Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does anyone else feel like we’re in an alternate universe?

[c.d.]

I don’t know what a MAGA is but I’m assuming yet another personal insult.

Trump's campaign slogan -- Make America Great Again.

c.d.

[c.d.]

His supporters are also referred to as MAGA.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

His supporters are also referred to as MAGA.

c.d.

Cheers c.d. I suppose that at least it’s better than being called “a snarling little cornered raccoon.”

[c.d.]

Cheers c.d. I suppose that at least it’s better than being called “a snarling little cornered raccoon.”

I'm not so sure about that.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not so sure about that.

c.d.

Maybe your right.

[FrankO]

I know I'm "preaching to the choir" here, but I do think that it is important that it is clear that in the timelines that you, Georage, and myself, have been mulling over are not attempts to "change" testimony, but rather are attempts at trying to deal with testimony about "time" when that testimony comes from individuals all basing their idea of time on a different clock. Clocks are not even synchronized now.

...

Sigh, I feel I'm ranting, sorry. I don't expect people to "just believe" things I say, that is never a good policy (not just about what I say, what anyone says), but it is a good policy to understand what someone you disagree with says. And it frustrates me to see concerns raised that are completely at odds with what is being done.

In short, "We should not be surprised if the timepieces that others based their timings on indicated (slightly) other times.", to which I would just like to add "...but we should do our best to work out how to align things to remove those differences."

Hi Jeff,

I don't think you're ranting at all, I understand your frustration and I think your addition is a good one.

All the best,
Frank

[Michael W Richards]

Does anyone else feel like we’re in an alternate universe?

It would be disquieting to find out that what you espouse isnt actual reality, but just your version of it. Just check the times and decide what you want, but science say that some cannot go search for help with a located body that isnt yet found. Your rebuttals are just inserting new times that you think are appropriate, without any idea of which way you should be adjusting them...if at all.

Ill just keep using the existing evidence, so really there is no way we should be agreeing on this anyway. 2 different sources. One is your head, the other are the actual records. Ill stick with B.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It would be disquieting to find out that what you espouse isnt actual reality, but just your version of it. Just check the times and decide what you want, but science say that some cannot go search for help with a located body that isnt yet found. Your rebuttals are just inserting new times that you think are appropriate, without any idea of which way you should be adjusting them...if at all.

Eagle went searching for Constable around 4 minutes after Louis found it.

Ill just keep using the existing evidence, so really there is no way we should be agreeing on this anyway. 2 different sources. One is your head, the other are the actual records. I’ll stick with B.

Then why don’t you accept a Police Officer (Lamb) who said that he arrived at the yard 10 minutes before a Doctor (Blackwell) did? You talked about reliable witnesses and how police officers are more trustworthy - so how come Lamb becomes untrustworthy now? And do you think that there was a more trustworthy time than Blackwell’s?

When I went to school 10 minutes from 1.16 left us with 1.06. Which fits perfectly (as I’ve explained 200 times) Diemschitz at 1.00, Lamb found by Eagle a minute or so before at around 1.05.

1.00 comes before 1.05.

Its not difficult.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You accuse me of changing times?

Letchford 12.30 - tick
Smith 12.30-12.35 - tick
Fanny an unknown period of time between 12.30 and 1.00 - tick
Lave general estimate 12.30-12.40ish - tick
Eagle return 12.40ish - tick
Goldtein passes at unstated time - tick
Louis returns at 1.00 - tick
Brown hears men around 1.00 - tick
Fanny hears horse and cart around 1.00 - tick
Lamb saw Eagle around 1.00 - tick
Eagle arrives 10 mins before Blackwell 1.06 - tick
Johnson arrives at 1.10 - tick
Blackwell arrives at 1.16 - tick
Spooner arrives with Louis approx 5 mins before Lamb - tick

I accept all of the above and haven’t changed one of them. So why the unfounded accusation

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

You, on the other hand, accept the three stooges and change Diemschitz, Eagle and Lamb. Then you try and pin down Fanny’s time to dismiss Schwartz when we simply don’t know her time on her doorstep.

And finally, will you for once address this point please Michael - how is it remotely possible that Kozebrodsky was there and at the heart of the so-called plot and yet he didn’t give the ‘plot’ discovery time? The plot falls on this point alone. There can’t have been a plot or Kozebrodsky wouldn’t have mentioned 12.40.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Frank,

I know I'm "preaching to the choir" here, but I do think that it is important that it is clear that in the timelines that you, Georage, and myself, have been mulling over are not attempts to "change" testimony, but rather are attempts at trying to deal with testimony about "time" when that testimony comes from individuals all basing their idea of time on a different clock. Clocks are not even synchronized now.
The other day while at work at the university, I walked by a public clock. I compared the time on that clock with my watch (which I set by my phone and computer, which stay properly synced to the "proper time" through the internet), and the difference was 4 minutes (my watch said 1:02, while the public clock said 12:58, and I verified my watch hadn't strayed by checking my phone, which also said 1:02). I snapped some photos (below). I wanted to get my watch and the clock in the same photo, but the camera on my phone is rubbish, and I'm also a horrid photographer (as the blurry clock photo proves - yes the struggle is real! ).



So, let's say at the time I was passing by, something happened, say a robbery at the bookstore. I see the offender run off. I look at my watch and note the time. Someone from the bookstore comes out, sees the clock, notes the time. I'm going to tell the police I saw this happen at 1:02, and the bookstore worker is going to say it happened at 12:58. While that is just a "one time point timeline", if I were to recreate things then I would say that both I and the bookstore worker reported the crime at ... 1:02 if I'm using my watch as the "standard" or "12:58" if I used the public clock as the standard timepiece. I'm not "adjusting" the time to fit, rather, I'm taking into account the fact that two clocks the two witnesses are using as their reference points are not reading the same time at the time same time.

I know you get this. I know George gets this. We may each choose a different reference clock, but what impresses (and encourages) me is the fact that despite our different methods in how we reconstruct things, the pacing of the events tends to be very similar - our timelines tend to only differ by a constant, which to me is like how my watch reads 1:02 while the public clock reads 12:58 - any timeline "synced" to my watch will differ by the same timeline synced to the public clock by those 4 minutes.

The actual numerical values of the time is immaterial though (age, well time, is just a number after all), what is important is the temporal sequence of events. Given all the witnesses are referring to different clocks, if we don't make some attempt to try and work out the pacing through other means, then we are always left with the problem that any two clocks could ready some undertmined amout of difference, making it hard to know what to make of it when we have three witnesses all saying things that cannot have happened simultaneously (Deimshutz arrives at 1 and finds the body, PC Lamb says he was alerted on Commercial about the body at around 1, PC Smith says he reached the top of Berner Street and saw the crowd of people, including PC Lamb, at 1 - it must be obvious that these three events cannot all have happened at the same time, but rather that each of these individuals is referring to a different clock. And given PC Smith has to occur after the other two, that PC Smith's clock has to be the most "out of sync" with Deimshutz, and that PC Lamb's clock is somewhere in between.

I know it is jarring when one of us presents a timeline and we put a time that doesn't not correspond to what "the witness said". But we're not presenting timelines of "what people said" because those timelines make no sense - the clocks are all reading different times. The timelines are our attempts to align the events, not just in order, but also to try and work out the temporal interval between events. Then, we choose some reference event, and use that witness' stated time as the "standard". I've used Dr. Blackwell's watch in the past, and recently I've been using the Leman Street Police Station clock, based upon the news report that Eagle arrived at 1:10. George has pointed out that if the 1:10 is reliable, then Eagle must have arrived a few minutes earlier. That's fine, I didn't include that but I see what he's getting at. If so, just shift all my other times by that amount. It doesn't really matter, it just means the other clocks/witnesses are a couple more minutes out. But so what? None of them are that far out anyway, so a couple more minutes really just means they still aren't out by very much.

Sigh, I feel I'm ranting, sorry. I don't expect people to "just believe" things I say, that is never a good policy (not just about what I say, what anyone says), but it is a good policy to understand what someone you disagree with says. And it frustrates me to see concerns raised that are completely at odds with what is being done.

In short, "We should not be surprised if the timepieces that others based their timings on indicated (slightly) other times.", to which I would just like to add "...but we should do our best to work out how to align things to remove those differences."

Ok, I'll step away from speakers corner now.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I read this post just after you wrote it and I intended to go back and reply but I became distracted by an effort to persuade someone that I wasn’t claiming that Eagle found Lamb before the body had been found!

It’s an excellent but at the same time rather sad post. Excellent in that it’s well-written, well thought out and entirely reasonable and logical as we would expect from you. Sad in that it’s disappointing that you should have to take the time to explain a point that should have gone without needing saying from the outset. A point that we’ve all made more times than we care to remember.

What we have in Berner Street is basically a collection of unknowns and unknowables. We have people giving times based on clocks that we can’t assess and in most cases we don’t even know when they last saw them. We have people estimating times which introduces judgment and the variables of human memory. We have press reports which leave us with, for example, around 3 or 4 versions of when and for how long Joseph Lave was in the yard (what possible use is that?) We have the most often used witness being Fanny Mortimer for whom not one of us can say when she was actually on her doorstep or when she was inside (how can she be used to disprove another witness?)

Aside from all of the detail and the ins and outs one question stands out for me and it’s a very simply one - In a poorly lit Whitechapel backstreet, in the time between around 12.30 and around 1.00, is it impossible that an incident which, in itself, could only have been of 20-30 seconds duration have occurred unseen? We’re not talking of troupe of Morris dancers or a gunfight or a man being savaged by a family of crazed otters! Why do some find this a problem? Incidents go unseen in far more populous, busy, well lit modern day streets everyday without being seen by anyone. It’s simply a fact of life.

Keep up the good work with the timelines (Frank and George too). Common sense and unbiased reason must prevail.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just got a PM over on JtRForums from Jose Oranto after he’d read my original posts on this thread. This is the main part of what Jose said:

“There are (at least) a couple of records in the Thames Police Court books where Kidney appears before the magistrate for assaulting Stride (Jan 21, 1887 and Apr 6, 1887), furthermore, Stride was admitted to London Hospital on December 5, 1885 with ribs fracture (the address given was 37 Dorset Street). I know this doesn't prove anything (it's a shame that the London Hospital records don't show how her ribs were broken) but it's something that should be taken into account. Debs called my attention to the coincidence that this was the same year that Stride met Kidney; I also learned from Debs that AP Wolf, years ago, thought about the possibility that Kidney was Stride's murderer (and this hospital record was not yet known)”

Michael Kidney was clearly a nasty piece of work and would have been the first person that the police would have had in their sights. It’s a pity that we have no physical description of him though but this got me thinking; well speculating. I was thinking about Schwartz not attending the inquest and about how the police would have wanted Schwartz to have had a look at Kidney. So…If Schwartz was worried about possible reprisals and so not keen on attending the inquest might the police have arranged for him to attend the inquest incognito (I don’t mean wearing a disguise) and without testifying, just so that he could get a look at Kidney to see if he was the man that he’d seen with Stride. If this occurred then Kidney wouldn’t have been the man. Thoughts? Remember I’m only speculating.

[c.d.]

To me the whole Kidney thing is a non-starter. I can only think of three possible scenarios:

1. The police at the time were complete and total idiots and it never occurred to them that Kidney might have been involved;

2. They spoke to Kidney and he provided an alibi which they verified;

3. He had no alibi and so they had Schwartz take a look at him (why would this have to wait for the Inquest?)

Now I know that Trevor has argued that the police simply did not connect the dots with Kidney and while I think that is possible I think it is also highly improbable. My money is on option no. 2.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

Cheers c.d. I suppose that at least it’s better than being called “a snarling little cornered raccoon.”

What do you have against racoons? I suppose you'll have a go at aardvarks next? sheesh!

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

What do you have against racoons? I suppose you'll have a go at aardvarks next? sheesh!

- Jeff

I even mentioned otters in my last post. I appear to be starting a new animal focused branch of Ripperology.