Robert Paul Time Issues

[Elamarna]

One thing which as struck me while looking at Bucks Row, is the rather precise timings given by Robert Paul

Its exactly 3.45 as he passes up Bucks Row and its four minutes after he see the body he finds Mizen.


Now its of course possible that this is just Paul attempting to make his story look better, but lets just say its not.

How could he be so accurate to say exactly 3.45?
Even if he had checked a clock at his home as he left, to say "exactly" rather than "about" or similar is somewhat unusual.

I say this based on the time it would have taken him to get to Bucks Row from his home, the entrance of which was approximately 349 feet from his front door, the distance from his front door to Nichols was about 722ft. basic calculations say that even if he was walking at 5 miles an hour(considered very fast) it would have taken him around 50 seconds to reach the entrance to Bucks row , and 1minute 30-1 minute 40 seconds to reach the body.

That would seem to suggest the exactly in his statement was not based on a clock from home.

So what other means would there be for him to make such a statement?

Two possible answer are:

1. There was a clock in Bucks Row, have to say am not aware of this, does anyone know if there was a clock there or not?


2. He had a personal time piece on him.


The same applies to his FOUR minutes, rather too precise, why not say five if he is guessing.

We can make some more suppositions


1. Having seen the time in Bucks Row there was a second clock where there met Mizen, and Paul assumed the two clocks to be synchronized.

2. He just guessed.

3. Again he had a watch.


This leads us to another issue, that of both he and PC Neil claiming to be in Bucks Row at the same time.

One possible resolution to this is that if he indeed did have a watch, he ran it fast, that is ahead of the real time. This would give some allowance for late running, and is still practices by many today.


Its all speculation but anyone have any thoughts on the issue? is he just guessing or are the precise timings he quotes based on something?


Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Steve,
Any clock needn't have been on his direct route, only within earshot. Mrs Long said she fixed the time she saw Annie Chapman by the chiming of the brewery clock - there was a big brewery just south of Bath Street. There was also the station which might have had a clock.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,
Any clock needn't have been on his direct route, only within earshot. Mrs Long said she fixed the time she saw Annie Chapman by the chiming of the brewery clock - there was a big brewery just south of Bath Street.

Joshua,

Thanks for that,nice point, had not considered that. It certainly would explain the use of "exactly"; However if that were correct it raises issues with Neil and his finding of the body.
Some research I have been doing suggest, and its no more than that, Neil may arrive between 2-5 minutes after Lech and Paul leave the site.

if Paul did based his statement on such a chime, it does mean that his statement of "4 minutes" must be based on a second clock, and probably one not synchronized with the first.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,
Any clock needn't have been on his direct route, only within earshot. Mrs Long said she fixed the time she saw Annie Chapman by the chiming of the brewery clock - there was a big brewery just south of Bath Street. There was also the station which might have had a clock.

Hi Joshua,

I don't think there was a back entrance to the station, and he would I think, have to have looked over and down to see the platforms, and these are after the murder site itself.
Don't think that's as possible as the brewery option, which must say I do like.

Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Joshua,

Thanks for that,nice point, had not considered that. It certainly would explain the use of "exactly"; However if that were correct it raises issues with Neil and his finding of the body.
Some research I have been doing suggest, and its no more than that, Neil may arrive between 2-5 minutes after Lech and Paul leave the site.

if Paul did based his statement on such a chime, it does mean that his statement of "4 minutes" must be based on a second clock, and probably one not synchronized with the first.

There was St Olaves church a few hundred yards up Hanbury Street. If this had a visible clock it would be reasonably easy to accurately estimate the time they met Mizen and left the body. No idea if this was the case though, it seems to be a row of flats now.
The platform of Whitechapel & Mile End Station wasn't visible, but was semi-open. Thinking about it, though, I'm not sure a platform clock would chime.

[Observer]

Hi Joshua

As you proceed alonfg Bucks Row and when you clear the Board School into Whites Row if you look over to your left you can plainly see the clock of the London Hospital above the rooftops in Whitechapel Road

[David Orsam]

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.

[Elamarna]

There was St Olaves church a few hundred yards up Hanbury Street. If this had a visible clock it would be reasonably easy to accurately estimate the time they met Mizen and left the body. No idea if this was the case though, it seems to be a row of flats now.
The platform of Whitechapel & Mile End Station wasn't visible, but was semi-open. Thinking about it, though, I'm not sure a platform clock would chime.

Hi Joshua

As you proceed alonfg Bucks Row and when you clear the Board School into Whites Row if you look over to your left you can plainly see the clock of the London Hospital above the rooftops in Whitechapel Road

Joshua and Observer, both valid points thank you.
However the impression Paul gives is that it was 3.45 when he was walking down Bucks Row, before he saw Lechmere, or am I reading it wrong?

And the 4 minutes he claims until he meets Mizen is from that time. so he needs to have a base time to claim the 4 minutes from.

Of course Joshua he may, as you say, have heard a clock chime and seen the clock in Hanbury Street and therefore the 4 minutes is based on that.

Or as Observer says he may have looked across at the London Hospital, in which case he must have added a minute or so on to allow for finding the body and reaching that point.


The more I think about it, the more the 4 minutes is a pure guess, or he had access to a watch.

Steve

[Elamarna]

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.

Thank you David

Much of that is inline with my thinking.
I raised the suggestion of a watch running fast to allow for his timings and wanted to see what other were thinking on the issue.

It all starts to come together in my mind, if they meet Mizen at say 3.45 it also ties in with the rough timings I have for Neil, and where he would have been when Paul and Lechmere left the scene.

And 3.40 fits remarkable well with Cross/Lechmere leaving home around 3.30 even if he took the fastest route, depending on his speed hes there about the right time.

Of course some may not agree with that at all.


Steve

[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.

[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.

[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."

[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.

[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!

[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.