The Timings of the Witnesses

[Billiou]

After reading the Inquest newspaper reports and looking at maps of the area, I have had trouble putting the timeline of the various witnesses of the Polly Nichols murder into some sort of reasonable and logical time sequence. The Coroner found that the time Polly was found by the carmen “cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data”, which is the best that he could do given the statements of the witnesses.

If we just take the statements as given, we have the following all occurring at or about 3:45am:

- Paul left home about (at or just before) quarter to four
- Mizen is passed by two men at about quarter to four (the reports of what Mizen actually said are very confused ( 20 minutes past four, quarter past 4, quarter to four o'clock, about a quarter to four o'clock, twenty minutes past four) but it is generally accepted that about 3:45 is the approximate time he stated)
- Neil says he found Polly about half an hour after he last passed the spot in Buck's Row at about 3:15 (sometimes reported as he was there at 3:45). In reply to a question, he actually said “I had previously seen the men at work. [ie the slaugthermen in Winthorp St] That would be about a quarter-past three, or half an hour before I found the body.” [seemingly a very awkward way of telling a time!]
- Thain is signalled by Neil at about a quarter to four (he says he passed the end of Buck's Row every thirty minutes)

They can't all be right, so who would we most trust with the time? Workmen, who leaving for work know their route to work and how long it takes to get to work, and are worried about getting to work on time every morning; or a policeman on a routine beat where the exact time may not be as important? And did Paul and Cross have clocks to wake them to get up to go to work?

I wonder about Neil's mention of seeing the slaughtermen at work earlier in the morning at 3:15. To do so he would have had to go down Winthrop St. Thain said: “He [Thain] did not take his cape to the slaughterers, but sent it by a brother constable.” The obvious candidate is Neil, on whose beat the slaughterhouse was situated, and Neil said he saw the slaughtermen at work at 3:15. Did Neil and Thain meet on Brady St sometime that morning where their beats crossed, and did Thain gave his cape to Neil, who then went back down Winthorp St to leave it with the slaughtermen? So did Neil then see a clock at the slaugther house when he last passed through on his beat, so he knew at that time it was 3:15?

So I believe Neil's time is at best an approximation, and I would have to expect that as Neil and Thain were from the same section, that they probably corroborated their timings together before the Inquest, and Thain came to 3:45 based on Neil's “guess”.

Tomkins the slaughter man seemed very aware of the time in his statement:
- he says they worked between eight and nine o'clock on Thursday evening till twenty minutes past four on Friday morning [4:20 seeming very precise].
- He (witness) and Britten left the slaughterhouse for one hour between midnight and one o'clock in the morning.
- He said “Police-constable Thain having passed the slaughterhouse at about a quarter-past four, and told them that a murder had been committed in Buck's-row”.
I think this points to Tomkins having access to a clock.

In any case the Coroner made his finding based on what the witnesses said and this was found to tally more with Paul's account of the time ie he was in Buck's Row at 3:45.

This would mean that Mizen's, Neil's and Thain's times are all out by about 5-6 minutes, taking into account Paul and Cross stopping at the murder site (taking 1 or 2 minutes?) and taking the time to walk to the Baker's Row/Montague St corner (approx. 240m, about 3 or 4 minutes walk?).

No mention is made by any witness in the Nichols case as to anyone consulting a watch, a clock, or hearing any church bells or other, as is done by other witnesses in other cases.

So I am wondering how common were pocket watches among the police? Constable Watkins in the Eddowes case mentioned consulting his watch just after he found her body. And I am sure if any of the police in the Nichols case had a watch they would surely have looked at it to confirm a time and mentioned it in their witness statements?

I am also wondering who would be the most likely out of all the witnesses to have consulted a watch or looked at a clock?

And the most likely answer I come up with is Doctor Llewellyn.

In his statements to the Inquest and to the newspapers he mentions:

- He was called by Thain at “about 4:00” or “about five minutes to 4” or “at 4 o'clock”
- “About an hour afterwards he was sent for by the inspector” [at the mortuary] (sometimes reported as half an hour) and “At half past five I was summoned to the mortuary by the police”
I think this could point to him referring to his watch and therefore being more accurate in his perception of the time. Being a doctor, it makes sense that he would have a timepiece with him. And anyone being woken up that early time of the morning would have been more likely to look at a watch or clock if they were available, wouldn't they?!

And this would then all tie together:
~3:45 Paul and Cross meet in Buck's Row
~3:50 Neil finds Polly's body
~3:50 Mizen meets the carmen
~3:50-3:51 Neil signals Thain
~3:52-3:55 Thain arrives at the Doctor's (depending on how fast Thain went to get the Doctor, the murder site being approx. 240m from the Doctor's residence – 3 mins walking fast, faster if he ran). This then matches in with the Doctor's own account of the time.
~3:54 Mizen arrives in Baker's Row and is signalled by Neil

Note: If we use the policemen's account of the time ie Neil signalled Thain 3:45, then why did it take Thain 10 or 15 minutes to arrive at the Doctor's house?

[drstrange169]

Hello Billiou,

If only it were that simple.

Remember in Victorian times there was no such thing as internet, TV, radio or digital clocks. The chances of Messers Xmere, Paul, Llewellyn and the police timings being in synchronisation would have been minuscule. When one person says a time it would not necessarily bear an exact relation to the next person's timing.

We don't even know whether Xmere and Paul even owned timepieces. As we all know from PC Mizen's testimony, large numbers of people in the area relied on "knocker uppers" it get them off to work.

This was an incredibly poor area, even if someone owned a clock, it would not have been a precision instrument. Any readers of this old enough to remember the world where clocks were wound, will know just how much time could be lost or gained between windings.

Discrepancies in timings would be the norm not an unusual occurrence.

[GUT]

People just seem to forget that Dusty, even my Grandad's old clock was usually out be about 5 minutes every week (and it was considered accurate by most of his friends) just imagine if he hadn't reset it when he wound it every Sunday.

Just skip setting it me week and you are out by about 10 minutes.

It is only in this digital age that times tend to be quoted as 10:17 etc, even in e 1960 s and 70s it would have been quarter past, or maybe 20 past, so a difference of 10 minutes or thereabouts means nothing.

[Rosella]

Pocket watches were only worn by those who could afford them. As ordinary coppers had mostly working class backgrounds it would have been a matter of luck I suppose, ie if old Uncle Fred or Grandpa had passed his on.

Policemen did have timed beats and had to meet beat sergeants at rendezvous in designated locales. However, all the knocking up and calling at slaughterhouses for capes does call this into question a bit. I wouldn't be surprised if Mizen, Neil and Thain weren't accustomed to stopping for a bit of a yarn or snack break at the slaughterhouse actually.

As has been stated, if a clock kept good time it was a matter of good fortune more than anything. I believe railway clocks were considered quite accurate, but others...! There may well have been a clock on the wall of the slaughterhouse for the purpose of timing shifts but who knows whether it kept good time!

[Damaso Marte]

I think if you are trying to time events in Victorian Whitechapel down to the minute, you are pursuing a fool's errand.

[drstrange169]

We had an inherited grandfather clock. Bloody noisy thing! I always remember the ritual of my father winding it included moving the minute hand to the correct time.

I'd imagine police had a reasonably good idea of time as they had targets to meet and patrolled the same patch hour after hour.

Being a doctor, you would imagine that Llewellyn would have had a pocket watch, which makes his "about four o'clock" a very slack piece of time estimation on his part.

[FrankO]

And this would then all tie together:
~3:45 Paul and Cross meet in Buck's Row
~3:50 Neil finds Polly's body
~3:50 Mizen meets the carmen
~3:50-3:51 Neil signals Thain
~3:52-3:55 Thain arrives at the Doctor's (depending on how fast Thain went to get the Doctor, the murder site being approx. 240m from the Doctor's residence – 3 mins walking fast, faster if he ran). This then matches in with the Doctor's own account of the time.
~3:54 Mizen arrives in Baker's Row and is signalled by Neil

In a general sense (give or take a minute here and there) I can agree with these timings, Bill. I would, however, say that Mizen met the carmen before Neil arrived at the crime spot. After all, Neil didn’t meet the carmen in the stretch of Buck’s Row between the crime spot and Baker’s Row. I have to add here that I assume that Neil entered Buck's Row by Baker's Row or, possibly, by Thomas Street.

All the best,
Frank

[Patrick S]

I think if you are trying to time events in Victorian Whitechapel down to the minute, you are pursuing a fool's errand.

This is really the most salient point here, and it impacts the entirety of the 'Lechmere the Ripper' theory. It's also the most revealing aspect as it pertains the 'pick and choose' nature of "Fisherman's" presentation of it. For instance, his "blood evidence" is based entirely on times and timing (laid out fairly accurately by the original poster) and - what "Fisherman views as - "supportive" witness statements. Actually, statements is too broad a word, isn't it? It's really witness "verbs". Verbs like "oozing". The problem here is obvious. These verbs cannot be interpreted as scientific evidence, nor were they intended to be by those using them in 1888. In any event, "Fisherman" chooses to believe and present those times and descriptions that "support" his theory, no matter how tenuous or trivial they may seem and the fact of the matter is the facts of the case, especially TIMES are jumbled mess of estimations, guesses, and inaccuracy.

In the end (and this is becoming all too simple to argue as we've stood back and let "Fisherman" go 'round and 'round), it becomes clear that this entire theory is based upon "Fisherman's" desire to suspect a man because he gave one name (Cross) rather than another (Lechmere). Even as this case is rife with poor and/or dishonest reportage, and cast of characters that used - more often than not it seems - multiple names.

So, what are we left with? A good yard, to be certain. An excellent premise for a work of "historical FICTION"? Absolutely! A better motion picture plot than "From Hell" and many - if not all - of the Ripper films we've seen. But, a reasonable and coherent theory to present a suspect? No.