Whistling on Berner Street

[caz]

Im sorry George but you keep repeating this despite being regularly told by me how these things worked (which I got from Neil Bell who is an acknowledged expert on the subject of the Police)

It was the Sergeant’s duty to walk around informing Fixed Point Officer’s that their period of duty was at an end. Therefore it would have been a physical impossibility for him to have told all of his Fixed Point Officer’s at 1.00. Therefore the fact that the Fixed Point Officer was still in place cannot mean that it must have been before 1.00. It could very easily have been 1.05 with him still waiting for the Sergeant to arrive to relieve him of his duty.

Also, Herlock, it occurs to me from the context that it could well have been seeing that the fixed point officer had not yet been relieved that made Lamb assume it was not quite 1am.

George more or less supports this by writing:

The clocks of the time could easily be out of sync, one ten minutes fast and the other ten minutes slow with respect to GMT. These accuracy standards were considered normal. Obviously the police would have been aware of this fact.

Assuming Lamb was aware of this fact, he'd have been better off relying on the presence of the fixed point officer to tell him it was around, or shortly before 1am, than looking at a clock that could be out by up to ten minutes either way.

Love,

Caz
X

[GBinOz]

Really George? Do we need to go to these depths to try and dismiss Diemschutz. This was a man simply returning from the market. We have to invents reasons for him to have lied? The police clearly believed him. No one at the time appears to have questioned any of the given timings so one of four points:

1) that the police were so mind-bogglingly stupid that they didn’t notice these timing discrepancies?

2) that they noticed these timing discrepancies but couldn’t be bothered looking into them.

3) that they noticed these timing discrepancies but thought them unimportant.

4) that they looked into the timing discrepancies and decided that Diemschutz was the likelier to have been correct.

I know which I think to have been the likeliest.

None of the above. The police were aware of the inaccuracy of clocks and their lack of synchronisation.

I didn't invent his trial and the jury decided on his truthfullness.

[GBinOz]

Crikey,he protected himself with a broom.

A DISTURBANCE AT THE CLUB

After the meeting was over, a crowd gathered round the International Club, and some disturbance took place in consequence of one of the Defendants, who came out of the Club in his shirt sleeves, and struck a boy. Hooting ensued, and then the two Defendants with Friedman struck out right and left amongst the crowd.

Frost remonstrated, and then he was kicked and violently assaulted by them. Friedman caught hold of him, and, with the aid of the other Defendants, dragged him into the passage of the Club, where he was again struck over the head with a stick, and hit by Kozebrodski two or three times.

The Defendants were arrested and charged with riotous conduct.

POLICE EVIDENCE
Evidence in support of the charge was given by Inspector Ferrett, Serjeant Wright, Police Constables Frost, Harris, Sherrington, and others.

Israel Sunshine, Julius Barnett, and Emanuel Snapper and others, also spoke to being in the crowd, and being assaulted by the Defendants without any provocation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[DJA]

With the benefit of hindsight we now know that Diemshitz became a convicted criminal, so the truthfullness of his recollections on clocks can be questioned. As

Crikey,he protected himself with a broom.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. With the benefit of hindsight we now know that Diemshitz became a convicted criminal, so the truthfullness of his recollections on clocks can be questioned

Really George? Do we need to go to these depths to try and dismiss Diemschutz. This was a man simply returning from the market. We have to invents reasons for him to have lied? The police clearly believed him. No one at the time appears to have questioned any of the given timings so one of four points:

1) that the police were so mind-bogglingly stupid that they didn’t notice these timing discrepancies?

2) that they noticed these timing discrepancies but couldn’t be bothered looking into them.

3) that they noticed these timing discrepancies but thought them unimportant.

4) that they looked into the timing discrepancies and decided that Diemschutz was the likelier to have been correct.

I know which I think to have been the likeliest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. However, Lamb reported as stating "shortly before one" is supported by the fact that the fixed point officer was still on duty.

Im sorry George but you keep repeating this despite being regularly told by me how these things worked (which I got from Neil Bell who is an acknowledged expert on the subject of the Police)

It was the Sergeant’s duty to walk around informing Fixed Point Officer’s that their period of duty was at an end. Therefore it would have been a physical impossibility for him to have told all of his Fixed Point Officer’s at 1.00. Therefore the fact that the Fixed Point Officer was still in place cannot mean that it must have been before 1.00. It could very easily have been 1.05 with him still waiting for the Sergeant to arrive to relieve him of his duty.

[GBinOz]

Your 'multiple' witnesses were estimating the time and not considered reliable, or the police would have taken a lot more interest in Louis and his clock.

Lamb's contention, as reported in The Times, was that he was in Commercial Rd "about 1 o'clock, as near as I can tell". Was he misquoted in one of the reports, or did he give two estimates of the time? Either way, it's not a fact that it was before 1am when he heard the news of "another murder".

Hi Caz,

I'm not quite following you here. The clocks of the time could easily be out of sync, one ten minutes fast and the other ten minutes slow with respect to GMT. These accuracy standards were considered normal. Obviously the police would have been aware of this fact.

Lamb's "contention" was a deposal at the inquest. He made only one statement. Any reported differences in that statement were entirely due to the newspaper journalist's judgement of how accurately said statement needed to be reported. However, Lamb reported as stating "shortly before one" is supported by the fact that the fixed point officer was still on duty.

With the benefit of hindsight we now know that Diemshitz became a convicted criminal, so the truthfullness of his recollections on clocks can be questioned. As for the conspiracy theories being pursued here, they are pretty mild compared to the judgement of Diemshitz in Randy Williams book "Sherlock Holmes and the Autumn of Terror".

Cheers, and with respect as always, George

[GBinOz]

With all due respect, George, I was not trying to 'defend' anyone else's statement here. I was merely concerned with PC Lamb's explanation for needing to estimate the time: he didn't have a watch. He didn't make it 'clear' that he was estimating anything from the Harris clock, or any other clock. In fact he said nothing at all about having fixed the time by a clock at any point. You are simply presuming he would have done. But as you say, he was asked to estimate the time interval between passing the Commercial-road end of the street and being called, and he thought it was "some six or seven minutes". No clock or watch would have helped him estimate that interval, but surely you can see why it would have been useful to the investigation had he given the exact time for when he had passed a fixed point with a working clock. That's a no-brainer. He wasn't able to do that.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

While maintaining all due respect, which is becoming unique in the warzone that hallmarks many of these threads, I beg to differ (again). Mind you, I do agree with your proposal that time intervals have nothing to do with clock times.

Do you think that the police constables would have been debriefed by their superiors to ensure that police standards were being upheld? Do you think that the coroner wanted to hear the details of Lamb's beat including all the times he observed on the clocks? Lamb stated that he didn't have a pocket watch for the court record, and to stipulate he was estimating. It may have been fine for civilians such as Eagle and Brown to be making long estimates from guessed starting points, but Lamb's times were estimates from clock sightings. I feel sure that you are not suggesting that he was guesstimating from the time he started his beat. Reid was posing questions to Lamb, such as the time interval from the Commercial/Berner intersection, and which direction he was headed when called, and the time that the fixed point officer was due to be released, for the benefit of the coroner, who thought the latter statement important. Lamb deposed his evidence in the form of a narrative. There after he responded to questions from the coroner and Reid. He wasn't asked if he looked at the Harris clock or what time it showed - that level of detail would have been soughted out at the debriefing.

PC Smith actually did testify to some details of his beat and it was considered so irrelevant that most newspapers didn't even report it. Smith said he was at the intersection at one o'clock, Lamb said he was called to the site shortly before one o'clock. How did he know the time? He was estimating from the last time he saw a clock, and he had just passed the Harris clock headed east on his beat. Do you think that he just forgot to look at the clock headed east, and again headed west when he knew he was about to be involved in a murder investigation? Deductive reasoning dictates that he would have complied with his legal obligation to be aware of the time without the unnecessary presumption that he failed in his duty because he didn't go into details to the coroner, who didn't need those details. Louis had a little story to tell with a polished up time for the inquest. Why does the word of a soon to be convicted criminal have to be taken over that of two respected police constables? In May 1889 a jury concluded that Diemshitz was lying in his defence at his trial and convicted him. How does that record entitle him to a presumption of truth in October 1888?

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh not this drivel again. Fanny didn't see Louis arrive period. She was indoors when she heard his pony and cart, and that was just before Louis himself said he had made the discovery, and just before Fanny emerged once more to see what the commotion was about. You think Fanny knew to the nearest second what time she went indoors, and knew she was still at her door at 1am? That's when Louis said he saw the clock, so even if she timed it so she shut the front door at a second past the hour, she'd have heard but not seen his arrival.

Your 'multiple' witnesses were estimating the time and not considered reliable, or the police would have taken a lot more interest in Louis and his clock.

A hundred witnesses with no reason - or no means - to fix the time would have been no more reliable.

Lamb's contention, as reported in The Times, was that he was in Commercial Rd "about 1 o'clock, as near as I can tell". Was he misquoted in one of the reports, or did he give two estimates of the time? Either way, it's not a fact that it was before 1am when he heard the news of "another murder".

In any case, if the whole idea was to delay the discovery and raising the alarm until shortly after 1am, to give the conspirators time to work out a plan of damage limitation, it would have been screwed from the start if the alarm was raised independently and provably before Louis claimed he had arrived at the scene. And Louis could have done nothing about it.

But Louis wasn't screwed - by any of these witnesses. And his was the time that was universally accepted.

Welcome back to Conspiracyville Caz, where anything can mean anything when there’s shoehorning to be done.

No answer from Michael to my question - why would they have proceeded with such a critical plan knowing full well that members like Kozebrodski and Hoschberg hadn’t been told that they needed to say 1.00? And how could Louis not have bothered to have informed the very man, Spooner, that he’d returned to the yard with, that the ‘script’ discovery time was 1.00? Great plan.

[caz]

Its safe to assume that if Lamb gave any estimate it would be based on his accounting for the intervals as was pointed out by someone else. He would be using some kind of measurement to stay on his timings. Clock, clock inside a storefront....whatever. We do not know Louis consulted any clock actually, we know only that he said he did and it puts him arriving when he would have been seen by Fanny at her door. She didnt see him arrive before or at 1am. And of course the little matter of multiple witnesses describing being aware of the injured woman well before 1, with Louis there at the time. That may be problematic for some, but when you factor in Lambs contention he was there before 1am, maybe not so much.

Oh not this drivel again. Fanny didn't see Louis arrive period. She was indoors when she heard his pony and cart, and that was just before Louis himself said he had made the discovery, and just before Fanny emerged once more to see what the commotion was about. You think Fanny knew to the nearest second what time she went indoors, and knew she was still at her door at 1am? That's when Louis said he saw the clock, so even if she timed it so she shut the front door at a second past the hour, she'd have heard but not seen his arrival.

Your 'multiple' witnesses were estimating the time and not considered reliable, or the police would have taken a lot more interest in Louis and his clock.

A hundred witnesses with no reason - or no means - to fix the time would have been no more reliable.

Lamb's contention, as reported in The Times, was that he was in Commercial Rd "about 1 o'clock, as near as I can tell". Was he misquoted in one of the reports, or did he give two estimates of the time? Either way, it's not a fact that it was before 1am when he heard the news of "another murder".

In any case, if the whole idea was to delay the discovery and raising the alarm until shortly after 1am, to give the conspirators time to work out a plan of damage limitation, it would have been screwed from the start if the alarm was raised independently and provably before Louis claimed he had arrived at the scene. And Louis could have done nothing about it.

But Louis wasn't screwed - by any of these witnesses. And his was the time that was universally accepted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its safe to assume that if Lamb gave any estimate it would be based on his accounting for the intervals as was pointed out by someone else. He would be using some kind of measurement to stay on his timings. Clock, clock inside a storefront....whatever. We do not know Louis consulted any clock actually, we know only that he said he did and it puts him arriving when he would have been seen by Fanny at her door. She didnt see him arrive before or at 1am. And of course the little matter of multiple witnesses describing being aware of the injured woman well before 1, with Louis there at the time. That may be problematic for some, but when you factor in Lambs contention he was there before 1am, maybe not so much.

For multiple, read 2.

Amazing that you’ll quibble about the appropriateness of suggesting that Lamb might have been a bit out in his estimation and yet you think it’s perfectly reasonable just to accuse an inconvenient witness of lying. A man who had zero reason for lying.

The nonsense about being seen by Fanny is just that…nonsense. If she had gone onto her doorstep at 12.45 then why didn’t she see him arrive. As a matter of FACT no one saw him return to Dutfield’s Yard but we can be reasonably certain that he wasn’t beamed in by Scotty. Try and stay within the bounds of reason. That no one saw Diemschutz at whatever time means nothing.

If certain posters could rid themselves of the offence to reason that is ‘if something wasn’t witnessed then it couldn’t have happened’ we would have to waste much less time eliminating dross.

……

No answer to my points Michael?

The cover up is absolutely dead and buried. You should now admit it.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

With all due respect, I disagree with your proposal in the stongest possible terms. It casts aspersions on the professionalism of Lamb purely to defend a polished up statement by Diemshitz.

Detective-Inspector Reid: How long before had you passed this place?
Witness: I am not on the Berner-street beat, but I passed the end of the street in Commercial-road six or seven minutes before.

Lamb was answering a question from Reid. Reid didn't ask about what clock and what time was showing. Reid was requesting a time interval. Reid and Lamb were professionals who knew the duties of a PC. Lamb was making it clear that he was estimating from the Harris clock and not deriving his time from a pocket watch. But if you can look at the physical barriers to Diemshitz actually being able to see the clock from his cart position and still accept his testimony while labelling Lamb as derelict in his duty, that's your call.

Cheers, George

With all due respect, George, I was not trying to 'defend' anyone else's statement here. I was merely concerned with PC Lamb's explanation for needing to estimate the time: he didn't have a watch. He didn't make it 'clear' that he was estimating anything from the Harris clock, or any other clock. In fact he said nothing at all about having fixed the time by a clock at any point. You are simply presuming he would have done. But as you say, he was asked to estimate the time interval between passing the Commercial-road end of the street and being called, and he thought it was "some six or seven minutes". No clock or watch would have helped him estimate that interval, but surely you can see why it would have been useful to the investigation had he given the exact time for when he had passed a fixed point with a working clock. That's a no-brainer. He wasn't able to do that.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Hi George,

If Lamb did check the clock, he'd have been able to say so, just like Louis D did, and give the precise time it was showing as he passed.

Do you consider it reasonable that Lamb would have neglected to mention this, and instead had to excuse his estimate of the time due to not having a watch?

Sounds to me like Lamb neglected to check the clock on this particular occasion. He was human after all.

Love,

Caz
X

Its safe to assume that if Lamb gave any estimate it would be based on his accounting for the intervals as was pointed out by someone else. He would be using some kind of measurement to stay on his timings. Clock, clock inside a storefront....whatever. We do not know Louis consulted any clock actually, we know only that he said he did and it puts him arriving when he would have been seen by Fanny at her door. She didnt see him arrive before or at 1am. And of course the little matter of multiple witnesses describing being aware of the injured woman well before 1, with Louis there at the time. That may be problematic for some, but when you factor in Lambs contention he was there before 1am, maybe not so much.

[caz]

Your assumption is that Schwartz cannot be a false witness, because he if he were, he would surely have claimed that 'Lipski' was aimed at him, implying that he knew the connotations of that word.

Er, no. That's not what I was saying at all. False witness or otherwise, If Schwartz had known the connotations of that word, he'd have known that anyone hearing his account and seeing his strong Jewish appearance would have known them too and interpreted the incident as Abberline did. Maybe that was the plan and he was playing a curious double bluff just for jolly. But is it likely?

Given you believe Schwartz to be a true witness, the question becomes; how is Abberline going to suggest or hint to Schwartz, that the word was aimed at him, if Schwartz doesn't either already know how the word is used, or Abberline explains to him, how the word is used? Either way, Schwartz needs to know for Abberline's questioning to make sense to Schwartz, and yet, Schwartz remains at best, undecided. Anderson's draft letter suggests that Schwartz was not undecided at all.

Abberline questioned Schwartz 'very closely' as to whom Lipski was addressed, but he was unable to say. So whether he was lying or truthful about the incident as a whole, he was indicating an ignorance of himself as the obvious candidate. To me, that smacks of the truth, because it wouldn't have made much sense as a lie. Back to the unlikely double bluff. And Abberline was there, face to face with this man, and had the experience we lack in dealing with local matters with a Jewish angle.

For the reason I gave - if it was directed at Schwartz, then Pipeman has no reason to be 'startled', and run off.

But Schwartz initially said he took Pipeman to be an accomplice, who ran after him when he became alarmed. You'd have to ask Abberline why he thought Pipeman may have been similarly alarmed by the situation, but Schwartz himself 'could not tell' why the man was running.

In the Pipeman as accomplice scenario, 'Lipski' becomes an alert to Pipeman - who is obviously asleep on the job - that a Jewish intruder is present. Again, aiming the call at Schwartz would amount to nothing bit a bit of verbal abuse, and once again, Pipeman would have very little or no reason to taking his marching orders from BS.

Again, it was Abberline's job to make the call, but it was based on Schwartz's admitted uncertainty about what he had witnessed. If he knew exactly what he intended to convey, he either messed it up, or it was that very uncertainty that he meant to convey, and which Abberline reported on.

So for me, the epithet theory is out. A man named Lipski was never found. That leaves the murder connotation. So either BS is announcing to the street that he is about to murder the woman he is assaulting, or the murder has already occurred.

I can't pretend to understand how you arrived at this conclusion from Schwartz's muddled account, but I'm in good company because Abberline would have been as bemused then as I am now.