Originally posted by GUT
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Simon Wood View PostHi Bridwell,
I find it hard to imagine all these people walking around silently muttering 'One-Mississippi, Two-Mississippi . . . ' etc, and staying in perfect synchronisation with one another to the extent that they're all able to declare that a certain event took place at 3.45 am.
You can't get a Rizla paper between their testimonies.
I would suggest that 3.45 am was agreed upon after the fact.
Regards,
Simon
Leave a comment:
-
My dad, never wore a watch, he was a truck driver, but knew what time it was within the 1/4 hour range, how well he knew he left home at 5:00 it took an hour to drive to the brewery, knew how long it took to load various combinations, took 15 minutes to drive to the flour mill, how long it took to load each 10 bags of flour, an hour back to home town how long to unload at each location, so no watch, no radio in the truck, no clock in the truck, but if he said it was 4:15 itd be darn close.
Grandad was a coal miner, no watch underground back then, no sun to go by, think he didn’t know when it was smoko, or lunch, or knock off time?
Leave a comment:
-
Given the number of churches & businesses that had pendulum clocks which chimed, it shouldn't be difficult to be anywhere in the city and have a reasonable idea what the time was at any hour of the day, to within 15 minutes at least.
Plus, a beat constable will know what the time is at every location on his beat. They were expected to be at given points at certain times, and the inspector was often on his rounds to check on them.
There might be an issue whether an incident occurred at 3:35 or 3:40, but there should be no issue between 3:30 and 3:45. It's the 15 minutes between that we can debate. And that is the same concern for every hour of the day, unless someone has a watch.
Leave a comment:
-
Hi Bridwell,
I find it hard to imagine all these people walking around silently muttering 'One-Mississippi, Two-Mississippi . . . ' etc, and staying in perfect synchronisation with one another to the extent that they're all able to declare that a certain event took place at 3.45 am.
You can't get a Rizla paper between their testimonies.
I would suggest that 3.45 am was agreed upon after the fact.
Regards,
Simon
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Simon Wood View PostWithout access to a timepiece, how would the various interested parties in and around Bucks Row have known that the nearest five minutes was 3.45 am?
Leave a comment:
-
Hi Jon,
Church bells?
Yes, indeed. We all know how accurate they proved to be with Mrs. Long.
Regards,
Simon
Leave a comment:
-
>>Without access to a timepiece, how would the various interested parties in and around Bucks Row have known that the nearest five minutes was 3.45 am?<<
Xmere and Paul were both (loosely) around 5 mins from there setting off point. Whether they had timepieces at home or were "knocked up", they would have been able to gauge the time from their perspective.
As for Llewellyn, as a doctor, it is not unreasonable to assume would own some kind of timepiece.
All the policemen involved had beat targets to meet and had a duty to be aware of the approximate time.
Leave a comment:
-
Without access to a timepiece, how would the various interested parties in and around Bucks Row have known that the nearest five minutes was 3.45 am?
Leave a comment:
-
As Colin states, policemen rounded times to the nearest 5 minutes, and use the prefix “approx” as an indicator.
I mention this in my book. Not that I’m trying to plug that.
Monty
😁
Leave a comment:
-
Chandler actually gives two different times for the same incident -
in his report dated 8th September he says he learned of the Chapman murder "at 6.10am", but in his inquest testimony he gives the earlier time ("about 2 minutes past 6").
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: