The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[JeffHamm]

The AF states: "The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one". Which is precisely what many witness accounts suggest. Im sure Herlock thinks the article author is wrong too, but how many corroborative accounts can one person ignore before finally getting a "light bulb" moment?

From the AF:
"
..............
The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one. That evening there was a discussion in the club: “Should a Jew be a Socialist?” The hall was packed and the discussion was very lively. The debate went on until approximately eleven o’clock. At about 12 o’clock all the non-members scattered, and about twenty of the members remained in the club. These same [members] created a choir and sang various songs, for the most part, Russian.
[P. 3, col. 1 cont’d]
At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body.
............................
"

These statements would be entirely consistent, both with each other, and with the Schwartz incident, often thought to have occurred around, 12:45. The first bolded sentence is about the time at which Stride was killed. The bold/underlined sentence is about when Deimshutz arrived at the club (1 o'clock according to the AF). And the bolded/italic statement confirms he was the first to find the body.

While the first of the last two sentences, concerning Deimshutz, would be an objective fact, in the sense it is something directly observable. While, obviously, one could question the accuracy of the time, there is no reason to suggest that Deimshutz's arrival is only being theorized (he was obviously there, at the club, so had to arrive, and did so when others were present, etc), and the time of his arrival he states he obtained from a clock, and there is no direct evidence to refute his statement. Also, there was apparently a clock in the club, and given the excitement of the event, it is not a huge stretch to suggest that someone (maybe someone we no longer have the statement of) had checked the time and was able to confirm Deimshutz's arrival time. I don't know that, but given the number of people who where there, and the fact we know those people were eventually questioned, if anyone in the club, known to us or not, checked the club clock, there is no indication that the time Deimshutz gave for his discovery was considered suspect.

The last statement, that Deimshutz was the first to notice the dead body, is an interpretation of course. I could make up a story where someone else found Stride, or noticed her, but never reported it, or didn't realise she was dead (i.e. think Nichols, even after a brief examination of her Cross and Paul both were not sure if she was dead or drunk). Regardless, we can at least draw the inference that Deimshutz was the first to notice the body and raise the alarm, which I believe is the intent and I'm just risking being called pedantic. Challenge accepted.

The first bolded sentence, also has to be viewed as an interpretation. Unless the author of the AF's story murdered Stride, and took note of the time when they did so, they are reporting on what appears to be the time it was believed she was killed. The time she was killed, however, is not the time she was discovered and the general alarm was raised.

In short, the AF's article, as it reports the events and times, does not correspond with the "cover up" theory, which places the time of her discovery at 12:45 ish. AF clearly reports her discovery to have been at 1 o'clock.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The AF states: "The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one". Which is precisely what many witness accounts suggest. Im sure Herlock thinks the article author is wrong too, but how many corroborative accounts can one person ignore before finally getting a "light bulb" moment?

You might consider that 'about a quarter to one' is Schwartz' time - they are implicitly referring to Schwartz. As was Wess, in the Echo report of Oct 1. So in the few days between that report and the writing of this edition of the Worker's Friend, the position has not changed.

[JeffHamm]

You might consider that 'about a quarter to one' is Schwartz' time - they are implicitly referring to Schwartz. As was Wess, in the Echo report of Oct 1. So in the few days between that report and the writing of this edition of the Worker's Friend, the position has not changed.

That's certainly a reasonable interpretation. It's a news report, not a police report. As such, it will reflect the state of current interpretation along with the facts as publicly known. By this time, the Schwartz story was known, and it would be a reasonable assumption for reporters, and others, to make that Schwartz saw Stride being assaulted and shortly after was killed by B.S.

I think the following, although tangential to your post, is worth thinking about. We know the police did not automatically leap to this as if it was a proven thing. We see in their summary of the investigation reports that they noted the 15 minutes of time between the Schwartz incident and Deimshutz's discovery time, leaving a window of 15 minutes where they had to consider the possibility that Stride was killed by someone other than B.S. For those who view the police as incompetent in their investigations, I think the fact that they keep this possibility open to their thinking when investigating Stride's murder demonstrates the opposite. They were not leaping to conclusions, which leads to tunnel vision, but looking for all lines of possibility that had to be investigated so that some of those lines could, hopefully, be shut down by evidence they were not viable. Sure, the police in 1888 did not have the tools available that a modern police force has, and that would make the challenge of solving such a case all that much more difficult for them, but it doesn't mean they were overlooking things or incompetent. Hmmm, I've digressed from your original post as you aren't making such a point and I'm just thinking with my fingers at the moment, sorry.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

From the AF:
"
..............
The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one. That evening there was a discussion in the club: “Should a Jew be a Socialist?” The hall was packed and the discussion was very lively. The debate went on until approximately eleven o’clock. At about 12 o’clock all the non-members scattered, and about twenty of the members remained in the club. These same [members] created a choir and sang various songs, for the most part, Russian.
[P. 3, col. 1 cont’d]
At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body.
............................
"

These statements would be entirely consistent, both with each other, and with the Schwartz incident, often thought to have occurred around, 12:45. The first bolded sentence is about the time at which Stride was killed. The bold/underlined sentence is about when Deimshutz arrived at the club (1 o'clock according to the AF). And the bolded/italic statement confirms he was the first to find the body.

While the first of the last two sentences, concerning Deimshutz, would be an objective fact, in the sense it is something directly observable. While, obviously, one could question the accuracy of the time, there is no reason to suggest that Deimshutz's arrival is only being theorized (he was obviously there, at the club, so had to arrive, and did so when others were present, etc), and the time of his arrival he states he obtained from a clock, and there is no direct evidence to refute his statement. Also, there was apparently a clock in the club, and given the excitement of the event, it is not a huge stretch to suggest that someone (maybe someone we no longer have the statement of) had checked the time and was able to confirm Deimshutz's arrival time. I don't know that, but given the number of people who where there, and the fact we know those people were eventually questioned, if anyone in the club, known to us or not, checked the club clock, there is no indication that the time Deimshutz gave for his discovery was considered suspect.

The last statement, that Deimshutz was the first to notice the dead body, is an interpretation of course. I could make up a story where someone else found Stride, or noticed her, but never reported it, or didn't realise she was dead (i.e. think Nichols, even after a brief examination of her Cross and Paul both were not sure if she was dead or drunk). Regardless, we can at least draw the inference that Deimshutz was the first to notice the body and raise the alarm, which I believe is the intent and I'm just risking being called pedantic. Challenge accepted.

The first bolded sentence, also has to be viewed as an interpretation. Unless the author of the AF's story murdered Stride, and took note of the time when they did so, they are reporting on what appears to be the time it was believed she was killed. The time she was killed, however, is not the time she was discovered and the general alarm was raised.

In short, the AF's article, as it reports the events and times, does not correspond with the "cover up" theory, which places the time of her discovery at 12:45 ish. AF clearly reports her discovery to have been at 1 o'clock.

- Jeff

See the line highlighted above Jeff, it would seem you give the club members an ability to confirm Diemshitz arrival by virtue of a clock available to them inside the club, then what of the members that came from within the club to see the dead woman at what they recall as 12:40? They also mention Diemshitz as being present at that time. There is also Spooner, whose estimate has him there at around 12:40 as well?

When I pointed out that time in the AF I didnt even consider Israel, I considered the multiple witnesses who said they were in the passage with the dying Stride at 12:45. That would be confirmation of an approximate murder time of 12:40ish, if Louis didnt even arrive until 1 as he said and Israel is not among the valued statements presented at the Inquest, those witnesses might be the ones that established the rough murder time. Coupled with Blackwells estimate of the earliest cut time of approx 12:46, this makes sense to me. If as you indicate they might be using Israel and some unidentified source as validation of Louis's arrival, then the murder time would not be at the time of Israels sighting, it would be sometime after that when she is in the passageway.

I think the multiple witnesses and Blackwell establish the rough cut time, and then discredit the story of Israel and the claimed arrival time of Louis.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That's certainly a reasonable interpretation. It's a news report, not a police report. As such, it will reflect the state of current interpretation along with the facts as publicly known. By this time, the Schwartz story was known, and it would be a reasonable assumption for reporters, and others, to make that Schwartz saw Stride being assaulted and shortly after was killed by B.S.

Well, the Schwartz story was known of as per the Star account. How much of the police account was known to reporters is up for debate (and I suspect the Star were aware of at least some of the details).

Arbeter Fraint's reference to a 12:45 murder time, seems to be there to reinforce Wess's claim that the murderer, as supposed by the undefined 'public', fled the scene at this time. What did the police make of this story? How did they suppose Wess came to know this stuff? Why was the informant not at the inquest? Perhaps the police thought Wess's comments supported Schwartz' account, but then there is the issue of the prisoner, Star Oct 1 & 2, to consider.

If it is supposed that it was Schwartz's job to 'clear up' some misunderstanding at the gates, I cannot imagine Schwartz being too happy with Wess's comments to the press. Which leads me to suppose there is some big piece of the puzzle we are missing.

I think the following, although tangential to your post, is worth thinking about. We know the police did not automatically leap to this as if it was a proven thing. We see in their summary of the investigation reports that they noted the 15 minutes of time between the Schwartz incident and Deimshutz's discovery time, leaving a window of 15 minutes where they had to consider the possibility that Stride was killed by someone other than B.S. For those who view the police as incompetent in their investigations, I think the fact that they keep this possibility open to their thinking when investigating Stride's murder demonstrates the opposite. They were not leaping to conclusions, which leads to tunnel vision, but looking for all lines of possibility that had to be investigated so that some of those lines could, hopefully, be shut down by evidence they were not viable. Sure, the police in 1888 did not have the tools available that a modern police force has, and that would make the challenge of solving such a case all that much more difficult for them, but it doesn't mean they were overlooking things or incompetent. Hmmm, I've digressed from your original post as you aren't making such a point and I'm just thinking with my fingers at the moment, sorry.

Do you really think there was this 15 minute gap? What happens in this period?

[JeffHamm]

See the line highlighted above Jeff, it would seem you give the club members an ability to confirm Diemshitz arrival by virtue of a clock available to them inside the club, then what of the members that came from within the club to see the dead woman at what they recall as 12:40? They also mention Diemshitz as being present at that time. There is also Spooner, whose estimate has him there at around 12:40 as well?

When I pointed out that time in the AF I didnt even consider Israel, I considered the multiple witnesses who said they were in the passage with the dying Stride at 12:45. That would be confirmation of an approximate murder time of 12:40ish, if Louis didnt even arrive until 1 as he said and Israel is not among the valued statements presented at the Inquest, those witnesses might be the ones that established the rough murder time. Coupled with Blackwells estimate of the earliest cut time of approx 12:46, this makes sense to me. If as you indicate they might be using Israel and some unidentified source as validation of Louis's arrival, then the murder time would not be at the time of Israels sighting, it would be sometime after that when she is in the passageway.

I think the multiple witnesses and Blackwell establish the rough cut time, and then discredit the story of Israel and the claimed arrival time of Louis.

Hi Michael,

I only suggested the possibility that Diemshutz's arrival time may have been confirmed by someone because you yourself have argued that club members may have consulted the club clock. Given neither of us know if this occurred, which I believe I made clear in my original post, I'm simply pointing out that such lines of speculation also allow for the suggestion that Deimshutz's time was indeed verified by that same clock. I don't know if it was, and we certainly have nothing recorded that has come to us indicating that, however, the same can be said of the suggestion that the club clock may have been used to verify other times as well. As such, we're faced with multiple offsetting stories, neither of which are tied to anything recorded.

Blackwell's estimate of the ToD, like any other estimate of ToD (even today), has to be viewed with extreme caution and will be associated with a very large margin of error. However, even if we take his estimate as being accurate, the the murder and the discovery of the murder, are two separate events and there is no necessary connection (beyond, of course, the 2nd cannot occur before the first) between estimates for the time of the first and statements concerning the time of the second.

We're dealing with a large number of witness statements, made in various contexts, many coming from newspaper articles. The willingness to embellish, or make definite sounding statements of information they are truly uncertain of, will generally be greater when speaking to a reporter compared to when making statements to the police, or under oath at an inquest. We see this in many cases, where a person talking to a reporter appears to present far more detailed information than their subsequent inquest testimony. This in part reflects the change in the context in which they are speaking impacts upon what they are willing to "commit to" (for lack of a better word), but also the change in the motivation of the person they are speaking with. A reporter's job is to extract enough statements to write a story, while the police's job (and the function of an inquest) is to extract reliable information. One can always debate the success to which the latter succeed, but regardless, the nature of the questions posed to the witness will be different. A reporter will encourage the person to expand their presentation, while the police/inquest will emphasize certainty of the information (and probe it for accuracy and consistency). We see this in the reports concerning the interview with Schwartz, for example. The police questioned him on how certain he was that Lipski was shouted at pipeman, and in the end, Schwartz admitted he could not be sure. In the newspapers, there is no hint that such a question was even raised and so Schwartz's statement in the papers would appear to reflect a greater level of certainty on Schwartz's part than we know he had. Or, his certainty can at least be shown to have been shakable simply by suggesting to him avenues of interpretation he may not have considered.

With that in mind, it is hardly surprising that if one takes all of the witness statements together, conflicts in the details will arise, some sources of information will correspond, some will conflict, and there will sometimes be two alternatives both with some converging evidence. It's messy, and unsatisfying, but in the end one has to evaluate which statements are more likely to be true than others. This is generally done by examining which statements create the most conflict, meaning, they would require the overturning (or coding as errors) the most number of other statements. Also, it weighs against something if, in order to make it "fit", one has to postulate a large number of otherwise unevidenced statements.

Spooner estimates his time of arrival as being a few minutes before the arrival of the police, which makes his estimate for arrival around 1 o'clock. That again means we have two conflicting arrival times which cannot both be true simultaneously, and therefore at least one of them is incorrect. Lamb's arrival was shortly followed by sending for, and the arrival of, the Doctor, who reports his arrival at the scene as being 1:16 by his watch, which he checked to ensure he knew the time. Suggesting the time between Lamb's arrival and the doctor's arrival was in the vicinity of 36 minutes is far less acceptable to reason than an interval closer to 10 or 12. That would place Spooner's arrival at the scene well after 12:40, and somewhat after 1o'clock, corresponding to the time given by Deimshutz for the discovery of the body. Basically, once all of the evidence gets viewed together, Spooner's 12:40 time is the piece that does not fit with the rest, and that points to it being in error.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Jeff,

One of the best witnesses for timings is Issac Kozebrodski. The clock that we logically presume was available for all to view would have been checked by him when he returned to the club at 12:30, or half past. He says he was inside about 10 minutes, which might be an indication he checked quickly on that time when he was summoned outside. The storyline that has been accepted means that Issac was off on his time by 30 minutes.

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.

There is no problem reconciling Lamb with Johnson or Blackwell, those times are fine as far as I can see. But the key here is Lamb came to the gates before 1am, which means Eagle and Issac Kozebrodksi left minutes earlier.

For the most part Im quoting from the Inquest transcripts. Reports summarizing those statements are often less than verbatim quoting. But in the Inquest, Spooner and Lamb give those approx times.

The perspective Im suggesting is mostly from an economical viewpoint, not some kind of cover up of guilt. For one thing I think its quite possible Strides killer might have been a hired security person who was arranged before the change in the nights speaker. Or someone just there that night for the meeting. I dont assume that a member of the club or any of these key witnesses were the culprit, I do assume that her killer came from that property.

Louis Diemshitz and Morris Eagle and Mrs D were all on the payroll there, and Lave presumably lived in one of the cottages in the passageway. They wouldnt want any trouble come their way, and a murdered woman was certainly that. Now that Ive said that look at those statements...hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil. Louis decided that those key players would be the 3 monkees that neither see, or hear, or speak to anyone during that critical time around 12:45. Israel Schwartz is convinced later by his friend Woolf Wess to give a translated statement saying he saw Stride alive at that time and very likely with the man who kills her. Outside the gates.

One additional point, William Morris the originally scheduled speaker for the night was a polarizing figure in the Socialist movement and his speaking engagement brought out threats of disruption and/or violence at the club, its why Eagle, who spoke there often, dusted off his Why Jews should be Socialists speech and stepped in. Does that mean that the people who made the threat didnt attend anyway? The ones who threatened violence on the same night it turns out that a woman is murdered on the property.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff,

One of the best witnesses for timings is Issac Kozebrodski. The clock that we logically presume was available for all to view would have been checked by him when he returned to the club at 12:30, or half past. He says he was inside about 10 minutes, which might be an indication he checked quickly on that time when he was summoned outside. The storyline that has been accepted means that Issac was off on his time by 30 minutes.

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.

There is no problem reconciling Lamb with Johnson or Blackwell, those times are fine as far as I can see. But the key here is Lamb came to the gates before 1am, which means Eagle and Issac Kozebrodksi left minutes earlier.

For the most part Im quoting from the Inquest transcripts. Reports summarizing those statements are often less than verbatim quoting. But in the Inquest, Spooner and Lamb give those approx times.

The perspective Im suggesting is mostly from an economical viewpoint, not some kind of cover up of guilt. For one thing I think its quite possible Strides killer might have been a hired security person who was arranged before the change in the nights speaker. Or someone just there that night for the meeting. I dont assume that a member of the club or any of these key witnesses were the culprit, I do assume that her killer came from that property.

Louis Diemshitz and Morris eagle and Mrs D were all on the payroll there, and Lave presumably lived in one of the cottages in the passageway. They wouldnt want any trouble come their way, and a murdered woman was certainly that. So Louis decided that those key players would be the 3 monkees that neither see, or hear, or speak to anyone during that critical time around 12:45. Israel Schwartz is convinced by his friend Woolf Wess to give a translated statement saying he saw Stride alive at that time and very likely with the man who kills her. Outside the gates.

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.

Also, to my knowledge, it is nowhere recorded that Kozebrodski actually looked at the club clock any more than it is recorded that someone may have looked at the club clock and verified Deimshutz's arrival at 1 o'clock. They are simply possibilities that do not defy the known laws of physics, but despite that, it doesn't mean they happened.

What we do have as recorded is Deimshutz says he arrived at 1o'clock, and he states he based that upon viewing a clock. We have other people, such as Lamb, who's estimates of the time need to be viewed as more accurate than the average persons, who state a time of arrival shortly before one o'clock, which would obviously conflict with Deimshutz, unless of course the two of them are basing their times on different clocks. We may simply be dealing with the fact that clocks of the day were not set by satellite, and so tended to read different, though similar times. Add to that the doctor sets his time by his watch, and we are up to as many as 3 clocks, 4 if we add in the possibility that someone used the club clock. All of the different clocks could each be reading a different time, resulting in different people giving different times creating apparent conflicts when, in fact, it's simply the result of living in a land of multiple clocks.

Personally, I'm not really all that fussed about the exact times per se, but the order of the events, and the relative time between them, is probably far more informative than the position the hands were at any given time. A discovery time of around 1o'clock is fine, if one wants to say that should be 1:57 or whatever, ok, but if you want to say 1:02 that's fine with me too. However, once we start pushing things even earlier, we still have to start worrying about the Dr's watch, which we know read 1:16. Even accounting for some differences between the readings of the clocks, pushing Spooner to 1:40, results in Lamb arriving around 1:44, and we're now looking at clocks differing by about 15 minutes. That seems a bit extreme to me. Not impossible, of course, but improbable. But if the two clocks are out by 15 minutes, whose is wrong, and what exactly do we mean by "1 o'clock" anymore? 1 o'clock by whose reckoning? It becomes an arbitrary statement if none of the clocks are reading similar times.

The sequence of events, though, appear to start with Deimshutz's arrival and end when the doctor arrived. Given the events that are described, and the relatively short distance between the scene and the doctor's residence, a difference in time between those two events of roughly 16 minutes is within reason. As such, I have no reason to discount Deimshutz finding the body at roughly 1o'clock by the Dr's watch. Whatever clock Lamb was basing his time upon appears to be out of sync with the doctor's watch, but that is probably not surprising.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

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.

Also, to my knowledge, it is nowhere recorded that Kozebrodski actually looked at the club clock any more than it is recorded that someone may have looked at the club clock and verified Deimshutz's arrival at 1 o'clock. They are simply possibilities that do not defy the known laws of physics, but despite that, it doesn't mean they happened.

What we do have as recorded is Deimshutz says he arrived at 1o'clock, and he states he based that upon viewing a clock. We have other people, such as Lamb, who's estimates of the time need to be viewed as more accurate than the average persons, who state a time of arrival shortly before one o'clock, which would obviously conflict with Deimshutz, unless of course the two of them are basing their times on different clocks. We may simply be dealing with the fact that clocks of the day were not set by satellite, and so tended to read different, though similar times. Add to that the doctor sets his time by his watch, and we are up to as many as 3 clocks, 4 if we add in the possibility that someone used the club clock. All of the different clocks could each be reading a different time, resulting in different people giving different times creating apparent conflicts when, in fact, it's simply the result of living in a land of multiple clocks.

Personally, I'm not really all that fussed about the exact times per se, but the order of the events, and the relative time between them, is probably far more informative than the position the hands were at any given time. A discovery time of around 1o'clock is fine, if one wants to say that should be 1:57 or whatever, ok, but if you want to say 1:02 that's fine with me too. However, once we start pushing things even earlier, we still have to start worrying about the Dr's watch, which we know read 1:16. Even accounting for some differences between the readings of the clocks, pushing Spooner to 1:40, results in Lamb arriving around 1:44, and we're now looking at clocks differing by about 15 minutes. That seems a bit extreme to me. Not impossible, of course, but improbable. But if the two clocks are out by 15 minutes, whose is wrong, and what exactly do we mean by "1 o'clock" anymore? 1 o'clock by whose reckoning? It becomes an arbitrary statement if none of the clocks are reading similar times.

The sequence of events, though, appear to start with Deimshutz's arrival and end when the doctor arrived. Given the events that are described, and the relatively short distance between the scene and the doctor's residence, a difference in time between those two events of roughly 16 minutes is within reason. As such, I have no reason to discount Deimshutz finding the body at roughly 1o'clock by the Dr's watch. Whatever clock Lamb was basing his time upon appears to be out of sync with the doctor's watch, but that is probably not surprising.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I agree absolutely with the principles of your post and would like to comment on a couple of your points. You say "Lamb, who's estimates of the time need to be viewed as more accurate than the average persons". IMO this principle needs to be central to any assessment, and this would also apply to Smith's times, which agree with Lamb. If we go with Lamb's arrival as being shortly before 1, this means the PC that was sent to the doctor would be there a little after one. This fits Anderson's testimony:- Mr. Edward Johnson: I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kaye and Blackwell. On Sunday morning last, at a few minutes past one o'clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H. However, what is immmediately noticed is that Blackwell's pocket watch is, at that stage, indicating 1:10. Mr. Frederick William Blackwell deposed: I reside at No. 100, Commercial-road, and am a physician and surgeon. On Sunday morning last, at ten minutes past one o'clock, I was called to Berner-street by a policeman. So it appear that Blackwell's pocket watch may have been about 7 minutes fast on police time, and on his house clock as well. The other trap is that both Lamb and Diemshitz thought that Anderson was Blackwell. Lamb said he closed the gates when the first doctor was conducting his examination, Anderson said he was conducting his examination when the gates were closed, Blackwell said the gates were closed when he arrived. Diemshitz said the first doctor opened Stride's dress, Anderson said he opened Stride's dress and Blackwell said Stride's dress was open when he arrived. So when Lamb and Diemshitz are testifying as to how long before the doctor arrived did the police arrive, the time interval has to be applied to Anderson's time of 1:12, not Blackwell's time of 1:16.

It is correct that nowhere is it recorded that Kozebrodski actually looked at the club clock, but Eagle is used to support Diemshitz's arrival at one o'clock, and he is also recorded as specifically stating that he didn't look at the club clock. From The Times 2 Oct:- Eagle:- When I first saw the body of deceased, I should say it was about 1 o'clock, although I did not look at the clock.

With regard to your comment "we're now looking at clocks differing by about 15 minutes. That seems a bit extreme to me." Chris McKay, in his treatise on clock of that era, indicated that if working men's clocks were 10 minutes out that could be considered normal. One clock 7 minutes fast compared to another clock 8 minutes slow gives you your 15 minutes.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Jeff,

I agree absolutely with the principles of your post and would like to comment on a couple of your points. You say "Lamb, who's estimates of the time need to be viewed as more accurate than the average persons". IMO this principle needs to be central to any assessment, and this would also apply to Smith's times, which agree with Lamb. If we go with Lamb's arrival as being shortly before 1, this means the PC that was sent to the doctor would be there a little after one. This fits Anderson's testimony:- Mr. Edward Johnson: I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kaye and Blackwell. On Sunday morning last, at a few minutes past one o'clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H. However, what is immmediately noticed is that Blackwell's pocket watch is, at that stage, indicating 1:10. Mr. Frederick William Blackwell deposed: I reside at No. 100, Commercial-road, and am a physician and surgeon. On Sunday morning last, at ten minutes past one o'clock, I was called to Berner-street by a policeman. So it appear that Blackwell's pocket watch may have been about 7 minutes fast on police time, and on his house clock as well. The other trap is that both Lamb and Diemshitz thought that Anderson was Blackwell. Lamb said he closed the gates when the first doctor was conducting his examination, Anderson said he was conducting his examination when the gates were closed, Blackwell said the gates were closed when he arrived. Diemshitz said the first doctor opened Stride's dress, Anderson said he opened Stride's dress and Blackwell said Stride's dress was open when he arrived. So when Lamb and Diemshitz are testifying as to how long before the doctor arrived did the police arrive, the time interval has to be applied to Anderson's time of 1:12, not Blackwell's time of 1:16.

It is correct that nowhere is it recorded that Kozebrodski actually looked at the club clock, but Eagle is used to support Diemshitz's arrival at one o'clock, and he is also recorded as specifically stating that he didn't look at the club clock. From The Times 2 Oct:- Eagle:- When I first saw the body of deceased, I should say it was about 1 o'clock, although I did not look at the clock.

With regard to your comment "we're now looking at clocks differing by about 15 minutes. That seems a bit extreme to me." Chris McKay, in his treatise on clock of that era, indicated that if working men's clocks were 10 minutes out that could be considered normal. One clock 7 minutes fast compared to another clock 8 minutes slow gives you your 15 minutes.

Cheers, George

Do you have a theory that Anderson was at the scene George? If you mention Gull, I’m off

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I agree absolutely with the principles of your post and would like to comment on a couple of your points. You say "Lamb, who's estimates of the time need to be viewed as more accurate than the average persons". IMO this principle needs to be central to any assessment, and this would also apply to Smith's times, which agree with Lamb. If we go with Lamb's arrival as being shortly before 1, this means the PC that was sent to the doctor would be there a little after one. This fits Anderson's testimony:- Mr. Edward Johnson: I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kaye and Blackwell. On Sunday morning last, at a few minutes past one o'clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H. However, what is immmediately noticed is that Blackwell's pocket watch is, at that stage, indicating 1:10. Mr. Frederick William Blackwell deposed: I reside at No. 100, Commercial-road, and am a physician and surgeon. On Sunday morning last, at ten minutes past one o'clock, I was called to Berner-street by a policeman. So it appear that Blackwell's pocket watch may have been about 7 minutes fast on police time, and on his house clock as well. The other trap is that both Lamb and Diemshitz thought that Anderson was Blackwell. Lamb said he closed the gates when the first doctor was conducting his examination, Anderson said he was conducting his examination when the gates were closed, Blackwell said the gates were closed when he arrived. Diemshitz said the first doctor opened Stride's dress, Anderson said he opened Stride's dress and Blackwell said Stride's dress was open when he arrived. So when Lamb and Diemshitz are testifying as to how long before the doctor arrived did the police arrive, the time interval has to be applied to Anderson's time of 1:12, not Blackwell's time of 1:16.

It is correct that nowhere is it recorded that Kozebrodski actually looked at the club clock, but Eagle is used to support Diemshitz's arrival at one o'clock, and he is also recorded as specifically stating that he didn't look at the club clock. From The Times 2 Oct:- Eagle:- When I first saw the body of deceased, I should say it was about 1 o'clock, although I did not look at the clock.

With regard to your comment "we're now looking at clocks differing by about 15 minutes. That seems a bit extreme to me." Chris McKay, in his treatise on clock of that era, indicated that if working men's clocks were 10 minutes out that could be considered normal. One clock 7 minutes fast compared to another clock 8 minutes slow gives you your 15 minutes.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Just a short reply as I'm about to disappear down the rabbit hole that is exam marking. Finger crossed I come out happier than when I go in.

Anyway, yes, while I didn't mention Smith, I think his stated times also will be associated with a smaller error of estimate than others, and also a greater awareness of that variability associated with their time estimates. Note, when he reports the time at which he last past through Berners Street on his beat he gives a 5 minute window not an exact time (I think he gives 12:30-12:35). From a "research" point of view, if we had to choose a singular time to work from, then that would get converted to 12:32:30 and we would work from there. If that time produced an error, but one that could be accounted for by a small shift towards 12:30 or 12:35, then whatever it was we were proposing would be considered well supported, and so on. Awhile back we were looking at Smith's Beat, and I've yet to find the time to work with that, unfortunately, but to the extent we can be sure we have his patrol route correct, and knowing that he was required to patrol at a speed of 2.5 mph, we can use that information to roughly calibrate his temporal accuracy. (Does the route and his speed of patrol, put him where he says he was at the times he said he was there, etc). Because we're working with estimates, of course, we don't expect things to correspond exactly, but they also should not be widely discrepant either. I do want to get around to doing this, but it takes time that I currently do not have to devote to doing it properly. But I digress.

With the notion that PC Smith's time is probably more reliable than the average person's (meaning, non-clock viewing citizens), I think we end up having to conclude that Fanny Mortimer's times, as she states them, are not particularly reliable. She mentions hearing a PC pass by his footsteps, but places that event around 12:45. If the footsteps were indeed PC Smith passing, then given PC Smith is given the preference for time, FM has misjudged or misremembered perhaps, what time that occurred. Also, PC Smith has reasons to be aware of the time even if nothing is happening (it's part of his job), while FM does not, for her, it was just another day until she becomes aware of the murder. At that point, she would have to reconstruct the "where and when", while PC Smith would be, to some extent, constantly updating his "where and when" as he patrolled (he needs to be sure he's not falling behind "schedule" or going too fast as he patrols). Because FM would be reconstructing her where and when after the fact, it would not be surprising if her estimates of the time, and even the durations, could be off substantially. I don't mean she's lying, that carries with it a sense of deliberately being wrong, but her statements are far more likely to be mistaken.

And thanks for the reference to 1:10 for the arrival of the PC at the Doctor's residence. I'm not sure if I've just forgotten about that, or if I was unaware of it? Either way, that will be very useful information. Partly because it gives us an idea of how long it might take a Doctor to leave once alerted (albeit that too will vary widely, but at least we have something to work with). It also gives us a 2nd event tied to the same clock, and that is very valuable information.

In general, though, given the excitement of the event, combined with the types of concerns I've mentioned about FM (which would apply to all of the "citizen witnesses" by the way, not just FM), anchoring the analysis to those likely to be providing more accurate information is, in my view, the way to go. Given there is debate about whether or not Diemshutz did or did not look at a clock, whether or not he could have accurately read the time, and so forth, I believe it may be possible work with the other "reliable" times given to see if a 1o'clock arrival time for Diemshutz is plausible (give or take a few minutes of course, because we have to account for clock's being out of sync). If Diemshutz's stated time does not produce unacceptable conflict, then that would suggest that, despite the possibility he did not look at a clock, and despite the possibility he could not read it, the evidence from independent sources would lead us to the conclusion that it appears that he did, and could. And that would give us another time considered reliable to anchor to.

I'm not overly concerned if doing so leads to conflict with statements from people like FM, or Spooner, etc, for the reasons mentioned above. For them, we may have to content ourselves with establishing the order of events, and trying to work out roughly when things happened, and not be concerned if we end up having to place those events at times, or after durations, quite different from the one's they themselves stated. That doesn't sit well with some people, and generally doesn't sit well with me either as I do not like to discard evidence without justification. However, not all statements are reliable, and some will be more reliable than others. We have a lot of statements, as so, we will have a lot of error too. I want to make it clear, that just because we might conclude a witness has the time or duration mistaken, that does not mean everything they said should be discarded. We would still want to consider the order in which they place events.

Anyway, I do hope to eventually get around to this. But Alice calls.

- Jeff

p.s. So much for short.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Jeff,

I agree absolutely with the principles of your post and would like to comment on a couple of your points. You say "Lamb, who's estimates of the time need to be viewed as more accurate than the average persons". IMO this principle needs to be central to any assessment, and this would also apply to Smith's times, which agree with Lamb. If we go with Lamb's arrival as being shortly before 1, this means the PC that was sent to the doctor would be there a little after one. This fits Anderson's testimony:- Mr. Edward Johnson: I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kaye and Blackwell. On Sunday morning last, at a few minutes past one o'clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H. However, what is immmediately noticed is that Blackwell's pocket watch is, at that stage, indicating 1:10. Mr. Frederick William Blackwell deposed: I reside at No. 100, Commercial-road, and am a physician and surgeon. On Sunday morning last, at ten minutes past one o'clock, I was called to Berner-street by a policeman. So it appear that Blackwell's pocket watch may have been about 7 minutes fast on police time, and on his house clock as well.

When Ayliffe reached the surgery, Blackwell was asleep. Let's say that from the point the PC knocks, to the time Blackwell looks at his watch, one minute elapses. Now supposing we translate "a few minutes past one o'clock" to 1:03. So at that moment, the watch presumably reads 1:09. Yet why would Blackwell's watch be out of sync with the surgery clock? Why should we assume the surgery clock is showing GMT? Presumably because this lines up with Lamb's testimony. Yet if it is Lamb's timings we are trying to prove correct, then a circular argument is being entered into. Taking things a step further; when Blackwell read the time - 1:10 - was he going by his watch or the clock, or even a different clock to the one Johnston had viewed, downstairs?

[GBinOz]

When Ayliffe reached the surgery, Blackwell was asleep. Let's say that from the point the PC knocks, to the time Blackwell looks at his watch, one minute elapses. Now supposing we translate "a few minutes past one o'clock" to 1:03. So at that moment, the watch presumably reads 1:09. Yet why would Blackwell's watch be out of sync with the surgery clock? Why should we assume the surgery clock is showing GMT? Presumably because this lines up with Lamb's testimony. Yet if it is Lamb's timings we are trying to prove correct, then a circular argument is being entered into. Taking things a step further; when Blackwell read the time - 1:10 - was he going by his watch or the clock, or even a different clock to the one Johnston had viewed, downstairs?

Hi Andrew,

If we adopt "a few minutes past one o'clock" as 1:03, a minute or so to wake Blackwell, collect his medical bag and walk to the yard, 3-4 minutes, which is the time interval Johnson said he arrived before Blackwell, so Johnson arrives at the yard at about 1:07 according to Lamb's time and the Surgery clock. But according to Blackwell's pocket watch, Johnson arrived at about 1:12, so would appear, on these interval estimates, to be running fast. However, Lamb stated that the doctor (Johnson) arrived 10-12 minutes after him and Diemshitz said that the doctor (Johnson) arrived 10 minutes after Lamb.

Cheers, George.

[GBinOz]

Do you have a theory that Anderson was at the scene George? If you mention Gull, I’m off

Hi Herlock,

OK, the penny has just dropped - it took awhile. I was using Anderson when I meant Johnson (who is this Anderson person anyway?). Old age is creeping up on me. Thank you for pointing out my error in so gracious a manner.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

OK, the penny has just dropped - it took awhile. I was using Anderson when I meant Johnson (who is this Anderson person anyway?). Old age is creeping up on me. Thank you for pointing out my error in so gracious a manner.

Cheers, George

No problem George We’ve all done it.