Minutiae in Buck´s Row.

[Pierre]

3:30 A carman goes to work from 22 Doveton Street
3:33 A killer waits in Buck´s Row
3:36 A woman walks through Buck´s Row
3:37 The killer murders the woman
3:38 The killer starts mutilating the woman, hear steps behind him and pulls down the dress of the woman
3:38 The carman sees a policeman and a woman in Buck´s Row. The policeman asks for assistance and walks away
3.39 The carman stands puzzled in the middle of the road. Another carman on his way to work comes along
3:40 The two carmen examine the woman
3:42 The two carmen decide to go and look for a policeman
3:44:Neil finds the woman. The blood is oozing from the neck
3:45 Thain is signalled by the lantern of Neil
3:45 PC Mizen is told about the woman and the PC in Buck´s Row

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pierre,

What your minutiae fails to explain is how, according to official testimony, at 3.45 am we find Robert Paul walking up Buck’s Row on his way to work; Charles Cross standing by Polly’s body; PC Neil discovering Polly’s body; PC Thain being signalled by PC Neil; and PC Mizen encountering Cross and Paul 300 yards away at the corner of Bakers Row and Old Montague Street.

With no watches or accurate public clocks at their disposal, how did everyone contrive to agree upon 3.45 am?

Something is clearly wrong with this scenario.

Regards,

Simon

[Jon Guy]

With no watches or accurate public clocks at their disposal, how did everyone contrive to agree upon 3.45 am?

Hi Simon

I know you`ll be aware of this but the simple answer is that people in those days rounded off timings to the hour, quarter or half past.

[Elamarna]

Hi Pierre,

The timings are too exact in my opinion, and in some instances appear to be invention, such as the killer waiting at a set time.

Alternative below



3:20-3:30 A carman goes to work from 22 Doveton Street
3:25-3:35 A killer meets A woman in Bucks Row
3:25-3:35 the killer kills and starts mutilating the woman, hear steps and pulls down the dress of the woman
3:30-3:40 The carman is seen by the killer, he may see the killer in return.
3.30-3:40 The carman sees the body, another carman on his way to work comes along
3:35-3:40 The two carmen examine the woman
3:35-3:40 The two carmen decide to go and look for a policeman
3:38-3:45 PC Neil finds the woman. Notes blood is oozing from the neck
3:40-3:45. PC Thain is signalled by the lantern of Neil
3:38-3:42 PC Mizen is told about the woman and the PC in Buck´s
Row
3:42-3:48 PC Mizen arrives in Buck's Row.


The above scenario is based on the assumption, Lechmere was not the killer, but can be easily adjusted to allow for such.

It also assumes that while Lechmere COULD have seen the killer, he was not in a position to exchange conversation with him, and did not notice how he was dressed, again these assumptions can be adjusted with no change to proposed timeline.

Timings approximate and obviously allow for a degree of flexibility.

The timeline allows for a maximum of 22 minutes between the death cut and the arrival of Mizen, which seems highly unlikely and a minimum of 7 minutes between the two occurrences, which seems more likely.


It also allows for a maximum of 15 minutes between the death cut and Lechmere arriving, this is very unlikely in my view, or alternatively a minimum of a few seconds.

My current view is that this period should be towards the lower end, certainly within 5 minutes and very probably within 2-3 minutes.

This of course is working from the assumption that Lechmere was not the killer and he was not disturbed by Paul.


The contrary assumptions are easily allowed for in the above timings.



Steve

[GUT]

Hi Simon

I know you`ll be aware of this but the simple answer is that people in those days rounded off timings to the hour, quarter or half past.

Which was still very common well into at least the 1960s it was only with the advent of digital clicks and watches that we got down to 2:23 etc.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Thank you. I didn't know that.

"I beg to report that about 3.40 am 31st Ult. as Charles Cross etc . . ."

" . . . up to the night of the murders about 1.40 am . . ."

F.G.A., 19th September 1888 report.

Regards,

Simon

[Jon Guy]

Thank you. I didn't know that.

"I beg to report that about 3.40 am 31st Ult. as Charles Cross etc . . ."

" . . . up to the night of the murders about 1.40 am . . ."

F.G.A., 19th September 1888 report.

Absolutely, Simon :-)
Any other examples ?

[Fisherman]

Hi Pierre,

The timings are too exact in my opinion, and in some instances appear to be invention, such as the killer waiting at a set time.

Alternative below



3:20-3:30 A carman goes to work from 22 Doveton Street
3:25-3:35 A killer meets A woman in Bucks Row
3:25-3:35 the killer kills and starts mutilating the woman, hear steps and pulls down the dress of the woman
3:30-3:40 The carman is seen by the killer, he may see the killer in return.
3.30-3:40 The carman sees the body, another carman on his way to work comes along
3:35-3:40 The two carmen examine the woman
3:35-3:40 The two carmen decide to go and look for a policeman
3:38-3:45 PC Neil finds the woman. Notes blood is oozing from the neck
3:40-3:45. PC Thain is signalled by the lantern of Neil
3:38-3:42 PC Mizen is told about the woman and the PC in Buck´s
Row
3:42-3:48 PC Mizen arrives in Buck's Row.


The above scenario is based on the assumption, Lechmere was not the killer, but can be easily adjusted to allow for such.

It also assumes that while Lechmere COULD have seen the killer, he was not in a position to exchange conversation with him, and did not notice how he was dressed, again these assumptions can be adjusted with no change to proposed timeline.

Timings approximate and obviously allow for a degree of flexibility.

The timeline allows for a maximum of 22 minutes between the death cut and the arrival of Mizen, which seems highly unlikely and a minimum of 7 minutes between the two occurrences, which seems more likely.


It also allows for a maximum of 15 minutes between the death cut and Lechmere arriving, this is very unlikely in my view, or alternatively a minimum of a few seconds.

My current view is that this period should be towards the lower end, certainly within 5 minutes and very probably within 2-3 minutes.

This of course is working from the assumption that Lechmere was not the killer and he was not disturbed by Paul.


The contrary assumptions are easily allowed for in the above timings.



Steve

I suppose I am the target for this post of yours, Steve, and I am happy to offer some thoughts.

The time frame in which you put the killer´s meeting with Nichols in Bucks Row is 3.25-3.35. The time frame during which Neil said that the streets were totally empty and silent, reciprocated by for example the Purkisses, was 3.15-3.45.
The Phantom killer would therefore have evaded detection as he moved on the streets. Of course, Nichols did so too, so it´s by no means an impossible thing. But it adds to the number of improbabilities required for the Phantom to have existed.

You make the assumption that the killer may have seen Lechmere, whereas the latter did perhaps not see the killer. One wonders to what end he spent time pulling the dress down in such a case.

You allow for a 22 minute passage of time before Mizen saw the body, at which state it was still bleeding. Jason Payne-James said that the one thing that helped him deal with proponents who wanted to drag time spaces out further and further from his own estimation, was that sooner or later he would be able to point out that the suggestions were absurd. Does not a 22 minute time frame end up there, Steve?
Payne-James said that seven minutes was less likely than three or five. The only sense I can make of that is that he proposed that the bleeding should have been over before it reached the seven minute mark. It seems apparent to me that it may well have reached that mark, going by an estimation of how long it would have taken Mizen to arrive, and so Payne-James would have been out on a minute or two in his estimation. But to me, that does not open up glorious new fifteen minute fields of exploration - it tells me that an already strained timeline was strained even further and it would not be to expect that more bleeding time was added.
Have you consulted anybody who has offered this suggestion, or is it your own?

You phrase yourself "The timeline allows for a maximum of 22 minutes between the death cut and the arrival of Mizen, which seems highly unlikely and a minimum of 7 minutes between the two occurrences, which seems more likely."
Can I take that to mean that you at least share my view that another killer becomes less likely with every passing minute outside the seven minute mark?

Finally, I can only echo an earlier poster: Why on earth would we suggest and favour a Phantom killer over a man we KNOW for a fact was there, and who we know for a fact offered an alternative name to the police? Which kneejerk reaction kicks in here? Can you see how I think it utterly astonishing that the Phantom killer scenario is FAVOURED? If it was only suggested as an alternative, less likely option, whereas it was agreed that Lechmere is the prime suspect, I would not be as flabbergasted.

But it is seriously suggested that it is less likely that a man who was there, who gave the wrong name, and who is surrounded by anomalies and who fit the overall geographical pattern of ALL the Ripper murders, is actually not the likeliest bid there is. And only a few days back I posted the thoughts of Robert Ressler of the FBI about the typical serial killer: A man living what seems to be an ordinary family life, with a steady job and in his mid to late thirties.

With respect, it does take some serious alterations of the laws of logic to reach the stance that Lechmere is not a very viable bid and the most probable killer that has ever been presented in this case.

[jerryd]

Hi Simon

I know you`ll be aware of this but the simple answer is that people in those days rounded off timings to the hour, quarter or half past.

Police-sergeant Badham, 31 H, stated:- About 12 minutes to 1 this morning I was in Old Castle-street...

Police-constable Joseph Allen, 423 H, deposed, - Last night I was in Castle-alley. It was then 20 minutes past 12 when I passed through.

Police-constable Walter Andrews, 272 H, said, - About ten minutes to 1 this morning I saw Sergeant Badlam...

Isaac Lewis Jacobs said:- I live at 12, Newcastle-place, and am a bootmaker. About ten minutes to 1 this morning I left home to buy some supper in M'Carthy's in Dorset-street.

Detective-Inspector Edmund Reid, H Division, said:- I received a call to Castle-alley about five minutes past 1 on the morning of the murder.

Constable Richard Pearce, 922 City: I reside at No. 3, Mitre-square. There are only two private houses in the square. I retired to rest at twenty minutes past twelve on the morning of last Sunday week.

Constable Alfred Long, 254 A, Metropolitan police: I was on duty in Goulston-street, Whitechapel, on Sunday morning, Sept. 30, and about five minutes to three o'clock I found a portion of a white apron (produced).

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jerry,

You beat me to it.

PC Watkin—"I next came into Mitre-square at 1.44."

Inspector Collard—'[I] proceeded myself to Mitre-square, arriving there about two or three minutes past two."

Dr. Brown—"[I] reached the place of the murder about twenty minutes past two."

Dr. Sequeira—"[I] I arrived at five minutes to two o'clock."

DC Halse—"At two minutes to two o'clock on the Sunday morning, when near Aldgate Church . . ."

Dr. Blackwell—"I arrived at 1.16 am."

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

The points raised by Simon were these:

1. Robert Paul walking up Buck’s Row on his way to work
2. Charles Cross standing by Polly’s body
3. PC Neil discovering Polly’s body
4. PC Thain being signalled by PC Neil
5. PC Mizen encountering Cross and Paul 300 yards away at the corner of Bakers Row and Old Montague Street.

It should be noted that one of these points, point number 2, differs from the other ones insomuch as how the person spoken of - Charles Lechmere - did NOT state that he stood by the body at 3.45. It was in this case the police reports that arrived at the conclusion that he did so around that remove in time.
The other four points are all points where the time was given by the persons spoken of.
We can conclude that the largest time span that would have been involved, is the span between points 1 and 5; the time between when Robert Paul walked up Buck´s Row, late for work, and the time at which Lechmere and Paul arrived up at Baker´s Row/Hanbury Street, where Mizen stood.
And Robert Paul gives an estimation of four minutes at most between when he first noticed Lechmere in the street and when the two arrived at Mizen. So, technically speaking, if Paul is on the money - and nothing seems to speak against it - we may have had all of the drama unfolding between 3.43 and 3.47, if we work from the assumption that Robert Paul was two minutes out on the time.

It really, really is nothing much to quibble about, and it need not contain any sinister implications, conspiracies, lies or misleadings at all.

It´s another matter that I think that if anything, Robert Pauls time should be adjusted to AFTER 3.45...

[David Orsam]

With no watches or accurate public clocks at their disposal, how did everyone contrive to agree upon 3.45 am?

Isn't the answer to your question contained within it Simon? I mean, they didn't have watches or accurate public clocks so some timings were by necessity estimates.

And the factual basis on which you reach your conclusion seems to be in error.

According to the "official testimony", as it appears in the Times, Robert Paul was not walking up Buck's Row on his way to work at 3.45am. He said "he left home at about a quarter to 4". He doesn't say what time he walked up Buck's Row. And note the word "about" in his testimony.

Charles Cross did not say, according to the Times, that he was standing by Polly's body at 3.45am. To the extent he ever gave any timings, he also used the word "about".

As for the police evidence, doesn't everything make sense if we accept Inspector Abberline's timing of the discovery of the body by Cross and Paul, which you cited yourself in #6, as correctly being 3.40am?

In that case PC Neil, could have discovered the body of Nichols himself at 3.45am, at exactly the same time that PC Mizen was encountering Cross and Paul 300 yards away, and, at virtually the same time, Neil heard PC Thain in Brady street and signalled to him.

Problem solved, no?

[Pierre]

3:30 A carman goes to work from 22 Doveton Street
3:33 A killer waits in Buck´s Row
3:36 A woman walks through Buck´s Row
3:37 The killer murders the woman
3:38 The killer starts mutilating the woman, hear steps behind him and pulls down the dress of the woman
3:38 The carman sees a policeman and a woman in Buck´s Row. The policeman asks for assistance and walks away
3.39 The carman stands puzzled in the middle of the road. Another carman on his way to work comes along
3:40 The two carmen examine the woman
3:42 The two carmen decide to go and look for a policeman
3:44 Neil finds the woman. The blood is oozing from the neck
3:45 Thain is signalled by the lantern of Neil
3:45 PC Mizen is told about the woman and the PC in Buck´s Row

"The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data."

Neil is not far from 3.45. He is 1 minute from 3.45.
Thain is not far from 3.45. He is at 3.45.
Mizen is not far from 3.45. He is informed at 3.45.
These three observations must be refuted as must the statement of the coroner if you want another time for the finding of the body.
Paul estimated 4 minutes from seeing the victim to finding Mizen. 1 minute more is estimated here since Paul is one witness whereas the police witnesses are three. Paul therefore can not be considered as reliable as the policemen. The statements of the sworn policemen are the most reliable statements. They correspond perfectly. But just 1 minute is given in favour of the policemen and not more.
There can be only one minute for Lechmere standing in the road preceeding the event of Lechmere and Paul examining the victim. The examination could not have taken less than two minutes. I have chosen to hypothesize this since the examination contained some steps and communication between the carmen. Therefore Lechmere arrived at 3:38 at the murder scene. He did not have the time to find, murder and try to mutilate a woman.

Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;402455]

Hi Pierre,

The timings are too exact in my opinion, and in some instances appear to be invention, such as the killer waiting at a set time.

Alternative below

3:20-3:30 A carman goes to work from 22 Doveton Street
3:25-3:35 A killer meets A woman in Bucks Row
3:25-3:35 the killer kills and starts mutilating the woman, hear steps and pulls down the dress of the woman
3:30-3:40 The carman is seen by the killer, he may see the killer in return.
3.30-3:40 The carman sees the body, another carman on his way to work comes along
3:35-3:40 The two carmen examine the woman
3:35-3:40 The two carmen decide to go and look for a policeman
3:38-3:45 PC Neil finds the woman. Notes blood is oozing from the neck
3:40-3:45. PC Thain is signalled by the lantern of Neil
3:38-3:42 PC Mizen is told about the woman and the PC in Buck´s
Row
3:42-3:48 PC Mizen arrives in Buck's Row.

Hi Steve,

What exactly is the methodological reason for ignoring the testimonies of three sworn policemen?

The above scenario is based on the assumption, Lechmere was not the killer, but can be easily adjusted to allow for such.

No, it it based on the assumption that the testimonies of three sworn policemen are reliable.

It also assumes that while Lechmere COULD have seen the killer, he was not in a position to exchange conversation with him, and did not notice how he was dressed, again these assumptions can be adjusted with no change to proposed timeline.

But that does not correspond with the sworn testimony of PC Mizen. What exactly is the methodological reason for ignoring the testimony of a sworn policeman?

Timings approximate and obviously allow for a degree of flexibility.

The timeline allows for a maximum of 22 minutes between the death cut and the arrival of Mizen, which seems highly unlikely and a minimum of 7 minutes between the two occurrences, which seems more likely.

But the time was fixed by Mizen, Niel and Thain. Not by likelihood.

It also allows for a maximum of 15 minutes between the death cut and Lechmere arriving, this is very unlikely in my view, or alternatively a minimum of a few seconds.

My current view is that this period should be towards the lower end, certainly within 5 minutes and very probably within 2-3 minutes.

And following three sworn policeman gives you a very short time period.

This of course is working from the assumption that Lechmere was not the killer and he was not disturbed by Paul.

No, but working from the asspumtion that three sworn policemen were right and Paul was almost right.

The contrary assumptions are easily allowed for in the above timings.

Your timings are not established historical facts. Mine are.

Regards, Pierre

[jerryd]

[QUOTE=Pierre;402484]

Hi Steve,

What exactly is the methodological reason for ignoring the testimonies of three sworn policemen?



No, it it based on the assumption that the testimonies of three sworn policemen are reliable.



But that does not correspond with the sworn testimony of PC Mizen. What exactly is the methodological reason for ignoring the testimony of a sworn policeman?



But the time was fixed by Mizen, Niel and Thain. Not by likelihood.



And following three sworn policeman gives you a very short time period.



No, but working from the asspumtion that three sworn policemen were right and Paul was almost right.



Your timings are not established historical facts. Mine are.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

You are saying testimony from "sworn policemen" is reliable, but aren't you trying to prove a "sworn policeman" was a serial killer.