Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[GBinOz]

As long as you keep repeating the same untruth…that Lamb’s time can only be interpreted as before 1.00 or exactly 1.00 then you’re wasting everyone’s time Michael. It just allows you to repeat the nonsense about Lamb being called before the body is found.

For the 1467th time….

LOUIS AROUND 1.00

EAGLE FINDS LAMB AROUND 1.05

THEY RETURN TO THE YARD AROUND 1.06

You’re the one that’s repeating falsehoods. Notice the complete lack of ‘hey Herlock, you’ve got that wrong’ from anyone. And we both know why. Because you are inventing things to make your theory fit. I’ve proved it 100’s of times but you just keep repeating the same old inventions.

So am I right or are you. If we put it to a vote I’d predict a score of 50-0 in my favour.

You began with an empty sack, you’ve run with an empty sack for 20 years and here you are still holding the same empty sack. Find another cause Michael.

‘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

[GBinOz]

So, based on this timing, Smith is running 5 minutes later than he believes.

That would be supported by the fact that he initially stated he saw Stride with Parcelman at 12.30am.

It later becomes 12.30am-12.35am.

In other words, the correct time that PC Smith would have passed and seen Stride with Parcelman based on him being 5 minutes later than he thought (based on your timeline) would have been 12.35am and not 12.30am.

That then increases the likelihood that the man he saw with Stride was Lave.
It can't have been Eagle, because Smith would have recognised him after Eagles post-discovery involvement.


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

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

[Lewis C]

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.

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".

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

As always you present a logical sequence in support of your reservations, and I hope that my response will also be seen to have some logic attached.

Firstly, I'm not sure that there would have been introductions when Ayliffe arrived at the doctor's surgery. I would imagine that he would have stated that there was a woman requiring urgent medical attention in Berner St, and Johnson would have disappeared inside and returned a few minutes later to accompany Ayliffe to the site.

...

Far from conclusive either way, but I am persuaded that Lamb was mistaken but, at the time, the mistake was not considered to be of great import of consequence as it has become 136 years later.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Firstly, I've never suggested that there would have to have been introductions between Ayliffe and Johnston. I would, however, think it very logical and natural indeed if Johnston would have said to Ayliffe "I'm going to call/wake up the doctor, because he's still in bed, and then I come with you, the doctor will follow as soon as he's dressed" or words to that effect.

Then, I have no intention of claiming that your response has no logic attached to it. It has. And, just as when we recently discussed this point, I agree that you may well be right, but, then again, you may not. We can agree that it's inconclusive either way. One last note on it from my side: other than the possibility of Lamb mistaking Johnston for Blackwell, he may also simply have misremembered when exactly it was that he had the gates closed. That would have been a simple enough mistake, because after all, there was much confusion/commotion going on, as Lamb himself put it. And, as you suggest, when the gates were closed wasn't of great importance or consequence at the time.

The best,
Frank

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.