Ask Monty……

[Wickerman]

I think we have a solution.

The posting you refer to Mike explains that a City police sergeant would meet his beat constable at a designated point on his beat to check that all was ok.
This is not a Fixed Point as understood in Met. Police terminology.
It is also very likely a Met. sergeant or Inspector would make similar arrangements with their own beat constables - merely to check on the status of their duty.
And, (recall our discussion in the Stride case), this arrangement ensures the beat constable keeps his beat to a known schedule. That, for instance, PC Smith would be aware of the time as he progresses around his beat.

[Herlock Sholmes]

See post #2 here Herlock. (Fixed Point Duty and The Double Event - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums). Is that what you're looking for?

Hi Jerry, that could have been part of what I was thinking about, thanks. I’m now wondering if I had misremembered?

[jerryd]

Perhaps JM might drop Neil a line as it might be a while until he next visits the site?

I posted this on another thread:

I’m fairly certain that Neil Bell said that it was the duty of a sergeant to go around telling Fixed Point officers that their period on duty was over. I also seem to remember Neil saying that if a sergeant wasn’t available another officer was assigned to that duty. I’ll stand correcting on this of course Jeff but I’m pretty sure that’s what Neil said.

Wickerman responded with this:

Neil has always been an invaluable source of knowledge of Met police duties & operations. He only posted a week ago, so if he is still around I would like him to confirm what you wrote above. I ask because as far as I can tell there were 26 Fixed Point Duties in H Division, Two of which extended until 7:00 am, so we have 24 constables all finishing their F.P. duty at 1:00 am. How many sergeant's are sent out across the division to enable the constables to be relieved at 1:00am?
It just doesn't seem all that practical to me.

I can certainly see Wick’s point on this issue. Have I remembered incorrectly? Could you clear this one up please Neil?

Thanks.

See post #2 here Herlock. (Fixed Point Duty and The Double Event - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums). Is that what you're looking for?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps JM might drop Neil a line as it might be a while until he next visits the site?

I posted this on another thread:

I’m fairly certain that Neil Bell said that it was the duty of a sergeant to go around telling Fixed Point officers that their period on duty was over. I also seem to remember Neil saying that if a sergeant wasn’t available another officer was assigned to that duty. I’ll stand correcting on this of course Jeff but I’m pretty sure that’s what Neil said.

Wickerman responded with this:

Neil has always been an invaluable source of knowledge of Met police duties & operations. He only posted a week ago, so if he is still around I would like him to confirm what you wrote above. I ask because as far as I can tell there were 26 Fixed Point Duties in H Division, Two of which extended until 7:00 am, so we have 24 constables all finishing their F.P. duty at 1:00 am. How many sergeant's are sent out across the division to enable the constables to be relieved at 1:00am?
It just doesn't seem all that practical to me.

I can certainly see Wick’s point on this issue. Have I remembered incorrectly? Could you clear this one up please Neil?

Thanks.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't think this private debate, which is becoming slightly heated, even belongs on "Ask Monty" ...

Absolutely right DW. Not another word on here from me.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I don't think this private debate, which is becoming slightly heated, even belongs on "Ask Monty" ...

[Michael W Richards]

At least your consistent, and obviously oblivious to the other posters whove been more politely citing the problems with your statements.

Geez again. You are using to mistaken witnesses to validate another. Nice plan.

Provide evidence that anyone of the witnesses you regularly accuse of error actually committed errors..or shut it. I can provide proof Louis lied or was incorrect about 1am. I can provide proof either Eagle or Lave or both lied about where they were and what they saw at 12:40. You have a hunch I suppose. And no libel fears.

If Hoschberg and Koz were with the body at 12.45 then Louis must have found the body just before that……

Progress...you get it.....but not fully. Not one person said Louis found the body aside from himself. He also said he arrived "precisely" at 1...so...grain of salt with Louis.

why did Fanny see none of this? Do you discard Fanny to keep your 2 witnesses in the game thereby making it possible for Schwartz to have been there. Or do you dump the 2 to keep Fanny in the game?

I dont know when Louis actually arrived, I dont know if he found Liz, I dont know the exact minutes between 12:35 and 1am that Fanny was at her door to the street. I do know she said "almost the whole time". I do know she was there continuously from around 12:50 until just after 1, I do know Louis was not and did not arrive during those 10 minutes, and I do know that Louis claimed to discover Stride, there is no actual proof he did. For all I know Louis might have been there since just after midnight, when I do not have a record from Fanny where she was. Liz is where Smith sees her at 12:35. She is where she dies when Lamb comes in, before 1am. The rest you can, and im sure will, make up for yourself, but the reality is that only you think these issues are solved by your hunches.

The big problem of course is that you need to imagine ‘lies’ to make things fit. I don’t.

On that last line, I think youre confusing me with yourself, Im the guy citing evidence for statements and your the guy just telling us who was mistaken in their account. Like just your belief should be enough. Based on your Herlockian expertise I assume.

When you can argue a point without resorting to an argument that is basically because I said so....then jump back in, but really for the time being, just spectating would be advisable. Grown ups are talking.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your having math troubles, if Issac K and Heschberg are correct, then estimating Spooner shortly thereafter because he says men were already there when he came in..is 3. Multiple.

Do you have even one secondary source that saw Louis arrive when he says, or Eagle, or that could verify that Eagle and Lave were in the empty passageway at the same time...though they oddly missed seeing each other.? No? So I guess multiple accounts that validate details in other independent stories is powerful stuff huh? Geez.

This isnt as hard as your making it... really. One wonders if its just obstinance or something else.

Your final sentence should be directed at the whole of ripperology Michael. I just wish that you’d stop posting in a tone that suggests that you are the one stating the obvious consensus and I’m the one suggesting the minority, fringe ideas. I’ll use your word “Geez.” Get a grip and look around you. 20 years of solitary conspiracist nonsense and nothing has changed. You have one potential/partial supporter. That’s all. Everyone is telling you that you are wrong but you are too arrogant to listen. And you’ve called me arrogant! Geez!

….

Geez again. You are using to mistaken witnesses to validate another. Nice plan.

……

If Hoschberg and Koz were with the body at 12.45 then Louis must have found the body just before that……why did Fanny see none of this? Do you discard Fanny to keep your 2 witnesses in the game thereby making it possible for Schwartz to have been there. Or do you dump the 2 to keep Fanny in the game?

…..

The big problem of course is that you need to imagine ‘lies’ to make things fit. I don’t.

[Michael W Richards]

Again…….two……not multiple.

Your having math troubles, if Issac K and Heschberg are correct, then estimating Spooner shortly thereafter because he says men were already there when he came in..is 3. Multiple.

Do you have even one secondary source that saw Louis arrive when he says, or Eagle, or that could verify that Eagle and Lave were in the empty passageway at the same time...though they oddly missed seeing each other.? No? So I guess multiple accounts that validate details in other independent stories is powerful stuff huh? Geez.

This isnt as hard as your making it... really. One wonders if its just obstinance or something else.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In the case of the arguments you mentioned, there is only discord from Herlock, I personally have no issues with either Smith or Lambs estimates. If one takes Herlocks position, multiple corroborative accounts of events and times would have to all be incorrect by at least 20 minutes, even though 2 of the witnesses came from inside the club when called out. The club would have had a large visible clock, to time meetings, to time speeches, so the men would know when to leave.

A few minutes either way isnt problematic, there is no synchronization of all available timepieces here, ....but assuming that everyone other than the club staff guessed almost a half hour incorrectly, is.

Again…….two……not multiple.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Monty,

By 1888 the Police Station clocks were being regulated to GMT by means of the telegraph, but fixed clocks located commonly at churches but also factories, shops and monuments could vary in their time from GMT as well as between themselves. So there coould be time differences of 10-15 minutes between local clocks. Was there any procedure to nominate a time correction for the local clocks? For instance, did Sergeants carry a Station regulated pocket watch and provide beat PC's with time corrections for local clocks?

I notice that Herlock has raised a question about time in a previous post. There is much debate on a Stride thread about conflicting times and how accurate a PC's (Lamb and Smith) estimate of times may have been against times quoted by civilian witnesses with unknown access to clocks.

Cheers, George

In the case of the arguments you mentioned, there is only discord from Herlock, I personally have no issues with either Smith or Lambs estimates. If one takes Herlocks position, multiple corroborative accounts of events and times would have to all be incorrect by at least 20 minutes, even though 2 of the witnesses came from inside the club when called out. The club would have had a large visible clock, to time meetings, to time speeches, so the men would know when to leave.

A few minutes either way isnt problematic, there is no synchronization of all available timepieces here, ....but assuming that everyone other than the club staff guessed almost a half hour incorrectly, is.

[Trevor Marriott]

How did you figure that out? The position of the gaslight was such?

Because we know where the gas lights were positioned

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Thanks George.

Hope you find it of use, when it eventually arrives.

Very important. Some had their own pocket watches, and some used fixed clocks located commonly at churches but also factories, shops and monuments had such pieces.

Also the Section Sergeant would be conducting his patrols to ensure his men are where they should be, and if they needed assistance.

Monty

Hi Monty,

By 1888 the Police Station clocks were being regulated to GMT by means of the telegraph, but fixed clocks located commonly at churches but also factories, shops and monuments could vary in their time from GMT as well as between themselves. So there coould be time differences of 10-15 minutes between local clocks. Was there any procedure to nominate a time correction for the local clocks? For instance, did Sergeants carry a Station regulated pocket watch and provide beat PC's with time corrections for local clocks?

I notice that Herlock has raised a question about time in a previous post. There is much debate on a Stride thread about conflicting times and how accurate a PC's (Lamb and Smith) estimate of times may have been against times quoted by civilian witnesses with unknown access to clocks.

Cheers, George

[Varqm]

There is no way he could have even seen the killer if the killer was still present.

He was coming down the passage with the light from Kearley and Tonges gaslight shining directly in his eyes so when he reached the entrance to the square it would have taken him a few moments to adjust his eyes.

Conversely if the killer was still present when Harvey came down the passage then the killer would have seen and heard him long before he even got to the square entrance. Harvey had the light fom the passage entrance behind him and the light from Kearley in front of him, thus giving the killer ample time see him and to escape,

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

How did you figure that out? The position of the gaslight was such?

[Trevor Marriott]

That "skip", to me, might well also apply to PC Harvey and his alleged peek into Mitre Square between 1:30 and 1:45. I think when he says he looked in the killer was still there. Now, could he see that far in the dark? Probably not. But I think he just tried to avoid reproach.

There is no way he could have even seen the killer if the killer was still present.

He was coming down the passage with the light from Kearley and Tonges gaslight shining directly in his eyes so when he reached the entrance to the square it would have taken him a few moments to adjust his eyes.

Conversely if the killer was still present when Harvey came down the passage then the killer would have seen and heard him long before he even got to the square entrance. Harvey had the light fom the passage entrance behind him and the light from Kearley in front of him, thus giving the killer ample time see him and to escape,

www.trevormarriott.co.uk