Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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".

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[David Orsam]

I am presenting a schedule that makes sense to me

What's the point of doing that? We can all present a schedule of events based on any timings we like because of the approximate nature of the timings in the evidence.

And I definitely remember you highlighting the use of the word "exactly" by Paul. What was the point of doing that unless you wanted to fix the time that Paul arrived at Bucks Row as being 3.45?

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: 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.

And yet he said he went directly! To me that translates into something like a person on whoīs door he has knocked before Lechmere arriving, opening that door and Mizen saing "good morning" as he set off.

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

But we DO know that Mizen would have been in place shortly after Lechmere spoke to him, unless Mizen misinformed the inquest. He had a two minute walk down to Browns, and since Bucks Row was empty when Neil turned into it, the carmen would already have turned the corner up at Bakerīs Row as he did so.
After that, Mizen will have been informed shortly after the carmen coming into Bakers Row.
After that, Mizen set off towards Bucks Row. And when he got there, Thain had taken off.
That does not leave any much time for Neil to have stood by the body before contacting Thain.

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.

Yes, it is! But it tallies badly with Mizen not finding Thain in place when he arrived. Plus, of course, it predisposes that we do not put trust in what was said by Neil about how he went about the Thain business.
I work with what the PC:s said, and I accept it as the probable truth. But it goes without saying that any man could have lied, and that they can have jointly conjured up a story to make themselves look better.
It can have been like that, but there are no implications at all that it WAS like that, the overall picture speaks against it, and I cannot produce a schedule working from the assumption that they lied. I look at what they said, I accept it as the best option we have.

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

They matter a whole lot. When you have one uncertain source of information only, then we can say that it is more or less useless to work with the times.
But when you have a whole cast speaking about the times, you can suddenly try to bring the timings together in schedules where they work poorer or better.
There will always be a slack to work with, of course, but the exercise is a very useful one anyway.
I exemplified before, and I donīt mind doing it again - saying that Neil could have spent a long time alone with the victim, after that engaging in an equally long conversation with Thain, seems to be ruled out by what Mizen said.
When we have three men telling a story, we can see how it works best. And to my mind, it works absolutely best with a quick development, where Mizen did what he said he did, where Neil did what he said he did, and where Thain did what he said he did.
And that, my persistent friend, is my last word in this debate with you, unless you have something factually interesting to add. Itīs far too good weather to be going around in circles with you over this.
Thanks for now.

[David Orsam]

I work with what the PC:s said, and I accept it as the probable truth.

All right, fine, that's not unreasonable. So we have this straightforward possible timeline:

Cross leaves his house at 3.33.

Walks slowly, arrives Bucks Row 9 minutes later at 4.42

Stands looking at body for a minute while Paul walks down the row:

It's now 4.43

The two men examine the body in the dark and discuss what they should do. They then start walking towards Bakers Row. I don't think 4 minutes is unreasonable for this (and probably too generous).

It's now 4.47

As Cross and Paul leave Bucks Row PC Neil enters at the other end, makes his way slowly down and sees the body.

It's now 4.48.

Neil examines the body, works out it's a dead body, looks around the immediate area for clues or someone hiding, knows he needs help and knows that Thain will be along on his beat in a minute or two. He hears Thain coming.

It's now 4.50.

Calls Thain and Thain walks down Bucks Row to speak to him.

We are at 4.51.

At this time, Cross and Paul have spoken to Mizen who then finishes knocking up before walking towards Bucks Row.

Neil says to Thain "Run at once for Dr Llewellyn" (Neil's evidence) or "For God's sake, Jack, go and fetch the doctor " (Thain's evidence) depending on who you prefer.

He is at Dr Llewellyn's two minutes later at 4.53. The housemaid or servant gets dressed and opens the door, finds out what Thain wants and wakes Dr Llewellyn. He notes the time is 4.55 which is the very time he said he was woken in his statement of 31 August.

So you see Fisherman, it can all be easily explained. The times can be easily adjusted. If Cross's walk to Bucks Row took seven minutes then he just left his house two minutes later or his conversation with Paul took six minutes not four. I remind you that this discussion began as a result of your claim that "Thain spent up towards 18-19 minutes on a walk that should have occupied around two minutes of brisk walking".

[David Orsam]

Just to add for those new to this discussion who are impressed by Paul's apparent claim to a newspaper reporter that he entered Buck's Row at "exactly" 3.45, there can be little doubt that this was a response (either by Paul himself or the reporter spicing up the story) to the official police claim that PC Neil had found the body at 3.45. The scoop of the story in Lloyds Weekly Newspaper was that this was the first time it had been revealed, over 24 hours after news of the discovery of the murder, that the body had been found by civilians. Paul's (or the reporter's) emphasis on 3.45 was to make the point that PC Neil could not possibly have found the body because Paul was in Bucks Row with the victim at that time.

From the above timeline I have posted, that could well have been absolutely correct. And, of course, Paul was right that he and Cross, not Neil were the first to find the body.

[Fisherman]

All right, fine, that's not unreasonable. So we have this straightforward possible timeline:

Cross leaves his house at 3.33.

Walks slowly, arrives Bucks Row 9 minutes later at 4.42

Stands looking at body for a minute while Paul walks down the row:

It's now 4.43

The two men examine the body in the dark and discuss what they should do. They then start walking towards Bakers Row. I don't think 4 minutes is unreasonable for this (and probably too generous).

It's now 4.47

As Cross and Paul leave Bucks Row PC Neil enters at the other end, makes his way slowly down and sees the body.

It's now 4.48.

Neil examines the body, works out it's a dead body, looks around the immediate area for clues or someone hiding, knows he needs help and knows that Thain will be along on his beat in a minute or two. He hears Thain coming.

It's now 4.50.

Calls Thain and Thain walks down Bucks Row to speak to him.

We are at 4.51.

At this time, Cross and Paul have spoken to Mizen who then finishes knocking up before walking towards Bucks Row.

Neil says to Thain "Run at once for Dr Llewellyn" (Neil's evidence) or "For God's sake, Jack, go and fetch the doctor " (Thain's evidence) depending on who you prefer.

He is at Dr Llewellyn's two minutes later at 4.53. The housemaid or servant gets dressed and opens the door, finds out what Thain wants and wakes Dr Llewellyn. He notes the time is 4.55 which is the very time he said he was woken in his statement of 31 August.

So you see Fisherman, it can all be easily explained. The times can be easily adjusted. If Cross's walk to Bucks Row took seven minutes then he just left his house two minutes later or his conversation with Paul took six minutes not four. I remind you that this discussion began as a result of your claim that "Thain spent up towards 18-19 minutes on a walk that should have occupied around two minutes of brisk walking".

Like I said before, David, I am through discussing this. I will make one final point before leaving you to it. In your scenario (where you change the evidence, using other timings than the ones given), you say for example this:

The two men examine the body in the dark and discuss what they should do. They then start walking towards Bakers Row. I don't think 4 minutes is unreasonable for this (and probably too generous).

I am not saying that it is "unreasonable". But I am saying that Paul claimed that the examination of the body and the trek to Mizen did not take more than four minutes.

Yes, we can add a number of minutes where we feel like it. But no, it does not fit the evidence. You can always say "the timings are approximations" - fine. But I prefer to follow them anyway, since they are all we have.

Generously adding a minute or two here and there will be something I leave to you. To me, it suffices to see that once we follow the evidence as closely as possible, instead of tampering with it until we have a different timeframe which is more to our liking, we actually come up with a version where Lechmere and Paul found the body at 3.45 and not 3.40.

There, that is my final word for now, which I hope you respect. Once again, thank you for the exchange.