Tweet
I came across and interesting article recently about the issue of standard time in 19th Century London. Until the mid-century time was a very elastic thing and only began to be standardized when the railways got going and people needed to know about schedules. Apparently local time--the time you have on your watch and I have on mine--only really started to standardize around the time of the killings. It's unlikely that the brewery clock that Mrs Long describes hearing was set to GMT. It's also unlikely that Albert Cadoche's alarm-clock was set to the same time as the brewery clock. There could be a significant variation here. Enough for Mrs Long to see Chapman at around 5.30 am and Mr Cadoche to hear something untoward next door at around 5.20 am and yet still the sighting could precede the hearing...
-
-
Hardy, har har
Hello Chava. That is indeed correct. To appreciate time discrepancies, one need only read Thomas Hardy's "Return of the Native." Egdon Heath had two or three authoritative sources for time fixing--quite at odds with one another.
Cheers.
LC -
An important thread for those who seek to argue theories based on split second timing - or by comparing times given by separate "witnesses".
I always allow a margin of error of around 15 minutes either way, in all cases.
Bravo!!
PhilComment
-
fixing time
Hello Phil. On the other hand, a good Met inspector would ask of a witness, "By what did you fix the time?"
Cheers.
LCComment
-
Hi ChavaOriginally posted by Chava View Post
There are two issues here which may be causing some confusion, there is the local standardising of time into clock time from sundial time, this clock time (o'clock is an abbreviation, for 'of the clock') is called 'mean time'. the time on a sundial runs at the same rate as mean time on only four days of the year (Christmas day is one!), these are the local times that you mention.
When the railways expanded, these local times were abandoned in favour of universally adopting Greenwich Mean Time, which is just the local time at Greenwich.
By the Victorian era, new large public clocks would be weight-driven, long pendulum clock with somekind of gravity escapement, these are extremely accurate clocks (the clock in parlament that is mistakenly called 'big ben' is of this type, and was designed to be accurate to a second a day)
Can you post a link to your article?
Best wishesComment
-
It was the concept of "Railway Time", developed in the UK circa 1845 to 1855, (following a number of accidents in which time discrepancies played a part), which started off the trend towards unifying timekeeping...the development of the electric telegraph and communication between stations ("lock, block and telegraph" were a mantra for the railway inspectorate for many years) actually enabled it to become a reality...yet even on the railways, into the 1860s or even later, one occasionally hears in accident reports that "the station clock at so and so went at a gallop" or the railway inspectorate would comment in an accident report that "such and such a signal box clock was three minutes faster than the rest"...
It wasn't in fact until an Act of Parliament in 1880 that a system of unified timekeeping for the UK was actually ratified, and it's a pretty fair bet that amongst a reasonable proportion of the populace, accuracy didn't become that much of a factor for many years after...I suspect it was radio (or the wireless as it was known) that really made the difference...
All the best
DaveComment
-
I'm glad to see this important issue being debated.
Times can always be wrong, mistakes, guess work, but a sequence of events, regardless of individual stated times, is always more important.
A sequence of events cannot be wrong, 'times' can, and often were.
Regards, Jon S.Regards, Jon S.Comment
-
Even if the clocks were accurate, people can still be wrong, by a matter of minutes, about what time it was when a given event happen. Please think about this before you post an argument on this forum that treats the stated time of things as absolute truths.Comment
-
Hi All,
Clocks weren't accurate, there was no standard time, people couldn't afford watches etc. etc.
Yet according to official testimony, all the following events took place at precisely 3.45 am—
Robert Paul was walking up Buck’s Row on his way to work; Charles Cross was standing by Polly Nichols' body; PC Neil had discovered Polly Nichols' body; PC Thain was being signalled by PC Neil; and PC Mizen was talking to Cross and Paul 300 yards away at the corner of Bakers Row and Old Montague Street.
By what method did these five people agree the time was 3.45 am?
Regards,
SimonNever believe anything until it has been officially denied.Comment
-
Is there a chance that Paul's "Exact" time may come from a 2nd source [ie] street clock or bell , for him to be so certain ?
But even then , why would Paul and Thain's 3.45 be at least 4 minuites apart ?Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, has made the following statement:- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's row to my work as a carman for Coven Garden Market.Comment
-
I have said before that I grew up in an English cathedral town where the bells told the time every hour and at each quarter. You always knew the time roughly - i.e.e to the nearest quarter hour - except if there was wind direction issues or other noise.
Another issue is interruptions. If counting say the twelve strokes of the "quarter to" the hour, and you were distracted, you might not then know which quarter it was.
So you had a continuous awareness of the time, but not wholly accurate.
Public clocks, of which there were many more in those days - depended on whomever kept them running. If their watch was slow or fast the brewery/stable/jeweller or whatever clock would be out by a similar amount. Clocks can also go wrong and not be noticed for a while.
Edward VII always kept the internal clocks at sandringham fast, to promote punctuality. Did others with external clocks do anything similar?
PhilComment
-
I agree with the theory that time was somewhat fluid until the radio came along because then you could set your watch or clock to an accurate signal from GMT. Depending on your timepiece you might still lose or gain a few minutes, but less, I believe than you would have previously.
The timing of the Chapman sighting and the Cadoche hearing always bothered me. I don't know why it didn't dawn on me sooner that time as interpreted on the streets of Whitechapel in 1888 was unlikely to be as uniform as it is now. The brewery clock that Long hears may have been accurate but it's certainly possible that it wasn't. And there is no reason to believe that the brewery clock and Cadoche's clock were set to the same time. You've got around 15 minutes in the wind here. I don't think it's unlikely that Long saw a woman and a man chatting in front of #29 ahead of Cadoche hearing something go bump against the fence in the backyard even though he claims to be earlier than she does.Comment
-
Absolutely Chava
It's potentially a factor with Nicholls, Chapman and Stride...
All the best
DaveComment
-
I think its more like 24 or 48 hours in the wind, as far as Long's testimony goes ..You've got around 15 minutes in the wind here.
moonbegger .Comment
-
Hi all,
Simons point is quite relevant here.....how did some of these witnesses come about their estimates, and would their times be unified? In the case of the beat police, if they didnt have a watch, then they relied on the clocks on their beat and in their station house, and I wouldnt be surprised if they occasionally advised the shopkeepers to adjust their clocks if they contradicted the time the beat officer felt was correct. Because I would assume that a clock in the station houses would be set to some kind of national standard, the railway time most probably, and therefore they would use it as a guide while out and about.
Anyone know if there were steam clocks in operation in London at that time, I read that a fellow named Inshaw built one for the Steam Clock Tavern in Birmingham around 1859, perhaps some were around London in 1888?
Cheers allComment
Comment