Robert Paul Time Issues

[David Orsam]

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.

No, it's the say of an officer who was not involved in the investigation into the murder he was writing about. And yes I am saying that Swanson was a little bit sloppy. Are you saying that Abberline was not logical? Once again, despite the opportunity to do so, you have still not acknowledged the inaccurate timings (compared to the evidence) provided by Swanson in his report on the Chapman murder!

[David Orsam]

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. It´s straightforward.

Except that it doesn't. I even created a thread which discussed this very point, although you did not contribute:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8575

And no-one said that "Lechmere found the body at 3.40". Abberline's report used the phrase "about 3.40" and it's important that we try to keep this in mind rather than pretending that anyone could nail down timings to the minute.

[David Orsam]

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...

But not Paul, Cross, Mizen, Neil, Thain...

[Fisherman]

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!

Yes, isn´t it? I have a sneaking feeling it goes way back to your definition of "kneeling" and your statement that "with" involves being within physical reach.

I won´t take the trouble to publish practical examples of where people have "echoed" things they have not heard being said. It would be wasting time, so I just rely on how people will know perfectly well what I am talking about.

I feel certain that when I say that you are being consciously obnoxious, I am echoing numerous voices from your past, by the way.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: No, it's the say of an officer who was not involved in the investigation into the murder he was writing about.

Not involved in the investigation? Really?

And yes I am saying that Swanson was a little bit sloppy.

But sadly, you will find it impossible to prove in the matter we are talking about.

Are you saying that Abberline was not logical?

Are YOU saying that Swanson was any less logical than Abberline? I am saying that Abberlines report preceded Swansons by a month. And I am saying that as work proceeds, the police will get a fuller and clearer picture of the events, not a less full and more blurred one. And they will change their bids accordingly.
If Abberlines report had been the last one, it would have stood the better chance to be the correct one. But it isn´t.

Once again, despite the opportunity to do so, you have still not acknowledged the inaccurate timings (compared to the evidence) provided by Swanson in his report on the Chapman murder!

No, I haven´t, have I? Could that perhaps be because I do not think that it can be extrapolated to go for the Nichols murder, no matter if it true or not? Yes, it could.
If I had tried such a ploy, I would have been pooh-poohed off the boards. It´s rather reckless, and should not be used.
Swanson had access to the earlier report. He was aware what the PC:s said about the timings. Unless there was a practical reason to overturn Abberlines report in this respect, it would not have been done. And sloppiness would be the last reason for doing it.

[Fisherman]

Except that it doesn't. I even created a thread which discussed this very point, although you did not contribute:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8575

And no-one said that "Lechmere found the body at 3.40". Abberline's report used the phrase "about 3.40" and it's important that we try to keep this in mind rather than pretending that anyone could nail down timings to the minute.

It is not a question of being able to nail down timings to the minute, David - it is a question of how the police would have regarded it as very important to get as close as they could to the actual timings. That is why it is of relevance that Swanson made the change - because the police had reached the stnce that 3.45 was reasonably and probably closer to the truth than 3.40. Whether it was 3.41 or 3.44 is not very important in this context - what is important is that the final weighing - as far as we can tell - prioritized 3.45 over 3.40.

[Fisherman]

But not Paul, Cross, Mizen, Neil, Thain...

And? What eartshattering conclusions do you draw from this fact?

[David Orsam]

Yes, isn´t it? I have a sneaking feeling it goes way back to your definition of "kneeling" and your statement that "with" involves being within physical reach.

As I've said to you many times Fisherman, context is very important with the English language because words can have different meanings in different contexts. When you say that someone is "found with a dead body", the word "with" takes on a certain, accusative, meaning that it might not have in other contexts. As for "kneeling", I was specifically talking about how a person kneels in the street and I well recall you saying you had done a google images search of the word "kneel" which you claimed supported your definition without mentioning the number of images which showed people kneeling in exactly the same way I had defined it! It was, I thought, a good example of your dedication to the truth.

[David Orsam]

Not involved in the investigation? Really?

That's right. He wasn't appointed to take charge of the Ripper enquiry until 15 September by which time the police investigation into the Nichols murder, conducted by Inspector Abberline, was effectively complete.

[Fisherman]

That's right. He wasn't appointed to take charge of the Ripper enquiry until 15 September by which time the police investigation into the Nichols murder, conducted by Inspector Abberline, was effectively complete.

Oh - so what you meant was that he was not involved in the investigation AT THE TIME.

Why didn´t you write that then, if you are going to try and tutor me about English?

I realize that this is the first of twenty-odd posts from you. What you don´t realize is that the rest will go unanswered for the usual reason - you are bickering about unimportant and uninteresting matters.

Some other time, maybe.

PS. The Swanson report was of course dated October 20. By which time he was VERY involved in the investigation, with the intent to collect all the evidence and make sense of it.

[Fisherman]

Double posting.

[David Orsam]

But sadly, you will find it impossible to prove in the matter we are talking about.

I don't need to prove anything, nor am I trying to. What I have demonstrated, at a minimum, however, is that it is far from certain that the body was found by Cross and Paul at 3.45am as opposed to 3.40am.

Why is this important? Well let's look at what was said in a well-known documentary about the subject:

v/o: According to Paul’s evidence, Lechmere found the body some sixteen minutes after he claimed he left home.

Christer Holmgren: And it says 7 minutes, seven seconds. That would have meant that if Lechmere left his home as he said at 3.30 he should have been here at 3.37.

Andy Griffiths: Well that’s very interesting because Paul says he came into the street at 3.45.

v/o: Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere’s timings.

v/o: Lechmere said that he was never alone with the body.

Caption of Lechmere kneeling over body with caption "3.37 am: Discovers body of Polly Nichols".

v/o Lechmere would have reached the murder site at 3:37, long before Paul turned into the street at 3:45.

Andy Griffiths: We know that he was late for work, as he said at the inquest and I think it’s reasonable to assume then he was keeping an eye on the time.

Christer Holmgren: Then we’ve got a discrepancy of about 9 minutes or something like that.

Andy Griffiths: Which was a big difference in that time.

Nowhere in there is it mentioned that the time of 3.45am of Paul turning into the street is unproven and uncertain.

Mind you, the close viewer of the documentary might have seen this caption on their screen about 10 minutes earlier:

"3:45am Police Constable Neil discovers a body".

Very odd!

[David Orsam]

Oh - so what you meant was that he was not involved in the investigation AT THE TIME.

How many police investigations do you think there were into the murder of Mary Ann Nichols?

Me? I think just the one.

And Swanson wasn't involved in it.

[David Orsam]

I realize that this is the first of twenty-odd posts from you.

When someone makes points in response to my posts I always think it is good manners, and conducive to an orderly debate, to respond to them and I usually prefer to respond to each point separately. I appreciate that not everyone likes it when their posts are responded to, usually because they don't like to discover they are wrong, but that's what the forum is all about.

[David Orsam]

I am saying that Abberlines report preceded Swansons by a month. And I am saying that as work proceeds, the police will get a fuller and clearer picture of the events, not a less full and more blurred one. And they will change their bids accordingly.
If Abberlines report had been the last one, it would have stood the better chance to be the correct one. But it isn´t.

Swanson was providing a broad brush, big picture, overview for the Home Office. He didn't need to concern himself with minor details. The precise timings were clearly not viewed as significant, no doubt because it was impossible to establish them with any degree of certainty in most cases.