Robert Paul Time Issues

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[David Orsam]

Suit yourself, David. There ´s a world of knowledge out there. Some of it may fit your logic.

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?

[Fisherman]

That wasn't my logic at all. I asked if public clocks were striking every 15 minutes throughout the night in Whitechapel. I've yet to see any evidence of it.

Suit yourself, David. There ´s a world of knowledge out there. Some of it may fit your logic.

[David Orsam]

I fail to see that clocks were allowed to wake people up at 2.00, 2.30, 3.00. 3.30, but not at 2.15, 2.45, 3.45 etcetera. It would be an odd logic.

That wasn't my logic at all. I asked if public clocks were striking every 15 minutes throughout the night in Whitechapel. I've yet to see any evidence of it.

[Joshua Rogan]

I wasn't suggesting this, I was doubting they did, but only on the basis that it must surely have been inconvenient to all the many residents of Whitechapel trying to get to sleep to have bells chiming through the night every 15 minutes. After 5am maybe but all through the night? Perhaps it was different in those days but I'd like to see some evidence of it before even thinking it might account for the witness timings in the Nichols murder, especially a witness timing in a newspaper article which contains known errors of fact and which contradicts the time given by the investigating detective in his report to the Assistant Commissioner.

I can't speak for Victorian Whitechapel but I'm pretty sure that some church and civic clocks sound the chimes day and night to this day, even though there's no need any more. A while ago a friend of mine lived near a church that did and whenever I stayed over the chimes would keep me awake, but being used to them she never noticed.

[Fisherman]

I wasn't suggesting this, I was doubting they did, but only on the basis that it must surely have been inconvenient to all the many residents of Whitechapel trying to get to sleep to have bells chiming through the night every 15 minutes. After 5am maybe but all through the night? Perhaps it was different in those days but I'd like to see some evidence of it before even thinking it might account for the witness timings in the Nichols murder, especially a witness timing in a newspaper article which contains known errors of fact and which contradicts the time given by the investigating detective in his report to the Assistant Commissioner.

Even Big Ben has always chimed the quarter hour, since it´s debut in the 1850:s. I fail to see that clocks were allowed to wake people up at 2.00, 2.30, 3.00. 3.30, but not at 2.15, 2.45, 3.45 etcetera. It would be an odd logic.

The probable solution to the question perhaps lies in how the chiming was not the same at all hours (or quarter hours) - in the Big Ben case, other chimes were used at the quarter strikes, and I suspect the same may be true for many clocks. It may have been a smaller, milder sound at the quarter strikes. But if you want evidence for how it worked, you will have to find it yourself, as I said.

People walked to work in these early hours too, so there was a practical need for time guidance.