Ripper Facts

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

It's very likely that PC Smith was out by about 10 minutes. If you read the inquest reports, he estimated that he returned to Berner Street at 1:00am, and therefore estimated the timing of his sighting of Stride and the suspect at 12:30/12:35, i.e. based on the assumption his beat circuit took 25 to 30 minutes.

However, this can't possibly be correct. Thus, when he arrived at the murder scene PC Lamb was already in situ, and we know he arrived at about 1:05, I.e. 10 to 12 minutes before Dr Blackwell. Moreover, he stayed only a brief time, just checking to make sure the victim was dead, before going for an ambulance. And, on the way out, he passed Edward Johnson, who timed his arrival 3 or for minutes before Dr Blackwell, so about 1:12-1:13.

This means that PC Smith probably arrived at about 1:10, not 1:00am as he mistakenly thought, meaning he was last on Berner Street between 12:40 and 12:45, and not as he estimated, 12:30 to 12:35.

John

I have no problem with 5 minutes, it's stretching it to 10 I have a problem with.

you say it can't be correct, why?


Even if he was there at 12.45, he does not undermine Schwartz in my opinion purely on time, as he could have been out himself, if he told the truth.
Of course we cannot know if he did or not, despite what many say.


Cheers

Steve

[John G]

John

I have no problem with 5 minutes, it's stretching it to 10 I have a problem with.

you say it can't be correct, why?


Even if he was there at 12.45, he does not undermine Schwartz in my opinion purely on time, as he could have been out himself, if he told the truth.
Of course we cannot know if he did or not, despite what many say.


Cheers

Steve

Hi Steve,

PC Smith's own evidence demonstrates he was out by 10 minutes. Read the inquest report, where he estimates his arrival on Berner Street as being 1:00am, whereas it must have been about 1:10, unless you're suggesting Dr Blackwell, Edward Johnson and PC Lamb were wrong with their timings. And let's not forget the body wasn't even discovered until 1:00am!

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

PC Smith's own evidence demonstrates he was out by 10 minutes. Read the inquest report, where he estimates his arrival on Berner Street as being 1:00am, whereas it must have been about 1:10, unless you're suggesting Dr Blackwell and Edward Johnson were wrong with their timings.

Thanks John,

That spells it out clearly.
I will still go for 1.05, which i think is equally plausible and arguable. thus negating the need for a sighting at 12.45.

I think we may not agree on this one

regards

Steven

[John G]

Thanks John,

That spells it out clearly.
I will still go for 1.05, which i think is equally plausible and arguable. thus negating the need for a sighting at 12.45.

I think we may not agree on this one

regards

Steven

Hi Steve

Fair enough. However, the reason I would reject 1:05 is because that is the time PC Lamb arrived and, of course, he was already there when PC Smith noticed the crowd outside the gates. And, as I noted, he seems to have stayed a very brief time, maybe only a minute or two or just a few seconds, before seeing Edward Johnson, who arrived at 1:12-13, on his way out.

This is what he said at the inquest:

'When I came to the spot two constables had already arrived...I saw that the woman was dead, and I went to the police station for the ambulance, leaving the other constables in charge of the body. Dr Blackwell's assistant arrived just as I was going away."

[Craig H]

Hi John

Interesting about what you say on doubting Schwarts testimony. Can you expand ?

His witness statement seems strange to me. It sounds more like someone who doesn't speak English who didn't want to get in trouble with the police.

Rgds
Craig

[Elamarna]

John

I fully accept the testimony, my issue is how accurate was the time keeping?

Even today we can be a couple of minutes out, with modern time pieces.

No correct time signal in 1888 to set the watch against like the signal from Greenwich?

Personally I always am prepared to allow 5 minutes, unless we have several independent sources for a time.

In this case,

Lamb is about 1.05 so he could be a minute or so out in either direction, which could mean an later or earlier arrival for Smith.


Smith's time is dependent on Johnson, who's estimates the time until Blackwell arrives, then we are dependent on Blackwells watch.
In that case if the watch is running slow, Smith could arrive later than 1.10.

It's something we will never be able to get a definitive view about.

I wager if we checked with each other now, using a conventional time piece, not dependent on an internet signal, and allowing for time zones we would find a small discrepancy between our respective times.

Steve

[John G]

John

I fully accept the testimony, my issue is how accurate was the time keeping?

Even today we can be a couple of minutes out, with modern time pieces.

No correct time signal in 1888 to set the watch against like the signal from Greenwich?

Personally I always am prepared to allow 5 minutes, unless we have several independent sources for a time.

In this case,

Lamb is about 1.05 so he could be a minute or so out in either direction, which could mean an later or earlier arrival for Smith.


Smith's time is dependent on Johnson, who's estimates the time until Blackwell arrives, then we are dependent on Blackwells watch.
In that case if the watch is running slow, Smith could arrive later than 1.10.

It's something we will never be able to get a definitive view about.

I wager if we checked with each other now, using a conventional time piece, not dependent on an internet signal, and allowing for time zones we would find a small discrepancy between our respective times.

Steve

Hi Steve,

I would say that Dr Blackwell's watch was more or less synchronized with the clock. Thus, Louis arrives at 1:00am (according to the clock). If PC Lamb arrived 5 minutes later, then his arrival would be 1:05 (according to the clock). He estimated Dr Blackwell arrived 10-12 minutes later, so Dr Blackwell's watch, if synchronized, would show between 1:15 and 1:17-it was 1:16.

However, I don't think it would have taken less than 5 minutes for PC Lamb to arrive, given the prior steps that had to take place: Louis examining the body; assuming it was his wife; going into the club and finding his wife; alerting the club members; the club members coming out and checking the body; club members setting off in search of a police officer; PC Lamb alerted; PC Lamb arriving at the club.

But what if it took 10 minutes? Then that scenario creates all sorts of problems. Thus, it would mean PC Lamb would arrive at 1:10, (acccording to the clock), placing PC Smith's arrival at, say, 1:15 (according to the clock). That would mean PC Smith saw Stride and the suspect between 12:45 and 12:50. But that causes problems for Fanny Mortimer's evidence.

Mortimer estimated she'd gone indoors 4 minutes before hearing Louis arrive, so 12:56 (according to the clock). She'd been on her doorstep for about 10 minutes prior to going inside, so between 12:46 and 12:56 (according to the clock) This is also supported by her sighting of Louis Goldstein.

However, based upon the revised timeline for PC Smith, she should then have seen him, the suspect and Stride. And this scenario is absolutely disastrous for Schwartz's evidence.

[John G]

Hi John

Interesting about what you say on doubting Schwarts testimony. Can you expand ?

His witness statement seems strange to me. It sounds more like someone who doesn't speak English who didn't want to get in trouble with the police.

Rgds
Craig

Hi Craig,

Yes, there are a number of issues, so I'll respond in more detail when I've got more time.

[John G]

John

I fully accept the testimony, my issue is how accurate was the time keeping?

Even today we can be a couple of minutes out, with modern time pieces.

No correct time signal in 1888 to set the watch against like the signal from Greenwich?

Personally I always am prepared to allow 5 minutes, unless we have several independent sources for a time.

In this case,

Lamb is about 1.05 so he could be a minute or so out in either direction, which could mean an later or earlier arrival for Smith.


Smith's time is dependent on Johnson, who's estimates the time until Blackwell arrives, then we are dependent on Blackwells watch.
In that case if the watch is running slow, Smith could arrive later than 1.10.

It's something we will never be able to get a definitive view about.

I wager if we checked with each other now, using a conventional time piece, not dependent on an internet signal, and allowing for time zones we would find a small discrepancy between our respective times.

Steve

Hi Steve,

You might find Gavin Bromley's excellent dissertation on PC Smith's beat of interest. His extremely detailed analysis, considering various scenarios, also supports a later sighting time. See:http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...l?printer=true

[Pierre]

On the issue of Smith, his report is based at 12.30.
Blackwell suggests a time of death of about 11.55 approx. However this has been hotly debated.

Even if we take Schwartz and his time of about 12.45 as the time of the attack. And he being the interruption rather than Louis Diemschutz, we still have a period of about 15minutes in which the killer is just chatting.
I personally don't see that, of course it is just a feeling, so can be completely wrong on that, which am happy to accept.

Steve

Hi Steve,

I just want to make a small comment generally for you discussion here. What you are discussing is taking place before the murders.

We often find this sort of thinking in the discussion about witnesses or even in the discussion about Lechmere. You can follow a small group of people or some individuals to a certain point in time, preferably as close to the postulated TOD as possible. But after that point, which always is hypothetical, there is just a lack of sources.

It strikes me that I have been thinking in an opposite way all along. I have not been thinking pre but post. At least 80 percent of the time.

Now, I do not say that thinking pre murder(s) is wrong. Far from it. I am just saying that there are two aspects of thinking here.

Regards, Pierre

[lynn cates]

wise

Hello Harry.

"Although I subscribe to the one-killer theory, we don't know for a certainty that there was a "Ripper"."

For one who has not lived even a single lifetime, you're a wise man, Van Helsing.

Cheers.
LC

[Craig H]

Hi Steve,

You might find Gavin Bromley's excellent dissertation on PC Smith's beat of interest. His extremely detailed analysis, considering various scenarios, also supports a later sighting time. See:http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...l?printer=true

Hi John

Thanks for posting this.

A thorough analysis. Also supports view that PC Smith's observation may have been closer to 12.45 which strengthens the credibility.

All the best

Craig

[John G]

Hi John

Thanks for posting this.

A thorough analysis. Also supports view that PC Smith's observation may have been closer to 12.45 which strengthens the credibility.

All the best

Craig

No problem, Craig. And I agree, it is an extremely thorough analysis which suggests the PC Smith sighting was probably closer to 12:45.

[Craig H]

Hi Pierre

Thanks for your post and ideas. Much appreciated.

There seems agreement that the PC William Smith and Joseph Lawende were the most credible witnesses of seeing the Ripper just prior to the murders; and provide a similar description of :

• 28 - 30 year old
• 5 ft 7 in
• Moustache

Does your person match that criteria ?

All the best

Craig





[QUOTE=Pierre;380138]

Hi Craig,

I appreciate that but the problem is that "facts" are social constructions. When it comes to history, facts are established using source criticism. And a lot of people are not historians here, so they will have a lot of non-historical ideas about what a "fact" should be. Just throwing some light on this problem.





There is an interesting question here: Why is this the "consistent picture", given the time of the sightings (night time/early morning) and the place (streets in Whitechapel)? If we make an ideal type of what you call "the consistent picture" we can make a statistical hypothesis that this type of man was common at night in Whitechapel. What does this imply?



A well established fact. Was he afraid of being recognized by people who knew him? Did he wait for the victims to become more drunk so he could kill them easier? Or was it just because there were less people out?



Maybe he did not cut out of comfort. Maybe he did it out of hatred and for destruction.



Perhaps he did.



At least the day after Warren resigned on paper.



But placing body parts in the new Scotland Yard building.



Yes. What fools the police are, indeed.







Yes. An important clue.



I donīt.



I donīt like speculation.



Interesting post, Craig.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

You might find Gavin Bromley's excellent dissertation on PC Smith's beat of interest. His extremely detailed analysis, considering various scenarios, also supports a later sighting time. See:http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...l?printer=true

thanks John

have read Gavin's views on mitre square but not this one