's unfortunate that the inquest never got to the bottom of the matter but there's where we are. My whole point, one that I keep repeatedly making, is that we cannot draw firm conclusions from the timings on this matter or talk of probabilities.

I know, incidentally, that you will probably come back and say to me "ah but he was going to work so he must have known the time" but that's not the case at all unless we know that he literally had to be at work at a exact time for which there is no evidence. And if he had to be at work at 4am at Cobbetts Court he had plenty of time. We just don't know.

[David Orsam]

One thing I would like to point to, is how you stretch things beyond what I find reasonable at times. For example, you add a few minutes here and there, one such passage being how you suggest that Neil and Thain struck up a lengthy conversation.
I donīt think there was time for that. Mizen was on his way, and would have arrived not very long after Neil himself arrived at the murder scene. And by then, Thain was gone.

Equally you don't include ANY time for conversations or any waiting around. Mizen of course did not go immediately to Bucks Row but finished knocking up. We don't know precisely how long it took for Cross and Paul to find Mizen. This is all in the context of approximate times in the first place. You keep taking an approximate time and turning it into a fixed time and then drawing conclusions from that.

[David Orsam]

They must open up for the poosibility that the Nichols timings MAY have been wrong, but thatīs as far as I am willing to go.

That will do me Fisherman which shows why the Chapman timings are relevant to this discussion.

We know that Swanson put his name on both reports, and we know that he was superior to for example Abberline.

This makes me laugh. Senior people in an organization tend to be "big picture" individuals who leave details to the juniors. That's really my point. Swanson was applying a broad brush approach. He wasn't re-investigating the murders he was providing a summary of the evidence to the Home Office.

So when the time went from 3.40 to 3.45, the best suggestion we can make is that there was a reason for it. My reason is that it had been decided that 3.40 was not the more likely timing, but instead 3.45. Your reason seems to be that the timing was changed because Swanson was bound to get it wrong as per the Chapman investigation.

I didn't say he was "bound to get it wrong" but when one looks at the Chapman timings it's obvious that he is not being precise about timings in his reports to the Home Office.

There will be lots and lots of investigations out there where the police hav found reason to review their original thoughts on things like the timings in different cases....Surely we cannot establish that it would be "unlikely in the extreme" for this to be true?
[/B]

His function wasn't to be an investigative officer in the case. It was to review the evidence from his office in Scotland Yard and, in October, to present a summary of the evidence to the Home Office. Hence it is unlikely in the extreme that he was ever in any position to be able to amend the timings of the detective inspector who DID investigate the case and speak to the witnesses.