Robert Paul Time Issues

[Fisherman]

Christer,

It might go slightly over 4, but probably no more than 5, all depends on how long the checking of Nichols took, some activities like that are hard to judge; that minute, minute and a half could just as easily be nearer two.


Steve

Not if Paul was on the money, it can´t...

Just kidding, Steve.

[Elamarna]

I can easily see your problem, Steve. But I can just as easily see a solution that I think works. To me, "no more than four minutes" need not be too precise at all. If he had the stretch divided up in sections (the way I used to do it myself on my way to and from work), then he can gauge the approximate time. And albeit the information may sound too precise to your ears, it may be a question of him thinking "Hmm, that walk would take two minutes, I know that, and then we stood by the woman for no more than a minute...well, perhaps it was a minute and a half, but no more..." That would lead him to think three and a half minutes at most. And then he said "no more than four minutes", since he thought that would cover it at any rate.

So it need not be very precise per se - it may just as well be a weighting that allowed for a range of times, boxed in by what you think sounds precise.

Just a suggestion! And just like you, I think it sounds like four minutes tops is a fair weighing on Paul´s behalf.

Christer,

It might go slightly over 4, but probably no more than 5, all depends on how long the checking of Nichols took, some activities like that are hard to judge; that minute, minute and a half could just as easily be nearer two.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Christer to play devils advocate on the estimation, it's of course true that it includes from the time he saw the body. So that's the verbal exchange with Lechmere and looking at the body plus the walking.
I just think that no more than 4 minutes is too pricise for that.
Having said that, the calculations I have been doing on timings and distance suggest his guess is fairly close to what was possible.


Steve

I can easily see your problem, Steve. But I can just as easily see a solution that I think works. To me, "no more than four minutes" need not be too precise at all. If he had the stretch divided up in sections (the way I used to do it myself on my way to and from work), then he can gauge the approximate time. And albeit the information may sound too precise to your ears, it may be a question of him thinking "Hmm, that walk would take two minutes, I know that, and then we stood by the woman for no more than a minute...well, perhaps it was a minute and a half, but no more..." That would lead him to think three and a half minutes at most. And then he said "no more than four minutes", since he thought that would cover it at any rate.

So it need not be very precise per se - it may just as well be a weighting that allowed for a range of times, boxed in by what you think sounds precise.

Just a suggestion! And just like you, I think it sounds like four minutes tops is a fair weighing on Paul´s behalf.

[Elamarna]

The estimates need not be wrong, I think; if he knew that he covered a stretch in four minutes of normal walking, then he could easily say that it was no more than four minutes if he knew that he had hurried.

Just as you say, we are left with guesswork, though.

Christer to play devils advocate on the estimation, it's of course true that it includes from the time he saw the body. So that's the verbal exchange with Lechmere and looking at the body plus the walking.
I just think that no more than 4 minutes is too pricise for that.
Having said that, the calculations I have been doing on timings and distance suggest his guess is fairly close to what was possible.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Your points are fair, am just looking for all the arguments on possible reasons for what was claimed, my particular interest is the clash of timings with Neil.,


I see one possible issue with the 4 minutes estimate, if we assume that Paul was indeed late and he was hurrying, would he not be walking faster than normal?
If so, would that not mean that his estimates are wrong, as they are based on his normal walking speed? Or was he in reality walking at his normal pace?

All questions Christer which I think we cannot answer with any degree of certainty.

Steve

The estimates need not be wrong, I think; if he knew that he covered a stretch in four minutes of normal walking, then he could easily say that it was no more than four minutes if he knew that he had hurried.

Just as you say, we are left with guesswork, though.

[Elamarna]

If he had had a clock, then why would he say "no more than four minutes"? To me, that is an estimation. With a clock, he could have said "It took three and a half minutes" - he would know, and would not have to estimate.

As I said, the more aquainted with a stretch you are, the more precisely you will be able to judge how long it takes to cover. If Paul knew that it was a question of no more than four minutes, saying "no more than five minutes" would take away from the exactness the lower offer would provide.

Your points are fair, am just looking for all the arguments on possible reasons for what was claimed, my particular interest is the clash of timings with Neil.,


I see one possible issue with the 4 minutes estimate, if we assume that Paul was indeed late and he was hurrying, would he not be walking faster than normal?
If so, would that not mean that his estimates are wrong, as they are based on his normal walking speed? Or was he in reality walking at his normal pace?

All questions Christer which I think we cannot answer with any degree of certainty.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,
Thanks for the input.
My only issue on the estimation is 4 minutes. If he had said less than 5 I would be perfectly happy. I agree with you on repeated journeys, but it's that use of 4 which just grates with me.

I notice no-one has commented on his possible use of a watch. Apart from the cost is there any reason to exclude the possibility.

Thanks to all so far.

Stev

If he had had a clock, then why would he say "no more than four minutes"? To me, that is an estimation. With a clock, he could have said "It took three and a half minutes" - he would know, and would not have to estimate.

As I said, the more aquainted with a stretch you are, the more precisely you will be able to judge how long it takes to cover. If Paul knew that it was a question of no more than four minutes, saying "no more than five minutes" would take away from the exactness the lower offer would provide.

[Elamarna]

I have always thought that the best suggestion we have for the wording "exactly 3.45" is indeed that Paul heard a nearby clock chime the quarter stroke.

At the inquest, Paul said "I am a carman, and on the morning of the murder I left home just before a quarter to four." That is totally consistent with him having had knowledge that he was in Bucks Row as the clock chimed.

That leaves us with the four minute estimation: "Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman."
To begin with, I would say that I do not think that Pauls word were grounded in a second reading of a clock. The reason for this is that if this had been the case, then he could have been sure of the time, and he would reasonably have said something like "Four minutes had passed" - he would have the exact knowledge (or think he had - if he had looked at two different clocks, they could have been unsynchronized), and not "Not more than...", which is clearly an estimation.
So how could he estimate it? Well, I myself had the same route to work for twentyfive years. And I knew exactly how long time it would take for me to get home from different observation points along the road; Passing the Landskrona crossroads, I had fifteen minutes home, from the restaurant at Glumslöv, I had ten minutes to home, from the place where I left the highway, I had a little less than four minutes to home, and so on.
If Paul knew these timings after having walked to work for a number of years, then he may have judged the distance, thinking that it normally took a certain time to cover, and then he concluded how long it would have taken given the circumstances of the murder night.

That, at least, is my five cents.

Hi Christer,
Thanks for the input.
My only issue on the estimation is 4 minutes. If he had said less than 5 I would be perfectly happy. I agree with you on repeated journeys, but it's that use of 4 which just grates with me.

I notice no-one has commented on his possible use of a watch. Apart from the cost is there any reason to exclude the possibility.

Thanks to all so far.

Stev

[harry]

Twice now Fisherman,I have to agree with you.First ,that Paul out of habit would be a reliable person as to time,and second that Church clocks usually chimed the quarters.

[Fisherman]

Did public clocks in Whitechapel even strike the quarter hour during the middle of the night? I rather doubt it.

John Davis got up at 5.45 on the morning of the 8:th of September, and he said that he was certain of that time as he had heard the clock in Christchurch strike the quarter hour. That much resembles what Paul said.
Christchurch, of course, was around 800 yards or so from Bucks Row. But if Christchurch chimed every quarter hour, I don´t see why other churches could not have done the same - it was an era when there was a need for such things to help out with the timekeeping.
If you are suggesting that the clocks did not strike in the earlier hours, it would be nice to see some evidence for that.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, you are quite right Abby. That was an error in the Times which I repeated.

This is from the Daily Telegraph:

"Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."

Ok thanks!

[David Orsam]

I have always thought that the best suggestion we have for the wording "exactly 3.45" is indeed that Paul heard a nearby clock chime the quarter stroke.

Did public clocks in Whitechapel even strike the quarter hour during the middle of the night? I rather doubt it.

[David Orsam]

Hi David
Isn't a quarter past 4 4:15? How does this jibe with 3:45? Confused.

Yes, you are quite right Abby. That was an error in the Times which I repeated.

This is from the Daily Telegraph:

"Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."

[Fisherman]

I have always thought that the best suggestion we have for the wording "exactly 3.45" is indeed that Paul heard a nearby clock chime the quarter stroke.

At the inquest, Paul said "I am a carman, and on the morning of the murder I left home just before a quarter to four." That is totally consistent with him having had knowledge that he was in Bucks Row as the clock chimed.

That leaves us with the four minute estimation: "Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman."
To begin with, I would say that I do not think that Pauls word were grounded in a second reading of a clock. The reason for this is that if this had been the case, then he could have been sure of the time, and he would reasonably have said something like "Four minutes had passed" - he would have the exact knowledge (or think he had - if he had looked at two different clocks, they could have been unsynchronized), and not "Not more than...", which is clearly an estimation.
So how could he estimate it? Well, I myself had the same route to work for twentyfive years. And I knew exactly how long time it would take for me to get home from different observation points along the road; Passing the Landskrona crossroads, I had fifteen minutes home, from the restaurant at Glumslöv, I had ten minutes to home, from the place where I left the highway, I had a little less than four minutes to home, and so on.
If Paul knew these timings after having walked to work for a number of years, then he may have judged the distance, thinking that it normally took a certain time to cover, and then he concluded how long it would have taken given the circumstances of the murder night.

That, at least, is my five cents.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Steve,

I would first want to consider whether Paul actually used the expression "exactly a quarter to four". It's easy to be seduced by the newspaper article that Paul actually made a "statement", but it's more likely in my view that he was answering a series of questions and the LWN journalist later created a "statement" by Paul based on what he had written in his notes. To that extent, some of the article could easily be the words of the journalist filling in gaps in his notes. One thing for certain is that Paul did not use that expression in his evidence at the inquest.

More importantly, the context of the article of 2 September 1888 is that it was being officially claimed that a police constable had discovered the body of Nichols at 3.45am. The LWN article was clearly a response to this with the point being that this could not be true because it was Paul who discovered the body at that time. So 3.45am was not necessarily a time volunteered by Paul but might have been a response to a leading question from the journalist.

For me, the best evidence in terms of timing is that of PC Mizen who said, in his sworn evidence, that he was approached by Cross/Paul at "a quarter past 4". He was then engaged in calling-up - so it must have been important for him to know the correct time - and I suspect that he was in the process of calling up people who wanted to be woken up at 3.45am. So I think his time is probably reliable.

Inspector Abberline wrote in his report dated 19 September 1888 that the body was discovered by Cross at "about 3.40". He must have been the officer with the most knowledge of the facts and I see no good reason to doubt that this is the best time of the discovery that is, and ever will be, available to us.

Hi David
Isn't a quarter past 4 4:15? How does this jibe with 3:45? Confused.