Robert Paul Time Issues

[Fisherman]

What do you think of my logic that the body was most likely to have been discovered at about 3.40am, rather than 3.45am, because that's what Inspector Abberline put in his report?

Basically that we cannot put too much trust in Abberline, regardless of how high in esteem he was held. There is a later report, signed Swanson, that opts for 3.45, and I can only assume that Swanson was aware of Abberlines given time - but found it crucial to amend it.
The reason would have been a weighing of the evidence, and more evidence would have come to light as the investigation proceeded. In the end, factual evidence will always trump Abberlines thoughts.

As you will be aware, I think the 3.45 timing makes a lot more sense than the 3.40 one. I am not sure that I wan´t to go into any prolonged debate over it again, though.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

In 1888, Big Ben chimed every fifteen minutes throughout the night.

Public clocks were not as accurate. So if they followed Big Ben's lead, London must have been like living in a constant cacophony of out of synch chimes.

How PCs Mizen, Neill and Thain all agreed on 3.45 am is beyond me.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Hi All,

In 1888, Big Ben chimed every fifteen minutes throughout the night.

Public clocks were not as accurate. So if they followed Big Ben's lead, London must have been like living in a constant cacophony of out of synch chimes.

How PCs Mizen, Neill and Thain all agreed on 3.45 am is beyond me.

Regards,

Simon

The three PC:s may well have been called into action within the same minute, Simon. Nothing very strange about it, methinks.

[David Orsam]

Basically that we cannot put too much trust in Abberline, regardless of how high in esteem he was held. There is a later report, signed Swanson, that opts for 3.45, and I can only assume that Swanson was aware of Abberlines given time - but found it crucial to amend it. The reason would have been a weighing of the evidence, and more evidence would have come to light as the investigation proceeded. In the end, factual evidence will always trump Abberlines thoughts.

As you know Fisherman, I think that paragraph is utter nonsense and, in view of you writing it, it is certainly worth repeating a post of mine from November 2014:

"Abberline was the man on the ground and closer to the detail. The fact that he used a time of 3.40am when this was not specifically mentioned by any witness indicates that he had given the matter some thought. Swanson on the other hand was more big picture. We can see this most clearly in the timings included in his report on the murder of Annie Chapman also dated 19 Oct.

Let's take a look:

Inquest testimony of John Davis - "He got up about a quarter to 6. Soon afterwards he went across the yard...he saw the deceased woman lying flat on her back".

Swanson: "6 a.m. 8th Sept. 1888. The body of a woman was discovered in the back yard...by John Davis".

Inquest testimony of Timothy Donovan: "She remained there until shortly before 2 o'clock the next morning".

Swanson: "2 a.m. 8th Sept. 1888. She was last seen alive at 2 a.m. by John (sic) Donovan".

Inquest testimony of John Richardson (of 2, John-street): "Between a quarter and 20 minutes to 5 he went to Hanbury-street".

Swanson: "4.45 a.m. 8th Sept. John Richardson of 29 Hanbury St (sic) sat on the steps leading to the back yard".

Inquest testimony of Albert Cadosch: "he got up at about 5.15 and went out into the yard of his house...returned to the yard three or four minutes afterwards. He then heard a sort of a fall against the fence".

Swanson: "5.25 a.m (sic) 8th Sept. Albert Cadosch...had occasion to go into the yard at the rear of No. 27."

Swanson: "5.28 a.m. 8th Sept. On Cadosch going back into the yard again he heard a noise".

Inquest testimony of Elizabeth Long: "It was about 5.30...She saw a man and woman on the pavement talking".

Swanson: "5.30 a.m. 8th Sept. Mrs Long…saw a man and woman talking".

It is true that Abberline also referred to 6am as the time of the body's discovery but, in light of the above, if you read it carefully, it is absolutely unsustainable to claim that Swanson's inclusion of 3.45am in his report has any meaning other than an approximate time. To repeat, Abberline's use of 3.40 indicates he has given the matter some thought and he was closest to the details."

[Fisherman]

As you know Fisherman, I think that paragraph is utter nonsense and, in view of you writing it, it is certainly worth repeating a post of mine from November 2014:

"Abberline was the man on the ground and closer to the detail. The fact that he used a time of 3.40am when this was not specifically mentioned by any witness indicates that he had given the matter some thought. Swanson on the other hand was more big picture. We can see this most clearly in the timings included in his report on the murder of Annie Chapman also dated 19 Oct.

Let's take a look:

Inquest testimony of John Davis - "He got up about a quarter to 6. Soon afterwards he went across the yard...he saw the deceased woman lying flat on her back".

Swanson: "6 a.m. 8th Sept. 1888. The body of a woman was discovered in the back yard...by John Davis".

Inquest testimony of Timothy Donovan: "She remained there until shortly before 2 o'clock the next morning".

Swanson: "2 a.m. 8th Sept. 1888. She was last seen alive at 2 a.m. by John (sic) Donovan".

Inquest testimony of John Richardson (of 2, John-street): "Between a quarter and 20 minutes to 5 he went to Hanbury-street".

Swanson: "4.45 a.m. 8th Sept. John Richardson of 29 Hanbury St (sic) sat on the steps leading to the back yard".

Inquest testimony of Albert Cadosch: "he got up at about 5.15 and went out into the yard of his house...returned to the yard three or four minutes afterwards. He then heard a sort of a fall against the fence".

Swanson: "5.25 a.m (sic) 8th Sept. Albert Cadosch...had occasion to go into the yard at the rear of No. 27."

Swanson: "5.28 a.m. 8th Sept. On Cadosch going back into the yard again he heard a noise".

Inquest testimony of Elizabeth Long: "It was about 5.30...She saw a man and woman on the pavement talking".

Swanson: "5.30 a.m. 8th Sept. Mrs Long…saw a man and woman talking".

It is true that Abberline also referred to 6am as the time of the body's discovery but, in light of the above, if you read it carefully, it is absolutely unsustainable to claim that Swanson's inclusion of 3.45am in his report has any meaning other than an approximate time. To repeat, Abberline's use of 3.40 indicates he has given the matter some thought and he was closest to the details."

Well, as I am sure you will appreciate, I think the "utter nonsense" there is, is produced by you. I stand by how I think 3.45 is a better match with the realitites of things, and I also stand by how I am very disinclined to go over it all with you again - not least on account of the attitude involved.

[David Orsam]

I stand by how I think 3.45 is a better match with the realitites of things

Only because you think it creates a major timing gap and gives Lechmere sufficient time to have murdered Nichols but as we don't know exactly when Lechmere left his home that morning - it could just as easily have been 3.35 as 3.30 - it gets us absolutely nowhere.

[Abby Normal]

Only because you think it creates a major timing gap and gives Lechmere sufficient time to have murdered Nichols but as we don't know exactly when Lechmere left his home that morning - it could just as easily have been 3.35 as 3.30 - it gets us absolutely nowhere.

Hi David
One thing for sure is that nothing in the evidence or anyone has said on either side rules out that Lech could not have had enough time to murder Nichols. not much but that's something is it not?

[Fisherman]

Only because you think it creates a major timing gap and gives Lechmere sufficient time to have murdered Nichols but as we don't know exactly when Lechmere left his home that morning - it could just as easily have been 3.35 as 3.30 - it gets us absolutely nowhere.

Very little time was needed to kill Nichols, so your reasoning is flawed. Your generous judging of how and why I argue is duly noted, however. It is one of the reasons why I find Casebook less and less appealing.
If that was your aim, then congratulations.

[David Orsam]

Hi David
One thing for sure is that nothing in the evidence or anyone has said on either side rules out that Lech could not have had enough time to murder Nichols. not much but that's something is it not?

Of course he could have had enough time to murder Nichols, Abby. He could have left his house at 3am and there would have been plenty of time. But I really don't think that is anything meaningful at all.

[David Orsam]

Very little time was needed to kill Nichols, so your reasoning is flawed. Your generous judging of how and why I argue is duly noted, however. It is one of the reasons why I find Casebook less and less appealing. If that was your aim, then congratulations.

Well he has to strangle Nichols (according to your documentary's expert) cut her throat and then mutilate her. If he leaves his house at 3.35 that really doesn't leave him very much if any time to do that, especially if he speaks to her first. Or he could have left his house at 3.36 or 3.37 or 3.38, leaving him literally no time to do it at all if Paul walks into Bucks Row at 3.45 exactly.

And one doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to work out why you prefer a time of discovery found in a dubious newspaper article to that in the investigating detective's report.

[Elamarna]

Very little time was needed to kill Nichols, so your reasoning is flawed. Your generous judging of how and why I argue is duly noted, however. It is one of the reasons why I find Casebook less and less appealing.
If that was your aim, then congratulations.

Christer,

as a matter of interest how long would you say was needed to subdue Nichols, and cut both her throat and abdomen, regardless of which was first, and cover the wounds by moving the clothing?


steve

[Abby Normal]

Of course he could have had enough time to murder Nichols, Abby. He could have left his house at 3am and there would have been plenty of time. But I really don't think that is anything meaningful at all.

Thanks David
of course he could have lied and left earlier than he said he did, but I think what was done to Nichols could have taken 20 seconds.

so maybe the whole time issue is a moot point anyway.

[Elamarna]

Thanks David
of course he could have lied and left earlier than he said he did, but I think what was done to Nichols could have taken 20 seconds.

so maybe the whole time issue is a moot point anyway.

That Abby is too short for me, he has to subdue her, then cut the throat and move her clothiing to allow the abdomenial cuts and then adjust said clothing and move from the body. 20 seconds does not seem reasonable for all of that.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Well he has to strangle Nichols (according to your documentary's expert) cut her throat and then mutilate her. If he leaves his house at 3.35 that really doesn't leave him very much if any time to do that, especially if he speaks to her first. Or he could have left his house at 3.36 or 3.37 or 3.38, leaving him literally no time to do it at all if Paul walks into Bucks Row at 3.45 exactly.

And one doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to work out why you prefer a time of discovery found in a dubious newspaper article to that in the investigating detective's report.

Hello! Try some little honesty. The "dubious" paper report was seconded by the man in charge of the Ripper investigation. Both had 3.45, and it must be regarded as official police opinion.

Why do you try to obscure this? No need to answer, since I have grown pretty tired of the kind of dishonest debate you are offering.

[Fisherman]

Christer,

as a matter of interest how long would you say was needed to subdue Nichols, and cut both her throat and abdomen, regardless of which was first, and cover the wounds by moving the clothing?


steve

I would not say anything at all definitive about it. It is a matter of minute/s, but I won´t go into any discussion about it since I have a sneaking suspicion that nothing good will come from it.