Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[Herlock Sholmes]

I suppose you interpret "about" to be incompatible with "just before". I dont. Seems both are approximating a time in relation to an upcoming time.

Nice try Michael.

’About’ means either before or after or spot on the time in question.

’Just before’ means just before and nothing else.

By cherrypicking one quote and ignoring seven others then you are intentionally slanting the evidence in your favour.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wish you would listen to your own admissions. You arbitrarily set times, you havent used witness provided relevant times. The time taken to do the routes is clearly determined by secondary sources verifying where they saw them and at what times. Thankfully we have no need for your own creative schedules, they gave us their own estimates.

So we are back to your belief that quoted times should be considered set-in-stone. I thought that you accepted that this wasn’t the case? It’s difficult to follow your opinion on this point Michael. Are times all perfect…..do we allow a margin for error…..or do we allow a margin for error except for when it works against your theory?

Pick a trusted time that was stated. Would you favour Dr. Blackwell’s watch? He said that he arrived at 1.16. PC Lamb said that the Doctor arrived at the yard 10 minutes after he did. That doesn’t take us to ‘just before 1.00’ Michael. It takes us to Lamb arriving at around 1.05 - which certain is ‘about 1.00’ as per the non-cherrypicked quotes.

We know that Smith arrived at the yard after Lamb got there because he saw Lamb and Ayliffe already in situ. So PC Smith arrived after 1.05. Does this in anyway jar with the duration time that he gave for his beat? No, because he said that his beat took around 30 minutes and that he’d first passed the yard at 12.30-12.35.

So if he passed at 12.35, and his route took 30 minutes, that puts his return at around 1.05.

Where do you see an issue here? Apart from inconvenience to the plot of course.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

As you’ve said, Smith said that his beat took 25-30 minutes. In reality we all know that a Constable’s round wasn’t a train on a track as they didn’t just walk they occasionally had to deal with issues.

I had Smith passing at 12.33-12.35 which is a) an estimation, and b) in line with what he himself said at the Inquest. Add 30 minutes to 12.35 and we get 1.05.

Smith said that Lamb and Ayliffe were there when they got to the yard which I listed at 1.06 but we don’t know how long they had been there so it could have been a matter of seconds. This would mean that Smith could have arrived at 1.06.

Which would mean that Smith’s round would have taken 31 minutes in my timeline. I can’t see an issue with that.

This is no better than the cherry-picking of newspaper reports.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is no better than the cherry-picking of newspaper reports.

How is it? Smith himself said 12.30-12.35 so all that I’m doing is suggesting that latter. Smith himself said that his beat took 25-30 minutes…I’m just suggesting that latter. That he arrived after Lamb and Collins (I said Ayliffe earlier) comes from his own testimony (The Times)

None of the above is questionable. The only variance is that Smith said that he got to the corner of Berner Street at 1.00. The question is how did he arrive at that time? We don’t know. So we have two approaches, a) we can assume that Smith saw a clock not long before he arrived at the top of the road and estimated the gap of time perfectly, and we can assume that the clock wasn’t fast or slow, and we can assume that the clock was synchronised with the other clocks and watches, or b) we can allow for the dreaded margin for error.

What we know is that Dr. Blackwell said that he arrived at the yard at 1.16 (and if any time in these events was likely to be correct and synchronised it’s Blackwell with his watch)

We know that Lamb said that Blackwell arrived at the yards 10 minutes after he did. Yes, of course it was an estimate, but it takes us to around 1.06.

We know that Smith arrived at the yard after Lamb.

I see no problem. Clearly - Diemschitz around 1.00 (heard by Fanny Mortimer at just that time) - Lamb around 1.05 (meaning that Eagle must have left the yard just after 1.00) - Smith just after (maybe less than a minute?)

Everything is explained. There are no meaningful issues left.

[c.d.]

Everything is explained. There are no meaningful issues left.

The only meaningful issue I can think of is why people engage in these time discussions. They seem absolutely pointless to me. But to each his own.

(no snarky responses please.) Just saying what is on my mind. Feel free to carry on.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Everything is explained. There are no meaningful issues left.

The only meaningful issue I can think of is why people engage in these time discussions. They seem absolutely pointless to me. But to each his own.

(no snarky responses please.) Just saying what is on my mind. Feel free to carry on.

c.d.

You’re right c.d. Many of the times given are estimations and any that aren’t can’t be checked in regard to other timepieces. Yet we still get ‘if x did this at 12.00 then how could y have done this also at 12.00?’ And thus the doors to a plot open up. Or at least the assumption that someone must have been lying and not simply mistaken. When I did the poll asking if people accepted that we have to allow a margin for error in all times only one person said ‘no.’ And yet we have debates kept going because of this exact point.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The only meaningful issue I can think of is why people engage in these time discussions. They seem absolutely pointless to me. But to each his own.

(no snarky responses please.) Just saying what is on my mind. Feel free to carry on.

c.d.

It should be clear to you from the descriptions PC Smith gave at to what he did and did not see and hear when approaching Berner St and Dutfield's Yard, that he could not possibly have arrived at the yard at the same time as Lamb. There must have been a gap of a few minutes or more, regardless of what Herlock wants people to believe (including himself). It is only by sacrificing 4 or 5 minutes of 'content' in the 12:30-1:00am period, that his latest attempt at a coherent timeline can be made to work.

The typical issue with Berner St timelines, is that they require at least one assumption that could best be described as heroic. The relevance of this to yourself is that all the timelines I'm referring to implicitly or explicitly make the BS man the killer. As far as I know, no-one has even attempted to do a timeline that has Liz Stride lingering at the gates after the assault, only to then come into contact with Jack. On the other hand, your objections to BS being the killer are at least reasonable and possibly convincing. Considered together, this should be enough to make you realise that something is not right.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You mean, she might have been waiting for the BS man?

No, someone else. BS man just arrived before he got there.

One can imagine what happened when he did get there, or instead wonder why an explanation for why Stride was supposedly standing alone at the gates, requires assuming a man into existence, with no evidence to support it.

[The Rookie Detective]

William Marshall was alleged to have spotted Stride with a man who said to her "you'd say anything but your prayers"
But prior to that Marshall specifically mentions that he took notice of the couple because of their behaviour.

When you look at their behaviour, it is very similar to the witnesses who saw Stride outside the Bricklayers Arms at 11pm.

The behaviour and descriptions seem to tally with the couple seen by Marshall.

But the location is key here.

Some reports said he noticed them outside no.58 Berner Street, but others outside no.68 Berner Street.
The point is that regardless of which was correct, he still saw Stride and her companion standing south of the junction with Faircloth Street.

Furthermore, number 68 was the location of the George IV public house.

This is potentially very important, because if the couple seen by Marshall was Stride and the same man who had displayed public displays of affection outside the Brickayers Arms, then it could be argued that the Berner Street club WASN'T Strides Intended destination, but rather the George IV public house in Berner Street.


Thoughts please?


RD

[Lewis C]

It should be clear to you from the descriptions PC Smith gave at to what he did and did not see and hear when approaching Berner St and Dutfield's Yard, that he could not possibly have arrived at the yard at the same time as Lamb. There must have been a gap of a few minutes or more, regardless of what Herlock wants people to believe (including himself). It is only by sacrificing 4 or 5 minutes of 'content' in the 12:30-1:00am period, that his latest attempt at a coherent timeline can be made to work.

The typical issue with Berner St timelines, is that they require at least one assumption that could best be described as heroic. The relevance of this to yourself is that all the timelines I'm referring to implicitly or explicitly make the BS man the killer. As far as I know, no-one has even attempted to do a timeline that has Liz Stride lingering at the gates after the assault, only to then come into contact with Jack. On the other hand, your objections to BS being the killer are at least reasonable and possibly convincing. Considered together, this should be enough to make you realise that something is not right.

Hi Andrew,

I think that is because timelines generally attempt to attach times and a sequence to events that were witnessed by someone, and no one witnessed Stride lingering at the gates after the assault. There is, however, a timeline by Tom Wescott in which BS man is unlikely to be the killer, because he has James Brown's sighting of Stride after the BS man assault, and believes that Brown really did see Stride.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It should be clear to you from the descriptions PC Smith gave at to what he did and did not see and hear when approaching Berner St and Dutfield's Yard, that he could not possibly have arrived at the yard at the same time as Lamb. There must have been a gap of a few minutes or more, regardless of what Herlock wants people to believe (including himself). It is only by sacrificing 4 or 5 minutes of 'content' in the 12:30-1:00am period, that his latest attempt at a coherent timeline can be made to work.

The typical issue with Berner St timelines, is that they require at least one assumption that could best be described as heroic. The relevance of this to yourself is that all the timelines I'm referring to implicitly or explicitly make the BS man the killer. As far as I know, no-one has even attempted to do a timeline that has Liz Stride lingering at the gates after the assault, only to then come into contact with Jack. On the other hand, your objections to BS being the killer are at least reasonable and possibly convincing. Considered together, this should be enough to make you realise that something is not right.

Who has suggested that Smith arrived at the yard at the same time as Lamb? Where do you get this from? Lamb was already there when Smith arrived. This is what Smith himself said.

Lamb said that Eagle got to him around 1.00.

Lamb said that Dr. Blackwell arrived at the yard around 10 minutes after him and Blackwell, by his own watch, said that it was 1.16 when he arrived.

Where is the issue? The only ‘problems’ is that we have are, a) we no idea how the Baker’s clock compared to the clock used by Smith, the clock used by Lamb and Blackwell’s watch, b) we don’t know what clock Smith used or how it compared to the one used by Lamb and Blackwell’s watch, and c) we don’t know what clock Lamb used or how it compared to the one Smith used and to Blackwell’s watch. Then we also have to ask of Smith and Lamb how much time had elapsed between them seeing a clock and then arriving at the yard and how accurate was their estimation of that time?

A very few minutes here and there aren’t the stuff of fantasy or manipulation they are the stuff of reality. Of everyday occurrences even today with our modern timepieces,

So if when Diemschitz saw the Baker’s clock saying 1.00 Smith might have had the time (by the clock he’d referred to) at 12.55. Louis gets to the yard at 12.55/6. Eagle gets to Lamb around 1.00 (or 1.05/6 by the Baker’s clock) and Smith gets to the yard around 1.01 (but the Baker’s clock would have said 1.06/7 by then.

Where is the issue apart from the fact that I’m not assuming that all clocks and watch were perfectly synchronised?

[Herlock Sholmes]

One can imagine what happened when he did get there, or instead wonder why an explanation for why Stride was supposedly standing alone at the gates, requires assuming a man into existence, with no evidence to support it.

She was standing there for some reason. I’m not saying that I know that reason. We are all speculating.

[The Rookie Detective]

The synchronicity of an individual's pocket watch compared to another; would have more likely been out of sync.

Timepieces tend to lose or gain a minute each day, so it would have been normal for a person to have a different time compared to another random person; not by much, but a 1 - 3 minute differential would have been commonplace.

It would be less likely for everyone to be walking around with precisely the same time on their pocket watch.

That's what coined the phrase "Let's synchronize our watches" and "What time do you have?"

Now it could be suggested that before beginning their beat, the police would synchronize their pocket watch with their fellow officers. I assume this wasn't mandatory, but I would suggest that on balance, a policeman would have had a more accurate time relative to others based on the action of having synchronized their pocket watches before commencing their beat.

Of course, once we get to a 5-minute differential, then the balance of probability swings the other way and it would be less likely for an individual to have a 5-plus-minute differential compared to another.


In other words, working in time sequences of 5 minutes and more should be more reliable than anything less than 5 minutes, and so the phrase "around midnight" could and should incorporate the time 11.55pm through to 00.05am, ergo, it can span up to 5 minutes EITHER side of Midnight.

In fact, at the time it was more commonplace to break time down into the metric 15-minute format; based on sundials etc...

That's why in most countries we have Quarter to and Quarter past the hour, and Half past the hour.


And so it would be even more reliable to break the time down into separate 15 minute blocks

And so if Schwartz said 00.45am, it is more likely to be as close to 00.45am, but it could also have been as early as 00.36am or as late as 00.54am.

We know it wouldn't encroach outside of these boundaries because if it was 00.35am or 00.55am, then it would be closer to half past the hour or the full hour.


I find it odd that there were statements made whereby someone states exact times such as 00.42am or 23.44am.

This is because anything less than 5 minutes is negligible due to what I have stated above.

Nobody would have said "yes officer, it was 2.33pm" because it wasn't a typical thing to state by the minute, unless someone had specifically looked at their watch at the time.

Time was rounded up or down to the nearest quarter of an hour; unless a person deliberately looked at their watch or had synchronized it with another, who could have also had an incorrect time as well.

Ultimately, looking at the specific timing aspects of the case is close to impossible.

The only time it does work is when we look at events chronologically.

If we can work out the order in which things happened, we can then look to get a more accurate picture of timings afterward.


The fact that we still don't know the precise chronology of events, makes looking at individual timings rather pointless as nothing can be gained without the correct sequence of events in the first place.



RD

[Mark J D]

Some reports said he noticed them outside no.58 Berner Street, but others outside no.68 Berner Street.
The point is that regardless of which was correct, he still saw Stride and her companion standing south of the junction with Faircloth Street.

Furthermore, number 68 was the location of the George IV public house.

This is potentially very important...

Indeed it is. The difficulty I have, however, is that I can't believe people would refer to a pub by something as de-characterised as its street number. I myself have no idea whatsoever about the street numbers of the pubs I know best, and it would be senseless to tell people you'll be at 'number 157' when you really mean 'down The Eagle'.

'A Rose & Crown by any other name', as the Bard would have put it...?

Bests,

Mark D.

[The Rookie Detective]

Indeed it is. The difficulty I have, however, is that I can't believe people would refer to a pub by something as de-characterised as its street number. I myself have no idea whatsoever about the street numbers of the pubs I know best, and it would be senseless to tell people you'll be at 'number 157' when you really mean 'down The Eagle'.

'A Rose & Crown by any other name', as the Bard would have put it...?

Bests,

Mark D.

That is a most excellent point


If Marshall saw Stride outside the George IV public house at no. 68 Berner Street, then why not say so?

Whereas 58 Berner Street is further north outside no.58, then that would make more sense because he never mentions a pub.

The reason why it's important is because Marshall's house was situated roughly half way between no.58 and no.68 Berner Street.

No.58 was across the road to his left looking north
No.68 was across the road to his right looking south.

It would also mean that when Marshall states he saw them walking off; presumably towards Outfields yard, then IF he saw Stride outside no.68 (George IV pub on the corner) then Stride would of had to walk past Marshall on the other side of the road.

But seeing as Marshall never mentions Stride walking past him, then Stride must have been located north of his position. That would then strengthen the claim they were standing outside No.58 and support the above.

Of course, the fact that no.58 was closer to the George IV pub than Dutfields Yard, may mean that the couple may have spent time in the George IV pub shortly before Marshall first saw them.

It is possible that they left the George IV pub shortly before Marshall sees them outside no.58, meaning he may have just missed them pass his house as they walked northward.

The reason I believe that they had only just left the George IV pub before Marshall spots them, is because of the simple question....why would they be standing outside a random house?

Moreso why would they be showing affection outside no.58?

When Marshall sees them walk off, it is presumably north toward the eventual murder site.

That would then indicate that they were continuing northward from a previous location, ergo, from the direction of the George IV pub.

But there is another location that is south of the George IV pub; Ellen Street....the location of Israel Schwartz's house.

When Schwartz runs away from the murder site, does he run past Marshall's house down Berner Street and then into Ellen Street?
Because if he doesn't run past Marshall's house, then it begs the question....why not?

RD