Buck's Row Timings

[David Orsam]

Oops. Seems YOU forgot to read half of MY post.

No Fisherman, I read it. I was only interested in your admission that you are "spending less and less time" reading my posts which explains why you are not reading them properly and not understanding them.

[David Orsam]

I do find it amazing the Fisherman keeps posting in here - a thread about Buck's Row timings - without stating what route he took on his walk when carrying out his timings, or rather his timing (singular).

My strong suspicion is that he walked the same route that I did during the week going via Darling Row and the new Sainsburys walkway. This route did not exist in 1888 but Fisherman, I believe, simply cannot admit that his timing of 7:07 might be inaccurate.

[Fisherman]

I do find it amazing the Fisherman keeps posting in here - a thread about Buck's Row timings - without stating what route he took on his walk when carrying out his timings, or rather his timing (singular).

My strong suspicion is that he walked the same route that I did during the week going via Darling Row and the new Sainsburys walkway. This route did not exist in 1888 but Fisherman, I believe, simply cannot admit that his timing of 7:07 might be inaccurate.

That´s because it cannot be inaccurate, unless the clock we used was faulty.

If it was not, then the time is accurate.

Whether this timing must be the exact timing of Lechmere´s and his trek in 1888 is another thing. It would be utter stupidity to claim that he too MUST have taken exactly 7.07 to do the trek.

Does that make my timing "inaccurate"? Well, that´s written in the stars. It COULD be that Lechmere DID take 7,07 to do the trek that morning, and if he did, the timing IS accurate.

There is of course more to weigh in. Just like you say, whether or not the trek followed the same route is of interest. And if it did, the time will change dependig on what side of the street the walk was done. There will be traffic issues that were not there 1888. The speed of the walk is immensely interesting.

We can use all of this to make a hullaballo over the issue, and we can try to impress upon the readers of the thread that we have a great point, and that we are making collossal progress. We can even try to make them think that we are the better judge, the more rational theorist or simply the better person.

Or we can just accept that the trek Lechmere did would have taken around 7 minutes and seven seconds. And given how generously you interpret "around" in other contexts, that should clear the problem away.

H C Andersen would have found great inspiration for a sequel to "The Emperors New Clothes", had he posted on Casebook, David. He may even have let you in on the takings.

[David Orsam]

That´s because it cannot be inaccurate, unless the clock we used was faulty.

If it was not, then the time is accurate.

Whether this timing must be the exact timing of Lechmere´s and his trek in 1888 is another thing. It would be utter stupidity to claim that he too MUST have taken exactly 7.07 to do the trek.

Does that make my timing "inaccurate"? Well, that´s written in the stars. It COULD be that Lechmere DID take 7,07 to do the trek that morning, and if he did, the timing IS accurate.

There is of course more to weigh in. Just like you say, whether or not the trek followed the same route is of interest. And if it did, the time will change dependig on what side of the street the walk was done. There will be traffic issues that were not there 1888. The speed of the walk is immensely interesting.

We can use all of this to make a hullaballo over the issue, and we can try to impress upon the readers of the thread that we have a great point, and that we are making collossal progress. We can even try to make them think that we are the better judge, the more rational theorist or simply the better person.

Or we can just accept that the trek Lechmere did would have taken around 7 minutes and seven seconds. And given how generously you interpret "around" in other contexts, that should clear the problem away.

H C Andersen would have found great inspiration for a sequel to "The Emperors New Clothes", had he posted on Casebook, David. He may even have let you in on the takings.

When I saw that you had responded in this thread, Fisherman, I thought you might, perhaps, have set out details of the route you took to produce your timing of 7:07. How foolish of me! Instead, we have eight paragraphs of pure unadulterated waffle.

It would make a lot more sense for you to post the details of your route and then we can discuss the consequences later, rather than having a discussion in the abstract. Or do you have something to hide?

[Fisherman]

When I saw that you had responded in this thread, Fisherman, I thought you might, perhaps, have set out details of the route you took to produce your timing of 7:07. How foolish of me! Instead, we have eight paragraphs of pure unadulterated waffle.

It would make a lot more sense for you to post the details of your route and then we can discuss the consequences later, rather than having a discussion in the abstract. Or do you have something to hide?

Wow. It IS nagging you rather badly, is it not?

Do I have something to hide? What was it that caused the cameraman to arrive at the murder spot BEFORE me, when he had obviously been BEHIND me from the outset? What on earth was GOING ON?

Maybe you should keep working on that one. It may well be the best point you have made so far.

[David Orsam]

Wow. It IS nagging you rather badly, is it not?

Do I have something to hide? What was it that caused the cameraman to arrive at the murder spot BEFORE me, when he had obviously been BEHIND me from the outset? What on earth was GOING ON?

Maybe you should keep working on that one. It may well be the best point you have made so far.

Are you raising my question about the cameraman, which I asked quite some time ago (and which you failed to answer), as a distraction from the question I AM asking you now which is about the route you took?

I don't know why you ask me if your refusal to answer this question is "nagging" me. I have noticed your point blank refusal to answer and have drawn my own conclusion which is that you appreciate that the route you walked was not a route that existed in 1888 and you are too embarrassed to admit it, fully aware that it will open you up to criticism, not only for having failed for years to disclose this unfortunate fact, but also because it will affect the estimated timing of the walk which will, in turn, affect the existence of the "major gap" in timings.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Are you raising my question about the cameraman, which I asked quite some time ago (and which you failed to answer), as a distraction from the question I AM asking you now which is about the route you took?

No, I am more like pointing out how you do your wotk out here.

I don't know why you ask me if your refusal to answer this question is "nagging" me. I have noticed your point blank refusal to answer and have drawn my own conclusion which is that you appreciate that the route you walked was not a route that existed in 1888 and you are too embarrassed to admit it, fully aware that it will open you up to criticism, not only for having failed for years to disclose this unfortunate fact, but also because it will affect the estimated timing of the walk which will, in turn, affect the existence of the "major gap" in timings.

You made an assumption about how I saved time by starting out too far out from the doors in Doveton Street too.

You make a lot of assumptions, David. Normally, they do not sit well with your ambitions to show yourslef of as the liferaft of Ripperology.

Apart from the self-inflation, it´s not a very truthful picture.

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: Are you raising my question about the cameraman, which I asked quite some time ago (and which you failed to answer), as a distraction from the question I AM asking you now which is about the route you took?

No, I am more like pointing out how you do your wotk out here.

I don't know why you ask me if your refusal to answer this question is "nagging" me. I have noticed your point blank refusal to answer and have drawn my own conclusion which is that you appreciate that the route you walked was not a route that existed in 1888 and you are too embarrassed to admit it, fully aware that it will open you up to criticism, not only for having failed for years to disclose this unfortunate fact, but also because it will affect the estimated timing of the walk which will, in turn, affect the existence of the "major gap" in timings.

You made an assumption about how I saved time by starting out too far out from the doors in Doveton Street too.

You make a lot of assumptions, David. Normally, they do not sit well with your ambitions to show yourslef of as the liferaft of Ripperology.

Apart from the self-inflation, it´s not a very truthful picture.

I'm only seeing a lot more waffle here from you Fisherman. What I'm not seeing is the disclosure of the route you walked from Doveton Street to Durward Street with Andy Griffiths, the timing of which forms the conclusion of the "major gap".

That is not an assumption of mine, it's a fact.

[Fisherman]

I'm only seeing a lot more waffle here from you Fisherman. What I'm not seeing is the disclosure of the route you walked from Doveton Street to Durward Street with Andy Griffiths, the timing of which forms the conclusion of the "major gap".

That is not an assumption of mine, it's a fact.

And it is a fact that I am not going to disclose any route just because you ask for it.

You burnt those ships a long time ago.

And THAT, my friend, is no waffle.

[David Orsam]

And it is a fact that I am not going to disclose any route just because you ask for it.

You burnt those ships a long time ago.

It must have been a very long time ago because back on 14 December 2014, in this thread (#13), noting that my timings were significantly different to yours, I said:

"If you went the same route as me then something is strange. I know the time it took me with a brisk walk and I have recorded it here."

In that same post I also said:

"I set out the exact route I took so if it was different to yours please let me know."

Your silence was deafening.

[The Station Cat]

And it is a fact that I am not going to disclose any route just because you ask for it.

You burnt those ships a long time ago.

And THAT, my friend, is no waffle.

Putting all this aside. When's your book coming out Fisherman? Having watched the channel 5 documentary, I for one am really looking forward to reading it!!!!!

[drstrange169]

I've been revisiting Xmere's route from Doveton to Buck's Row.

One piece of information has always puzzled me, his reported statement ...
"I went down Parson street, crossed Brady street, and through Buck's Row."
There is no street named Parson in the area.

However, tracing the route David took, as listed in post #1 of this thread, I noticed a legitimate variance of this could have been down Peteira Street.

Could this be the street he was referring to? If it is, it would explain how Paul might well have missed seeing him. It also fits in with Xmere saying he went "down" Parson and "crossed" Brady.

Despite the claim in Fisherman's TV show that the streets had not changed, they have considerably, hence ...
The route marked in red is the route (more or less) I always assumed Xmere took.
The route marked in blue is the route (more or less) David took in post #1.
Green is Pereira Street.

[Ginger]

https://unsolvedwhitechapel.wordpres...parson-street/ makes the interesting (to me, at least) suggestion that "Parson Street" may have been a local name for the un-named path through St. Bartholomew's grounds.

[drstrange169]

Thanks, that's an interesting idea.
I'm not sure that would be classed as going "down", but well worth a look.

[Joshua Rogan]

How about Parson Street being a mishearing of Bath Street. It's the stretch of road across Brady Street from Buck's Row, so makes perfect sense in his narrative.