Robert Paul Time Issues

[Abby Normal]

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

Hi El
well that would be my short end of it. : )

Re subduing-Ive always had a sneaking suspicion that perhaps she might not have been subdued. There was too much time from when she was last seen by Emily Holland till when she discovered down the road in Bucks row to account for her walking (or stumbling) for it to take so long. what was polly up to in between? She was very drunk, it was late, I think after talking to Emily she may have stumbled up the road into Bucks row and passed out/dozed off where she was encountered in that state by the ripper. so basically he comes across her already out-no engaging in talk or subduing necessary. complete speculation of course.

[David Orsam]

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.

Of course the paper report wasn't "seconded" by Swanson. There is no indication that he even read it. All he did was include an approximate time in his chronology of the Nichols murder just like he included approximate times in his chronology of the Chapman murder. A number of the timings in that chronology do not match the evidence so it is quite ridiculous to say they represent "official" police opinion. Certainly the idea that he was somehow consciously overturning Abberline's time of 3.40 is fantastical.

[Elamarna]

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

That's fine by me, we probably agree on a rough timing on this issue, i will put my cards on the table and say one to two minutes was probably sufficient.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi El
well that would be my short end of it. : )

Re subduing-Ive always had a sneaking suspicion that perhaps she might not have been subdued. There was too much time from when she was last seen by Emily Holland till when she discovered down the road in Bucks row to account for her walking (or stumbling) for it to take so long. what was polly up to in between? She was very drunk, it was late, I think after talking to Emily she may have stumbled up the road into Bucks row and passed out/dozed off where she was encountered in that state by the ripper. so basically he comes across her already out-no engaging in talk or subduing necessary. complete speculation of course.

Hi Abby,

thanks for making that clear, the evidence does suggest she is at least partially strangled first to me.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

thanks for making that clear, the evidence does suggest she is at least partially strangled first to me.


Steve

Ok. I'll give you 17 seconds. : )

[Fisherman]

Of course the paper report wasn't "seconded" by Swanson. There is no indication that he even read it. All he did was include an approximate time in his chronology of the Nichols murder just like he included approximate times in his chronology of the Chapman murder. A number of the timings in that chronology do not match the evidence so it is quite ridiculous to say they represent "official" police opinion. Certainly the idea that he was somehow consciously overturning Abberline's time of 3.40 is fantastical.

No, it is not "fantastical" at all. The 3.45 timing DOES overturn Abberlines 3.40 timing, and that is in no way fantastic, it is a pretty simple and undramatic fact.

I see that you now resort to petty semantical quibbling. Of course I am not saying that Swanson treated the paper article as an official statement. He nevertheless echoed it in his own report.

Now you can start claiming that you cannot echoe what you have never heard. I will be just as disingenuous as your remark about Swanson not seconding the paper information.

And then you can go on claiming that I only support my argument on the "dubious" LLoyds article. Go ahead, David, donīt be shy.

[David Orsam]

I see that you now resort to petty semantical quibbling. Of course I am not saying that Swanson treated the paper article as an official statement. He nevertheless echoed it in his own report.

Hardly "petty semantical quibbling" when you made have made the categoric statement that the "paper report was seconded by the man in charge of the Ripper investigation" and now persist in saying that Swanson "echoed" the article when we don't even know if he ever read it. The time of 3.45am was heralded in the press as the time of discovery of the body (by Neil) long before the LWN article so Swanson was not necessarily seconding or echoing anything said by Paul. It was clearly an approximation, just like the approximations in his report on the Chapman murder.

As far as I can see, Abberline realised that if Cross and Paul approached Mizen at 3.45, as per Mizen's sworn testimony, and if Neil discovered the body at about 3.45, as stated in early reports, then Cross and Paul must have found the body at about 3.40. It's straightforward.

What I have never seen you do, Fisherman, is even acknowledge that the timings in Swanson's account of the Chapman murder are obviously approximations, thus indicating that the timings in Swanson's reports as a whole do not necessarily reflect the exact timings of events. That being so, it is absolutely laughable to claim that Swanson has somehow overturned Abberline's timing.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Hardly "petty semantical quibbling" when you made have made the categoric statement that the "paper report was seconded by the man in charge of the Ripper investigation" and now persist in saying that Swanson "echoed" the article when we don't even know if he ever read it.

Donīt be silly. If a person A goes into a room and says "David Orsam is wrong again", and is followed by a person B who goes into the same room and says "David Orsam is wrong again", then person B WILL be echoing what person A said, regardless if he knows what person A said or not.
The very fact that THIS is what we discuss says a lot of the quality and aim of your Ripperology.

The time of 3.45am was heralded in the press as the time of discovery of the body (by Neil) long before the LWN article so Swanson was not necessarily seconding or echoing anything said by Paul. It was clearly an approximation, just like the approximations in his report on the Chapman murder.

It is the final say of the police, chronologically speaking. So either we accept that Swanson was sloppy, could not care less - or worded the stance of the police. Since 3.45 is the more logical time (and yes, we are speaking about my logic, not yours), I happen to believe that the latter applies.

As far as I can see, Abberline realised that if Cross and Paul approached Mizen at 3.45, as per Mizen's sworn testimony, and if Neil discovered the body at about 3.45, as stated in early reports, then Cross and Paul must have found the body at about 3.40. It's straightforward.

As far as I can see, Swanson realized that if Lechmere found the body at 3.40, that timing seems to tally very poorly with the time it took for Thain to fetch Llewellyn. Itīs straightforward.

What I have never seen you do, Fisherman, is even acknowledge that the timings in Swanson's account of the Chapman murder are obviously approximations, thus indicating that the timings in Swanson's reports as a whole do not necessarily reflect the exact timings of events. That being so, it is absolutely laughable to claim that Swanson has somehow overturned Abberline's timing.

Then you should be thankful for providing you with a laugh. I know I am utterly grateful to you for the same thing. Overall, though, my feeling is that I have a sounder sense of humour than you do. Iīm not even sure that you DO have a sense of humour as such.

[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.

According to Emily Holland, the last person to see Polly alive;

"Witness: I had only just met her, and we were talking for about seven or eight minutes. While we were talking the clock at Whitechapel Church struck half-past two."

[Fisherman]

According to Emily Holland, the last person to see Polly alive;

"Witness: I had only just met her, and we were talking for about seven or eight minutes. While we were talking the clock at Whitechapel Church struck half-past two."

I believe David misgivings are primarily concerned with the strokes of the quarter hours - that is when the citizens of Whitechapel would have found the noise unbearable, not the half hour- and full hour strokes...

Anyway, I believe there were clocks where smaller bells rung out the quarter hours. Big Ben was - and is - such a clock, but I believe it may have been the same in at least some other clocktowers too.

In another vein, it is interesting that there was still a full one and a quarter hours before Nichols was found at the stage when Holland and she spoke together. It opens up for the possibility that the person who originally accompanied her into Bucks Row may not have been her killer - there is ample time for her to have done business with another client first, and then perhaps to have stayed behind in Bucks Row, only to be found there by the killer.
Or she did the business and returned to Whitechapel Road, where she was picked up by the killer.
Or she didnīt find any business until the Ripper came along.
Or she ...

Itīs annoying.

[Jon Guy]

I believe David misgivings are primarily concerned with the strokes of the quarter hours - that is when the citizens of Whitechapel would have found the noise unbearable, not the half hour- and full hour strokes...

Anyway, I believe there were clocks where smaller bells rung out the quarter hours. Big Ben was - and is - such a clock, but I believe it may have been the same in at least some other clocktowers too.

In another vein, it is interesting that there was still a full one and a quarter hours before Nichols was found at the stage when Holland and she spoke together. It opens up for the possibility that the person who originally accompanied her into Bucks Row may not have been her killer - there is ample time for her to have done business with another client first, and then perhaps to have stayed behind in Bucks Row, only to be found there by the killer.
Or she did the business and returned to Whitechapel Road, where she was picked up by the killer.
Or she didnīt find any business until the Ripper came along.
Or she ...

Itīs annoying.

Alice McKenzie was last seen alive heading, in a hurry, to the same sort of area that Nichols was heading to.

[Fisherman]

Alice McKenzie was last seen alive heading, in a hurry, to the same sort of area that Nichols was heading to.

...which makes you think that...?

[Fisherman]

A point of overall interest with the clock chiming is how we have so many witnesses speaking of how they heard the clock sounding, and therefore knew what the time was; Cadosh, Long, Holland, Davis...

It really goes to show how the public clocks were the common manīs timekeepers. Today, we hear the clocks strike too - but how many of us take notice of the time? To me, it is just an attractive city sound, nothing much else - I have my wrist watch and my mobile to consult, and I donīt use the public clocks for timekeeping at all.
It was very different back then.

[Jon Guy]

...which makes you think that...?

The Ripper also headed in that direction after Mitre Square.

[David Orsam]

Donīt be silly. If a person A goes into a room and says "David Orsam is wrong again", and is followed by a person B who goes into the same room and says "David Orsam is wrong again", then person B WILL be echoing what person A said, regardless if he knows what person A said or not.

No, Fisherman, look at the definition of the word in Webster's Dictionary:

"to restate in support or agreement" his successor echoed his opinion

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/echo

You can't restate in support or agreement something you haven't heard or are not aware of.

And I don't know why you felt the need to change the context to "person A" and "person B". We were talking about an official police report by a Chief Inspector to the Home Office. The author of that report cannot properly or correctly be said to have echoed what was said in a newspaper article six weeks earlier that he may not ever have read.

It's funny how on the one hand you protest to me about your lack of knowledge of English yet persist in arguing about the English language with me!