The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Statement 1
The pub closed at 12 midnight, Spooner and young woman walked to Beehive and stood outside for 25 minutes. The Settles Pub was 5 minutes walk from the Beehive so they were standing outside the Beehive from 12:05 to 12:30. This has him seeing Diemshitz and Jacobs at about 12:30 and arriving at the yard at about 12:35. I believe it was twenty-five minutes to one o'clock when I arrived in the yard.

Statement 2
Spooner also said between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Public- house. We stood outside the Beehive about twenty-five minutes, when two Jews came running along, calling out "Murder" and "Police." This indicates a time around 12:55 for his arrival, which fits his time of 4-5 minutes before Lamb.

A possible clue is the context provided by the question.

C: Could any one have left without your observing it?
S: I cannot say, but I think there were too many people about. I believe it was twenty-five minutes to one o'clock when I arrived in the yard.

Is Spooner just trying to say - "I got there early enough to not miss seeing anyone leave"? Or perhaps something more significant - "I don't think I missed seeing anything of importance".

Interesting that he soon gives this answer in response to a juryman's question...

As I was going to Berner-street I did not meet any one except Mr. Harris, who came out of his house in Tiger Bay (Brunswick-street). Mr. Harris told me he had heard the policeman's whistle blowing.

What was that question? Perhaps more importantly, why was that question asked? After all this was minutes after the discovery.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for your contribution to the time discussion. I would like to make the point that Spooner's time of arrival of 12:35 is an estimated clock time derived from a Pub time zone. His 4-5 minutes before Lamb is a time interval, then applied to a completely different time zone - that of Lamb.

Account of Spooner's testimony from the inquest, Daily Telegraph 2 Oct 1888:-

On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Public- house, at the corner of Christian-street, with my young woman. We had left a public- house in Commercial-road at closing time, midnight, and walked quietly to the point named. We stood outside the Beehive about twenty-five minutes, when two Jews came running along, calling out "Murder" and "Police." They ran as far as Grove- street, and then turned back. I stopped them and asked what was the matter, and they replied that a woman had been murdered. I thereupon proceeded down Berner-street and into Dutfield's-yard, adjoining the International Workmen's Club-house, and there saw a woman lying just inside the gate.
I believe it was twenty-five minutes to one o'clock when I arrived in the yard.

Statement 1
The pub closed at 12 midnight, Spooner and young woman walked to Beehive and stood outside for 25 minutes. The Settles Pub was 5 minutes walk from the Beehive so they were standing outside the Beehive from 12:05 to 12:30. This has him seeing Diemshitz and Jacobs at about 12:30 and arriving at the yard at about 12:35. I believe it was twenty-five minutes to one o'clock when I arrived in the yard.

Statement 2
Spooner also said between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Public- house. We stood outside the Beehive about twenty-five minutes, when two Jews came running along, calling out "Murder" and "Police." This indicates a time around 12:55 for his arrival, which fits his time of 4-5 minutes before Lamb.

Unless I have misinterpreted, there is conflicting information and they can't both be right. IMO, the later seems to be more reasonable.

With regards to time estimates, I believe that their accuracy is inversely proportional to the interval of time elapsed since their estimator last saw a clock.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

No worries. I also suspect the "twenty-five minutes to one" is an error, either he mis-spoke, or it was recorded incorrectly (may have said 5 minutes to 1, but someone misheard him, and presumed he said 25 minutes to 1 would be one possibility - obviously, I'm just making up things here to illustrate the types of things that could result in such an error). It doesn't fit with his 4-5 minutes before Lamb, as you point out, nor with much else. Given it doesn't fit with very much else and conflicts with a fair number, that suggests it is the source of the conflict.

And yes, we're dealing with the land of multiple clocks, so we have to be mindful of that too.

I wouldn't be surprised if you're right about time of day estimations, although I suspect if someone is doing a routine that has a fairly fixed duration to it, completing that routine would update their clock reading even if they didn't look at one. Like, if you're watching a TV show, and you know it lasts about an hour, then if you checked the clock just before turning it on, and watched 3 episodes, you would still be pretty accurate about the time even if you didn't check the clock again.

Regardless of the nitty gritty, I would like to find something that actually quantified people's accuracy for the time of day that an event happened. I'm sure there will be something in the literature on eye-witness testimony that looks at it. It's just a matter of finding the article(s). It comes up enough that it's probably well past the time for us to argue based upon what we presume things are and actually look at some data. Presumptive arguments tend to presume evidence that fits with the conclusion one wants to reach - not surprising, we presume we're right so of course that is what the evidence would look like! One would think that would mean people would change their conclusion of choice if it turned out the evidence was not as they predicted. Sadly, the more common reaction is to decide the experts in the field, who investigate these things for a living, don't know as much as our ability to presume.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

"You mentioned Spooner arrived about 5 minutes before the police, but neglected to mention that with Lambs statement he was there shortly before 1am, that puts Spooner there around 12:40-1245 with everyone else..as he said. Just like Issac Kozebrodski said. And as Heschberg stated, and as the Arbeter Fraint reported."

And again, if we go with Lamb's "shortly before 1am" then Spooner's 5 minutes, that places Spooner's arrival shortly before 12:55, no where near 12:40 and well off 12:45.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for your contribution to the time discussion. I would like to make the point that Spooner's time of arrival of 12:35 is an estimated clock time derived from a Pub time zone. His 4-5 minutes before Lamb is a time interval, then applied to a completely different time zone - that of Lamb.

Account of Spooner's testimony from the inquest, Daily Telegraph 2 Oct 1888:-

On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Public- house, at the corner of Christian-street, with my young woman. We had left a public- house in Commercial-road at closing time, midnight, and walked quietly to the point named. We stood outside the Beehive about twenty-five minutes, when two Jews came running along, calling out "Murder" and "Police." They ran as far as Grove- street, and then turned back. I stopped them and asked what was the matter, and they replied that a woman had been murdered. I thereupon proceeded down Berner-street and into Dutfield's-yard, adjoining the International Workmen's Club-house, and there saw a woman lying just inside the gate.
I believe it was twenty-five minutes to one o'clock when I arrived in the yard.

Statement 1
The pub closed at 12 midnight, Spooner and young woman walked to Beehive and stood outside for 25 minutes. The Settles Pub was 5 minutes walk from the Beehive so they were standing outside the Beehive from 12:05 to 12:30. This has him seeing Diemshitz and Jacobs at about 12:30 and arriving at the yard at about 12:35. I believe it was twenty-five minutes to one o'clock when I arrived in the yard.

Statement 2
Spooner also said between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Public- house. We stood outside the Beehive about twenty-five minutes, when two Jews came running along, calling out "Murder" and "Police." This indicates a time around 12:55 for his arrival, which fits his time of 4-5 minutes before Lamb.

Unless I have misinterpreted, there is conflicting information and they can't both be right. IMO, the later seems to be more reasonable.

With regards to time estimates, I believe that their accuracy is inversely proportional to the interval of time elapsed since their estimator last saw a clock.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Issac K, and Hescheberg and approximations for Spooner including his own statement all have them in the passageway by the body at between 12:40 and 12:45. Ive given you a viable motive, and you already know that not one single secondary source exists for the staff statements.

Hi Michael,

In your theory, do you make any allowance for the possibility that different time zones may be involved? Were Koze and Hescheberg basing their times on the Club clock and the Police on a different clock, the Harris Clock for instance? One clock running fast and the other running slow could reduce the gap appreciably.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

...

For how long did Spooner observe the victim, before standing diligently by the body?

By the way, please don't interpret my use of the word...

diligently: in a way that shows care and conscientiousness in one's work or duties.

...as an attempt to make out that Spooner was associated with the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee. We all know that wasn't the case.

Hi NBFN,

To my knowledge, there's no record of such a time period, and anyway, his testimony is that the 4-5 minutes is the time from his arrival until PC Lamb's arrival, so there's no room to add more time at the start of that. Spooner is on Fairclough, and comes from there, and PC Lamb arrives after him. The 4-5 minutes later is the testified time interval between those two events, so there's no "standing around time" before that interval (at least, standing around at the scene). The things he describes would have been done during that interval period.

I'm not sure how I would get from your use of the word diligently to Spooner being associated with the WVC, but as you indicate that's not your intent, then I know not to try. I admit, I'm curious to know why you would think this a possibility that needed mentioning though?

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

We're dealing with an individual, and how one chooses to do that follows one of three options.
Option 1). Given we know nothing about the individual's ability, we use the population average as our best guess. That means, Spooner's 5 minutes before Lamb represents an actual arrival of roughly 3m 40 seconds prior to Lamb.

Option 2). Given we know nothing about the individuals ability, given the large variation associated with the group average, we should not pick a value at all.

Option 3). Given we know nothing about the individuals ability, let's look at the range of values from which they are likely to come from.

Option 1, places Spooner even closer to Lamb, and so even closer to "Shortly before 1 am", moving him even further from the window you place him in. Option 2 doesn't allow you to place him anywhere. Option 3 would mean that a range of values even closer to Lamb (so a duration of even less than 3m 40s) has to be considered valid, out to some upper value. For an estimation of 5 minutes, that range would be as short as 2m 9s out to about 11m 9s. And the upper end of that range still doesn't include 1:45 (as the combination of Lamb and Spooner's statements would mean Spooner arrived "shortly before 1:49").

Interesting stuff Jeff. Thanks for that.

It should be noted that Spooner's 5 or so minutes only represents the period when standing by the body. That period is a portion of Spooner's total time in the yard prior to Lamb's arrival. From the DT:

Was any one with her? - There were about fifteen people in the yard.

Was any one near her? - They were all standing round.

Were they touching her? - No. One man struck a match, but I could see the woman before the match was struck. I put my hand under her chin when the match was alight.

Was the chin warm? - Slightly.

Was any blood coming from the throat? - Yes; it was still flowing. I noticed that she had a piece of paper doubled up in her right hand, and some red and white flowers pinned on her breast. I did not feel the body, nor did I alter the position of the head. I am sure of that. Her face was turned towards the club wall.

Did you notice whether the blood was still moving on the ground? - It was running down the gutter. I stood by the side of the body for four or five minutes, until the last witness arrived.

For how long did Spooner observe the victim, before standing diligently by the body?

By the way, please don't interpret my use of the word...

diligently: in a way that shows care and conscientiousness in one's work or duties.

...as an attempt to make out that Spooner was associated with the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee. We all know that wasn't the case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Issac K, and Hescheberg and approximations for Spooner including his own statement all have them in the passageway by the body at between 12:40 and 12:45. Ive given you a viable motive, and you already know that not one single secondary source exists for the staff statements.

You’re motive is a joke. Like you’re laughable cover up theory.

[JeffHamm]

Issac K, and Hescheberg and approximations for Spooner including his own statement all have them in the passageway by the body at between 12:40 and 12:45. Ive given you a viable motive, and you already know that not one single secondary source exists for the staff statements.

Hi Michael,

In your post #622, you point out:

"You mentioned Spooner arrived about 5 minutes before the police, but neglected to mention that with Lambs statement he was there shortly before 1am, that puts Spooner there around 12:40-1245 with everyone else..as he said. Just like Issac Kozebrodski said. And as Heschberg stated, and as the Arbeter Fraint reported."

And again, if we go with Lamb's "shortly before 1am" then Spooner's 5 minutes, that places Spooner's arrival shortly before 12:55, no where near 12:40 and well off 12:45.

For what it's worth, I've started looking at some research into the accuracy of people's ability to estimate durations of events from memory, which is what Spooner is doing of course. From work by Yarmey (2000), for short intervals (as in under 20 minutes type thing), the time they give tends to over estimate the actual duration. So, I've used their data to go backwards, take a given estimate and work out how long the actual interval would probably be. And for 5 minutes, that works out to about 3m 40s (3m 37s to be precise). In the figures below, you can see the time (converted to seconds) of the average estimation of the event on the horizontal axis, and the vertical shows the duration of the actual event (since their data spans out to a lot of events much longer than what we're looking at, I've show the full set in the A figure, and B just zooms in to show the function fits well for the values we're looking at - 300s, or 5 minute estimation). Shorter durations tend to get over estimated, and longer durations tend to be under estimated. It should, of course, not be forgotten that these represent averages over many people, individuals vary widely.



We're dealing with an individual, and how one chooses to do that follows one of three options.
Option 1). Given we know nothing about the individual's ability, we use the population average as our best guess. That means, Spooner's 5 minutes before Lamb represents an actual arrival of roughly 3m 40 seconds prior to Lamb.

Option 2). Given we know nothing about the individuals ability, given the large variation associated with the group average, we should not pick a value at all.

Option 3). Given we know nothing about the individuals ability, let's look at the range of values from which they are likely to come from.

Option 1, places Spooner even closer to Lamb, and so even closer to "Shortly before 1 am", moving him even further from the window you place him in. Option 2 doesn't allow you to place him anywhere. Option 3 would mean that a range of values even closer to Lamb (so a duration of even less than 3m 40s) has to be considered valid, out to some upper value. For an estimation of 5 minutes, that range would be as short as 2m 9s out to about 11m 9s. And the upper end of that range still doesn't include 1:45 (as the combination of Lamb and Spooner's statements would mean Spooner arrived "shortly before 1:49").

That, of course, means you have to argue about the value of "shortly before", which isn't a numerical value, so that you can translate that to be at least 4 minutes, and now it would get Spooner to 1:45, but not 1:40. To cover 1:40, "shortly" would have to translate to 9 minutes.

But you wouldn't do that because you're arguing against people "shifting the stated values to suit". That leaves you in the position of having to argue that Spooner is one of those 2.5% of cases, where his estimate of 5 minutes before Lamb actually represents a real duration more than our upper cutoff from Option 3, because it needs to be around 15-20 minutes of actual duration. That is, of course, entirely possible. It's also improbable, to the tune of having about 2.5% chance of being true.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

One other point....since no-one aside from Israel Schwartz claimed to see anyone on the street during their respective view times, and since his statement was obviously deemed unworthy of record for the Inquest, you have no-one seen on that street from 12:35 to 12:55, when Fanny sees Leon. With the witnesses that claimed to be in the passageway at 12:40-12:45, they would be out of sight to Fanny, and only Spooner is from outside the club.

So the actual truth is that we can assume safely that Strides killer almost certainly came from that same property. You just dont have a name.

What we dont know is how long after she is found she lay there bleeding out.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes you’re assuming that these people lied based on no evidence. Your ‘probable’ bias is an imagined one. Apart from Koz and Hoschberg all the witnesses point to a discovery time of 1.00. To get around this you have to start assuming that people ‘must’ have lied because without these ‘lies’ you are left with 2 witnesses who are at odds with the rest. Which leads us to a very obvious conclusion.

There was nothing ‘created’ here. We know what happened. We just don’t know who killed Stride.

Issac K, and Hescheberg and approximations for Spooner including his own statement all have them in the passageway by the body at between 12:40 and 12:45. Ive given you a viable motive, and you already know that not one single secondary source exists for the staff statements.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im assuming you didnt get my point about differentiating the witnesses based on probable biases, because Im suggesting Diemshutz and Eagle created a timeline.

Yes you’re assuming that these people lied based on no evidence. Your ‘probable’ bias is an imagined one. Apart from Koz and Hoschberg all the witnesses point to a discovery time of 1.00. To get around this you have to start assuming that people ‘must’ have lied because without these ‘lies’ you are left with 2 witnesses who are at odds with the rest. Which leads us to a very obvious conclusion.

There was nothing ‘created’ here. We know what happened. We just don’t know who killed Stride.

[Michael W Richards]

The act of repeating an untruth will not make it true. Two. That’s all that you have. Against that you have.

Diemschutz.
His wife.
The club servants.
Wess.
Eagle.
Gilleman.
Minsky.
Spooner.
Lamb.
Brown.

All point to a discovery time of around 1.00 (any yes, a leeway of 5 minutes or so is no issue at all)

You have Hoschberg and Koz.

You lose. Big time.

Im assuming you didnt get my point about differentiating the witnesses based on probable biases, because Im suggesting Diemshutz and Eagle created a timeline.

[JeffHamm]

Im not going to respond to all of the post because frankly much of it is too self serving, just wanted to point out to you that even if the timings are as you suggest above, Spooner then saw men seeking help before Louis says he even arrived. Remember, the established premise is that Louis discovers the victim.

Moving events around a few minutes isnt too problematic in the main, but creating gaps of 20 minutes or so isnt so great. The statements do speak for themselves and the beliefs of the men and women who gave them, when conflicts arise within the time/action reconstructions based on those times we have to assess who to lean towards. I lean towards the men who were each validated by other statements which matched their own in almost every detail and within minutes of each others. Multiple, corroborating statements. The ones that do not record the events and times as those multiple witnesses did, yet have times and events happening within site of and at around the same times, all belong to people directly linked with the club operations economically. To accept their individual non-validated statements as the accurate ones means that all of the multiple corroborating accounts were wrong by roughly the same amount of time,..20 minutes or so.

Surely Im not the only one who sees that as an unsustainable argument. You dont base your premise on singular events in unsubstantiated stories, you look for those that are in agreement in content and actions, and when they are there, thats where any reconstruction has some hope.

The events as recorded by all the witness accounts cumulatively cannot take place. Not at the times given, and in some cases, not with the activities cited. So people are either off accidentally or intentionally. But I doubt multiple accounts were all wrong when they gave the same content and times.

Hi Michael,

I realize that Spooner arriving prior to 1 would mean Deimshutz's time is being viewed as incorrect. I was going with your statements, though, and showing how that when you said that placed Spooner at 12:40 didn't follow. Even by what you set up, Spooner would only be at 12:55ish.

One shouldn't base their premises on the weakest and most unreliable statements either. And we have to make a call as to how we decide which statements are weaker and more unreliable in comparison to another. I put statements based upon clock readings as the more reliable, but also factor in the conditions under which that clock was read. Doctor's checking the time to record official business I place high on that list. Deimshutz, a man on his way home from work viewing a clock in the window, more prone to some error, but the margin would still be fairly narrow; say +-2 minutes to maybe +-5, depending upon how conservative or liberal one wishes to be. Statements that are made without reference to having actually viewed a clock, are considered less reliable, though if they come from a police officer on his beat, I would suggest are probably similar to Deimshutz. Statements from anybody else, can easily be +-10 minutes, or more. Nobody else had any reason to pay attention to, or be aware of, the time until after the event, and in all likelihood didn't even think of what the times were until well after things started to settle, possibly when the police started interviewing them at the crime scene. It would not at all surprise me if that was the point when most people first started thinking about "what time was it when ...", at which point they are relying upon a memory they had no reason to purposefully form, and so start to engage in recreating and estimating the time. Those times I am more than happy to simply say "that's nice", and use other information that is less prone to error, to try and work out the events. The order of the events will be far more reliable than people's estimations of the actual time, or even durations, given these had no reason to be remembered when they happened. And we have to remember, there would have been a lot of talk going around after the event. What can happen there is that a sort of consensus gets reached in the local story about times, or events, and so forth. Agreement among people need not mean that they actually know that was the time things happened, it may just be that is the time they've heard things happened, and so have incorporated that in their own telling.

Nobody, yourself included, is under any obligation to follow the same guidelines. But your conclusions, based upon following your own guidelines, will likewise have little impact upon my views. And that's simply because I, like yourself, think the guidelines I follow are are the ones to be preferred. That's why I follow mine, and you follow yours.

I haven't even done my analyses, though. I'm just outlining what I'm going to do and the rules I will use when doing it.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im not going to respond to all of the post because frankly much of it is too self serving, just wanted to point out to you that even if the timings are as you suggest above, Spooner then saw men seeking help before Louis says he even arrived. Remember, the established premise is that Louis discovers the victim.

Moving events around a few minutes isnt too problematic in the main, but creating gaps of 20 minutes or so isnt so great. The statements do speak for themselves and the beliefs of the men and women who gave them, when conflicts arise within the time/action reconstructions based on those times we have to assess who to lean towards. I lean towards the men who were each validated by other statements which matched their own in almost every detail and within minutes of each others. Multiple, corroborating statements. The ones that do not record the events and times as those multiple witnesses did, yet have times and events happening within site of and at around the same times, all belong to people directly linked with the club operations economically. To accept their individual non-validated statements as the accurate ones means that all of the multiple corroborating accounts were wrong by roughly the same amount of time,..20 minutes or so.

Surely Im not the only one who sees that as an unsustainable argument. You dont base your premise on singular events in unsubstantiated stories, you look for those that are in agreement in content and actions, and when they are there, thats where any reconstruction has some hope.

The events as recorded by all the witness accounts cumulatively cannot take place. Not at the times given, and in some cases, not with the activities cited. So people are either off accidentally or intentionally. But I doubt multiple accounts were all wrong when they gave the same content and times.

The act of repeating an untruth will not make it true. Two. That’s all that you have. Against that you have.

Diemschutz.
His wife.
The club servants.
Wess.
Eagle.
Gilleman.
Minsky.
Spooner.
Lamb.
Brown.

All point to a discovery time of around 1.00 (any yes, a leeway of 5 minutes or so is no issue at all)

You have Hoschberg and Koz.

You lose. Big time.

[Michael W Richards]

If we go with Lamb's arrival as being shortly before 1, that would still places Spooner arriving at 12:55ish (or shortly before), and not at 12:40.

Im not going to respond to all of the post because frankly much of it is too self serving, just wanted to point out to you that even if the timings are as you suggest above, Spooner then saw men seeking help before Louis says he even arrived. Remember, the established premise is that Louis discovers the victim.

Moving events around a few minutes isnt too problematic in the main, but creating gaps of 20 minutes or so isnt so great. The statements do speak for themselves and the beliefs of the men and women who gave them, when conflicts arise within the time/action reconstructions based on those times we have to assess who to lean towards. I lean towards the men who were each validated by other statements which matched their own in almost every detail and within minutes of each others. Multiple, corroborating statements. The ones that do not record the events and times as those multiple witnesses did, yet have times and events happening within site of and at around the same times, all belong to people directly linked with the club operations economically. To accept their individual non-validated statements as the accurate ones means that all of the multiple corroborating accounts were wrong by roughly the same amount of time,..20 minutes or so.

Surely Im not the only one who sees that as an unsustainable argument. You dont base your premise on singular events in unsubstantiated stories, you look for those that are in agreement in content and actions, and when they are there, thats where any reconstruction has some hope.

The events as recorded by all the witness accounts cumulatively cannot take place. Not at the times given, and in some cases, not with the activities cited. So people are either off accidentally or intentionally. But I doubt multiple accounts were all wrong when they gave the same content and times.