Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[Fiver]

Issac K came from inside the club which would have a very visible clock, so did Heschberg.

Why are you assuming that the club had any clock, let alone a "very visible" one? Neither Kozebrodsky nor anyone else mentioned its existence, let alone that they based their time estimates on it.

And you're flat out wrong about Hershberg. He lived nearby and was clearly not a member of the club.

"Abraham Heshburg, a young fellow, living at 28, Berner-street, said: "Yes, I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter. In the gateway two or three people had collected, and when I got there I saw a short, dark young woman lying on the ground with a gash between four and five inches long in her throat. I should say she was from 25 to 28 years of age. Her head was towards the north wall, against which she was lying. She had a black dress on, with a bunch of flowers pinned on the breast. In her hand there was a small piece of paper containing five or six cachous. The body was found by a man whose name I do not know - a man who goes out with a pony and barrow, and lives up the archway, where he was going, I believe, to put up his barrow on coming home from market. He thought it was his wife at first, but when be found her safe at home he got a candle and found this woman. He never touched it till the doctors had been sent for. The little gate is always open, or, at all events, always unfastened. There are some stables up there - Messrs. Duncan, Woollatt, and Co.'s, I believe and there is a place to which a lot of girls take home sacks which they have engaged in making. None of them would be there, though, after about one on Saturday afternoon. None of us recognised the woman, and I do not think she belonged to this neighbourhood. She was dressed very respectably. There seemed to be no wounds on the body." - 1 October 1888 Evening News

[Herlock Sholmes]

My last post of the night will be a repeat posting. Michael keeps accusing me of changing witnesses times. So, here it is again:

Letchford 12.30 - I haven’t changed this.
Smith 12.30-12.35 - I haven’t changed this.
Fanny an unknown period of time between 12.30 and 1.00 possibly of 10 minutes duration - I haven’t changed this.
Lave general estimate 12.30-12.40ish - I haven’t changed this.
Eagle return 12.40ish - I haven’t changed this.
Goldtein passes at unstated time probably between 12.45 and 12.55 - I haven’t changed this.
Louis returns at 1.00 - I haven’t changed this.
Brown hears men around 1.00 - I haven’t changed this.
Fanny hears horse and cart around 1.00 - I haven’t changed this.
Lamb saw Eagle around 1.00 (which I believe was around 1.05) - I haven’t changed this.
Eagle arrives 10 mins before Blackwell 1.06 - I haven’t changed this.
Johnson arrives at 1.10 - I haven’t changed this.
Blackwell arrives at 1.16 - I haven’t changed this.
Spooner arrives with Louis approx 5 mins before Lamb - I haven’t changed this.

Kozebrodsky’s 12.40, Heschberg’s 12.45 and Spooner’s laughable 12.35 - I believe to have been errors of estimation.

So Michael, are there witnesses in this case that I haven’t heard of? I’ve listed all the witnesses above and accepted the stated times. I haven’t changed one. Any chance of explaining your accusation instead of just repeating the same old angry mantra interspersed with errors?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ive been following this but thought it worth jumping in one last time. Once again by moving the stated time by Lamb, (above in bold), you feel all is well with Louis. Since you have no idea whether Lamb was actually earlier or later than he suggested...(which was "just before" or "around 1").... because as you say no timepieces here were synchronized,... then why would you feel you have any right to move Lambs given time in any direction? Who the f*** do you think you are that we would just re-write the historical data because you "make allowances" to historically stated times.

Is it really necessary to be so angry every time that you post Michael? I wish that sense could be made of the above but it’s difficult to see how can justify what you keep writing?

It’s a fact that we have Lamb saying “around 1.00,”in all but one newspaper. In that one he says “just before 1.00”

It’s a fact that both of those times are estimations. Neither ‘around 1.00’ or ‘just before 1.00’ are times. They are approximations of times.

Therefore it’s a fact that if these aren’t exact times then it’s logically impossible to say that I’m moving them. And yet you do.

It’s a fact that when you have an approximation/estimation then you have no choice but to allow for a plus or minus margin for error.

So it’s a fact that all that I’ve done is exactly the above.

So the fact that you object shows that when you’ve said in the past that you have no issue with a margin for error what you really meant was that you have no issue as long as it’s in favour of your argument. And as you saw from my reply to George I absolutely concede that margins for error have to go both ways.

Who are you to state...."the 3 that were clearly estimating incorrectly"? Do you have facts to back that up, or just the anarchist stewards stated arrival time?

By constantly repeating ‘anarchists’ as a form of propaganda you are simply employing a very obvious tactic. It allows you to sideline witnesses that are unfriendly to your theory (which is all of them except for Kozebrodsky and Heschberg)

Your arrogance matches your disinformation...As to ME "using estimates", perhaps you should re-read the Inquest data. And stop suggesting I am moving the clock arbitrarily, or using the published statements improperly. I know in this day and age lying and misrepresentations are far more prevalent, it seems everyone can claim just about anything these days. It would be so interestring to be with you in the same room and see if you slander me the same way. But this is safe, isnt it? You can be a dick and no-one can teach you a lesson. Im old fashioned that way, I dont think any venue exempts you from stating the truth or using facts. So I suggest you stop lying about my posts and misrepresenting what I post. If you dont understand something, say so. Dont lie about what I say or why I say it...you dont know me any better than you know the actual facts here.

More personal insults. I’ve lost count of how many but I commend it to everyone’s attention that not one has come from me.

I produced a list of all of the witnesses showing that I don’t dispute any of them. I haven’t changed one. The only ones that I disagree with are your three.

Louis said "precisely at 1", Lamb said "just before or around 1", Issac K said at "about 20 minutes to 1", Heschberg said "It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think", Spooner said "between half past 12 and 1am", and Fanny said, "I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock on Sunday morning, and did not notice anything unusual" and "If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him." The Arbeter Fraint published late in Oct stated the discovery time was "about quarter to 1".

I’ll just pick out one untruth. Spooner didn’t say ‘between half past 12 and 1am’ as you well know. He said that he got to the yard at 12.35 which would have the body found at around 12.30. And this is one of the 3 witnesses that you rely on. Embarrassing.

ALL of them suggest an earlier discovery time than Louis, and most suggest it was between 20 and 15 minutes before 1. Just like I have said, more times than there are stars in the sky it feels like. I dont mind correcting newcomers when they post provably false data...I resent having to do it with members who have been hanging around here annoying others for years.

At least now the fraudulent claim guy is without clothes. There are no lies or misrepresentations that you will be able to get away with, because people have this post to check.

What Mike really said and what Herlock lies about....POST # 916. Yes, lies about what I say or said make me angry.

Ditch the anger the personal insults and try reading the evidence in an unbiased way Michael. You might make fewer mistakes.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello George,

The reason that I made the specific point was in response to Michael’s claim that I was suggesting that Eagle found Lamb before the body was discovered and his basis for this claim is that Louis said 1.00 and that Lamb said ‘around 1.00’ or ‘just before 1.00’. So Michael tries to explain that there was little or no gap between Louis and Lamb’s time which isn’t true. This is why I said that no one would disagree with me when I stated this possibility. I assumed that everyone would accept that Lamb’s time could easily have been 1.05 or that Lamb’s clock would have said 12.55 when Louis’ said 1.00 so that there could easily have been a gap of 5 minutes or so between the two.

On your point about the police being ‘legally obliged’ to know the time I’d ask to what extent though? If they had been expected to provide exact times surely they’d have been provided with watches? If, as an example, a police officer had a 30 minute long beat and he only passed a clock once then he couldn’t have been expected to have known the time 20 minutes after seeing it with any great accuracy. I think that this is illustrated by Smith who gives an estimate of 12.30-12.35. So Lamb’s ‘around 1.00’ could certainly have been around 1.05 imo.

I certainly agree with you though George that a police officer would be more likely to estimate the time accurately at any particular point than a civilian would.

The problem in the ongoing argument between myself and Michael is that Michael is using estimates to disprove something. One moment he’s saying that he accepts that clocks can be poorly synchronised and the next minute he’s accusing me of ‘changing’ times when I actually make an allowance for synchronisation issue. Essentially all that has to be show is that the events stated could have occurred and this has been shown to be the case with the timelines (including your own of course) But what Michael has to do is to -rove that they couldn’t possibly have occurred and he can’t do that with doing three things, 1) he doesn’t accept that Lamb’s ‘around 1.00’ could have meant 1.05, 2) he tries to fit the majority of witness in with the 3 that were clearly estimating incorrectly, and 3) he tries to stretch out the time Louis spent at the yard/club so as to make the timeline appearimpossible.

Ive been following this but thought it worth jumping in one last time. Once again by moving the stated time by Lamb, (above in bold), you feel all is well with Louis. Since you have no idea whether Lamb was actually earlier or later than he suggested...(which was "just before" or "around 1").... because as you say no timepieces here were synchronized,... then why would you feel you have any right to move Lambs given time in any direction? Who the f*** do you think you are that we would just re-write the historical data because you "make allowances" to historically stated times. Who are you to state...."the 3 that were clearly estimating incorrectly"? Do you have facts to back that up, or just the anarchist stewards stated arrival time?

Your arrogance matches your disinformation...As to ME "using estimates", perhaps you should re-read the Inquest data. And stop suggesting I am moving the clock arbitrarily, or using the published statements improperly. I know in this day and age lying and misrepresentations are far more prevalent, it seems everyone can claim just about anything these days. It would be so interestring to be with you in the same room and see if you slander me the same way. But this is safe, isnt it? You can be a dick and no-one can teach you a lesson. Im old fashioned that way, I dont think any venue exempts you from stating the truth or using facts. So I suggest you stop lying about my posts and misrepresenting what I post. If you dont understand something, say so. Dont lie about what I say or why I say it...you dont know me any better than you know the actual facts here.

Louis said "precisely at 1", Lamb said "just before or around 1", Issac K said at "about 20 minutes to 1", Heschberg said "It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think", Spooner said "between half past 12 and 1am", and Fanny said, "I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock on Sunday morning, and did not notice anything unusual" and "If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him." The Arbeter Fraint published late in Oct stated the discovery time was "about quarter to 1".

ALL of them suggest an earlier discovery time than Louis, and most suggest it was between 20 and 15 minutes before 1. Just like I have said, more times than there are stars in the sky it feels like. I dont mind correcting newcomers when they post provably false data...I resent having to do it with members who have been hanging around here annoying others for years.

At least now the fraudulent claim guy is without clothes. There are no lies or misrepresentations that you will be able to get away with, because people have this post to check.

What Mike really said and what Herlock lies about....POST # 916. Yes, lies about what I say or said make me angry.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I'll be brief as this is off topic. I haven't read "Do Aliens Dream of Electric Sheep" so can comment only on the movie. Listen to Deckard's administration of the Voight-Kampff test with Rachel with a quality set of headphones. There is hidden speech, not discernible through speakers, suggesting that Deckard's memories were the same as those implanted in Rachel. Observe the expression on Deckard's face during the conversation with his boss, along the lines of "you'd know, wouldn't you". Finally, consider the implications of the origami unicorn in the final scenes. I have the feeling that Deckard was being presented in the movie as a replicant.

Cheers, George

I’ll have to dig out my dvd copy and have a rewatch George.

Cheers.

[GBinOz]

I don’t think so but…it’s one of those questions that get asked where your immediate answer is “of course not” and then you get thinking and think “how can we be sure?” Philip Dick wasn’t exactly conventional….to put it mildly. ‘Barking mad’ might be another way. A brilliant writer though. Before JtR got me into reading non-fiction sci-fi and fantasy was my reading of choice.

Hi Herlock,

I'll be brief as this is off topic. I haven't read "Do Aliens Dream of Electric Sheep" so can comment only on the movie. Listen to Deckard's administration of the Voight-Kampff test with Rachel with a quality set of headphones. There is hidden speech, not discernible through speakers, suggesting that Deckard's memories were the same as those implanted in Rachel. Observe the expression on Deckard's face during the conversation with his boss, along the lines of "you'd know, wouldn't you". Finally, consider the implications of the origami unicorn in the final scenes. I have the feeling that Deckard was being presented in the movie as a replicant.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok how about a bit of speculation regarding the newspaper reports of what Lamb said? The 6 or 7 had him saying ‘around 1.00,’ but The Telegraph that has him saying ‘just before 1.00.’

Constable Henry Lamb, 252 H division, examined by the coroner, said: “Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me and shouting. I went to meet them, and they called out, "Come on, there has been another murder."

We all know that these reports weren’t always verbatim and that errors could occur. So what if Lamb had actually said something like:

“Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o’clock, I came into Commercial-road. When I got to between Christian-street and Batty-street at around 1.00, two men came running towards me and shouting.”

Now if we accept that ‘just before 1.00’ would have included 12.59 isn’t it possible that it was a very few minutes later when he arrived at the spot between Batty and Christian Streets? We can’t be absolutely certain but I’d suggest that the majority of reports (those that reported ‘around 1.00) were more likely to have been correct than the one. My piece of speculation is only a suggestion that could reconcile the two versions. We would have to remember of course that the reporter would have written up his final version from his notes hours later so i don’t think that it’s impossible to see how errors might occur.

Again…this is speculation only…I’m not pushing it as a definitive explanation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Hi, George,

I find it astonishing that that final soliloquy by Roy Batty was actually a rewrite made by Rutger Hauer the night before filming of a much longer script version. It has particular relevance to those who are experiencing intimations of their mortality.

I only found that out very recently and only by pure chance.

Having established a point of agreement on Bladerunner, I have to conclude that we'll have to agree to disagree on including 1:05 in a description of "around 1:00", but I presume that you would also include 12:55 in a description of "around 1:00"?

No problem. And yes, we can’t just allow a margin for error in one direction.

Cheers, George

P.S. Just a quick off topic question - do you think Deckard was a replicant?

I don’t think so but…it’s one of those questions that get asked where your immediate answer is “of course not” and then you get thinking and think “how can we be sure?” Philip Dick wasn’t exactly conventional….to put it mildly. ‘Barking mad’ might be another way. A brilliant writer though. Before JtR got me into reading non-fiction sci-fi and fantasy was my reading of choice.

[GBinOz]

I noticed your Bladerunner quote George. One of my favourite movies. I listen to the Vangelis soundtrack pretty often too.

Id personally include 1.05 in an ‘around 1.00’ estimate but I’d suggest that a gap of 5 minutes between Louis’ arrival and Eagle finding Lamb could be due to a combination of the variable element of Lamb’s estimate and the clock synchronisation issue so that, for example, it could have been Louis at 12.58 (Lamb time) and Lamb at 1.03.

Hi Herlock,

I find it astonishing that that final soliloquy by Roy Batty was actually a rewrite made by Rutger Hauer the night before filming of a much longer script version. It has particular relevance to those who are experiencing intimations of their mortality.

Having established a point of agreement on Bladerunner, I have to conclude that we'll have to agree to disagree on including 1:05 in a description of "around 1:00", but I presume that you would also include 12:55 in a description of "around 1:00"?

Cheers, George

P.S. Just a quick off topic question - do you think Deckard was a replicant?

[GBinOz]

George, that is the best response to a post I've had in a long time.

I am glad you corrected me regarding Eagle having already left by the time Smith is back on the scene.

That in itself places more probability on Eagle having been the man seen with Stride, ergo, Parcelman.

Because Smith didn't see Eagle after the discovery of the body, it then brings about the possibility that Eagle may have also been Parcelman.


I also love the fact that you refer to Police time as the most likely to be statistically accurate. I say this because I also agree with you.

Pc Smith testified he saw Stride at 12.30am

Not 12.40am
Not even 12.35am

He specifically stated 12.30am


Which is odd because he wasn't back at the top of Berner St until around 1.07am

That's 37 minutes

On a beat that took no more than 30, or perhaps 34 at a push

So we have a time anomaly of at least 3 minutes.


It only took 30 seconds to cut Strides throat


Pc Smith's timing of 12.30am demolishes everyone else's based on post discovery of the body.


Fascinating


RD

Hi RD,

I have to say that I really enjoy your out of the box speculations, but sometimes you base them on a false premise.

Smith testified that he saw Stride with a man between 12:30 and 12:35. Smith didn't carry a pocket watch but his repetition of his beat would have given him a very good idea of the time at any point in his beat. Of course, the accuracy of that time would be better the closer he was to his reference clock, depending on where that may have been located on his beat.

When you say " Which is odd because he wasn't back at the top of Berner St until around 1.07am", I am compelled to ask, according to whose testimony or deduction, and based on whose clock. Smith testified that he was back at the top of Berner St at about one o'clock. On whose evidence is his statement to be challenged on the basis of superior knowledge?

You have stated your suspicions about Eagle, and I have to say that I do have some suspicions in that regard. Eagle testified that he left the yard to escort his soon to be wife home at between 11:30 and 11:45, indicating this was a guess rather than a clock time. He testified variously that he returned to the yard at 12:35 or 12:40, so about an hour return trip. The lady in question lived with her parents at 183 Whitechapel Rd. The numbering in Whitechapel Rd has changed since 1888, but No 183 was in the vicinity of the Cavell St intersection, so a round trip would take a little over half an hour, and the optimum route would take Eagle past his dwelling in New St. As a consequence he would be returning to the yard via Commercial Rd and turning left into Berner St, similar to what was described by Schwartz. So what was Eagle doing in the nearly half hour discrepancy in his absence from the yard? An extended good night with his soon to be wife? A cup of tea with the soon to be in-laws? Or perhaps a few libations in one of the pubs on his route back to the yard giving him cause to be perceived by a casual on-looker as somewhat inebriated?

I'll conclude my ramblings by saying that the evidence in our possession at this point in time will not reveal the truth in this murder mystery, and short of new evidence we will be eternally damned to the realm of speculation.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Lewis C,

I grew up before the introduction of digital timepieces and when times were expressed as "around" it meant a minute or two either side of the hour markings. So around one o'clock meant a minute or two either side of the 12 hour marking. Once it reached 1:03 it would be described as "around five after one", and, IMO if Lamb had meant to include 1:05 he would have used that phrasing. The Telegraph report of "shortly before one o'clock" appears to be less of an approximation of the "around one o'clock used by most other publications.

Cheers, George

I noticed your Bladerunner quote George. One of my favourite movies. I listen to the Vangelis soundtrack pretty often too.

Id personally include 1.05 in an ‘around 1.00’ estimate but I’d suggest that a gap of 5 minutes between Louis’ arrival and Eagle finding Lamb could be due to a combination of the variable element of Lamb’s estimate and the clock synchronisation issue so that, for example, it could have been Louis at 12.58 (Lamb time) and Lamb at 1.03.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But Lave?

He disappears after claiming to have gone back into the.club at 12.40am.
That is tricky because why do Lave and Eagle not cross paths.

Interesting



RD

To be honest RD I don’t see an issue with Lave and Eagle. The first problem is that we can’t be sure of when Lave went into the yard and how long he was there for as the newspaper reports are so varied. But if we suggest that he was outside from 12.30 until 12.40ish then we know that Eagle said that he returned at 12.40. So maybe Lave went inside at 12.39. Or maybe Eagle returned at 12.41? Also we know that Lave didn’t stand in one position so if he was moving around in the yard he could at some point have been down near the printing office for example.

For Eagle to have walked through the gates and entered the club would have taken 5 seconds or so. This isn’t long for Lave to have been elsewhere in the yard or to have been in the loo. And it was a muddy floor so there would have been no echoing footsteps from Eagle to draw Lave’s attention.

[Herlock Sholmes]

‘hey Herlock, you’ve got that wrong’

Might I suggest, in the friendliest manner, that the reason for this is that no one, including myself, wishes to engage in this circular battle that is going on between yourself and Michael, the basis of which is that you are each in Jeff's different time zones. You are in Louis time zone and Michael is in the Police time zone. If you are to conclude that Lamb's "around one o'clock, or shortly before" included 1:05, then logically Louis' "around one o'clock" should include 12:55, or shortly before. I issued an invitation to anyone to report a pre-inquest interview with Louis where he mentioned the Harris tobacconist clock, with no reply. AFAIK, the only reference to that clock or "precisely one o'clock" was at the inquest. That's not to say Louis was deliberately polishing his evidence. We have had extensive discussion on the tricks that one's memory can play when called on to recall events. Even if Louis did see the clock reading precisely 1:00, you have said yourself that a sync error could explain this difference.

As for conducting a vote, Sir Humphrey Appleby showed how easily a desired result can be achieved with the wording of a poll. If your poll was worded "When Lamb testified that Eagle found him at around one o'clock, or shortly before, did he actually mean around 1:05?", you certainly would not achieve the 50:0 result that you anticipate. I, for one, agree with Michael that the police were legally obliged to know the time, where as Louis had no idea as to what lay instore for him when he turned into Berner St, and no reason to suspect that he should be noting times. When he discovered the body, I suspect his mind was on other things than noting down times.

With all due respect to both yourself and Michael, IMO most of your differences can be explained by clock synchronisation differences (Jeff's time zones) and the uncertainties of time interval estimates from indeterminate clock references.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

The reason that I made the specific point was in response to Michael’s claim that I was suggesting that Eagle found Lamb before the body was discovered and his basis for this claim is that Louis said 1.00 and that Lamb said ‘around 1.00’ or ‘just before 1.00’. So Michael tries to explain that there was little or no gap between Louis and Lamb’s time which isn’t true. This is why I said that no one would disagree with me when I stated this possibility. I assumed that everyone would accept that Lamb’s time could easily have been 1.05 or that Lamb’s clock would have said 12.55 when Louis’ said 1.00 so that there could easily have been a gap of 5 minutes or so between the two.

On your point about the police being ‘legally obliged’ to know the time I’d ask to what extent though? If they had been expected to provide exact times surely they’d have been provided with watches? If, as an example, a police officer had a 30 minute long beat and he only passed a clock once then he couldn’t have been expected to have known the time 20 minutes after seeing it with any great accuracy. I think that this is illustrated by Smith who gives an estimate of 12.30-12.35. So Lamb’s ‘around 1.00’ could certainly have been around 1.05 imo.

I certainly agree with you though George that a police officer would be more likely to estimate the time accurately at any particular point than a civilian would.

The problem in the ongoing argument between myself and Michael is that Michael is using estimates to disprove something. One moment he’s saying that he accepts that clocks can be poorly synchronised and the next minute he’s accusing me of ‘changing’ times when I actually make an allowance for synchronisation issue. Essentially all that has to be show is that the events stated could have occurred and this has been shown to be the case with the timelines (including your own of course) But what Michael has to do is to -rove that they couldn’t possibly have occurred and he can’t do that with doing three things, 1) he doesn’t accept that Lamb’s ‘around 1.00’ could have meant 1.05, 2) he tries to fit the majority of witness in with the 3 that were clearly estimating incorrectly, and 3) he tries to stretch out the time Louis spent at the yard/club so as to make the timeline appearimpossible.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

You are mixing Diemshitz time, Police time and guesstimated times.

You also have a factual error, in that Eagle had already departed for Leman St PS when Smith arrived, so he had no opportunity to recognise him at that point.

Lave provides no clue as to how he determined his times, and Eagle is estimating time intervals from a base of leaving the yard to escort his lady friend home "between 11:30 and 11:45", so even his starting time is a guess.

Police time trumps civilian time, and sequences trump unsynchronised clock times.

Cheers, George

George, that is the best response to a post I've had in a long time.

I am glad you corrected me regarding Eagle having already left by the time Smith is back on the scene.

That in itself places more probability on Eagle having been the man seen with Stride, ergo, Parcelman.

Because Smith didn't see Eagle after the discovery of the body, it then brings about the possibility that Eagle may have also been Parcelman.


I also love the fact that you refer to Police time as the most likely to be statistically accurate. I say this because I also agree with you.

Pc Smith testified he saw Stride at 12.30am

Not 12.40am
Not even 12.35am

He specifically stated 12.30am


Which is odd because he wasn't back at the top of Berner St until around 1.07am

That's 37 minutes

On a beat that took no more than 30, or perhaps 34 at a push

So we have a time anomaly of at least 3 minutes.


It only took 30 seconds to cut Strides throat


Pc Smith's timing of 12.30am demolishes everyone else's based on post discovery of the body.


Fascinating


RD

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I think that the idea isn't that when Lamb said around 1:00, he actually meant around 1:05. The idea is that 1:05 is included within "around 1:00".

Hi Lewis C,

I grew up before the introduction of digital timepieces and when times were expressed as "around" it meant a minute or two either side of the hour markings. So around one o'clock meant a minute or two either side of the 12 hour marking. Once it reached 1:03 it would be described as "around five after one", and, IMO if Lamb had meant to include 1:05 he would have used that phrasing. The Telegraph report of "shortly before one o'clock" appears to be less of an approximation of the "around one o'clock used by most other publications.

Cheers, George