A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Again, you are assuming that all times are correct and that they were all synchronised. This is simply poor reasoning.


I think you're wrong. I am not assuming anything. I'm accepting the evidence as all we have and, unless there is some contradiction between timings - as happened at the Nichols inquest - there is no reason to reject the timings given by any witness.




You are assuming. You are assuming that all the timings given must have been exactly correct and that all clocks and watches were perfectly synchronised. This is little more than fantasy.


I repeat: I think you're wrong. I am not assuming anything. I'm accepting the evidence as all we have and, unless there is some contradiction between timings - as happened at the Nichols inquest - there is no reason to reject the timings given by any witness.

Acceptance of timings as the best estimate we have unless there is a conflict between timings given by witnesses is not fantasy, but a reasonable deduction to make.

It seems that in addition to being unaware of the distinction between speculation and deduction, you are unaware of the distinction between deduction and fantasy.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The man and woman were in conversation and stationary.

Why mention that they were stationary? Of course they were stationary.

I mentioned it because it means they were not yet making their way to the Square nor showing any signs of ending their conversation prior to moving.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So if Eddowes and her killer were in Mitre Square at 1.35 (which is entirely possible) and Harvey got to the end of Church Passage at 1.42 (which is entirely possible) then the killer would have had 7 minutes.

You mean he had seven minutes instead of the four I estimated?

I didn't estimate they arrived in the Square at 1.38.

I estimated the murder took place at 1.38.

If, say, he arrived in the Square at 1.35, and murdered her at 1.36, then I'm out by two minutes.

If, say, he arrived in the Square at 1.36, and murdered her at 1.37, then I'm out by one minute.

You seem to be saying that the murderer left at about 1.42 via Mitre Street, which is exactly the opinion I expressed here soon after I started posting here.

I don’t know what you’re talking about to be honest.

I am amazed that you can't follow.

You are rejecting my estimate that the murder took place at 1.38.

If, say, he arrived in the Square at 1.35, and murdered her at 1.36, then I'm out by two minutes.

1.38 minus 1.36 = 0.02


If Lawende and co’s time was a minute or two out then Eddowes and her killer might have been in Mitre Square by 1.34. If Harvey’s estimate was a minute out then he could have got to the end of Mitre Square at 1.43 giving the killer 9 minutes.

In that area in the LVP it’s elementary lesson number one…….. you cannot rely on timings being exact. You have to allow for a reasonable margin for error. How many times does this blatantly obvious fact have to be explained on here? Those disagreeing tend to be ones with theories to prove.


I think that's far-fetched.

That would mean Lawende, Levy, Harvey, Watkins, the club clock, Lawende's watch, and the Post Office clock all being wrong in such a way as to make things easier for the murderer.

Why not make it easier still and have Harvey at the entrance to the Square at 1.44 in time to meet Watkins there?

Theres no talking to you PI. You are an ocean of poor reasoning. Anyone that says that we shouldn’t allow a reasonable margin for error on timings cannot discus the case sensibly. They really can’t. I’ll leave it I think. I just don’t have the inclination to pursue you down another rabbit-hole.

The problem is that you don’t have opinions PI. Every point you make you appear to feel that it should be accepted as gospel. The fact that the killer could have had 8 or 9 or 10 minutes is just that. A fact. And by that I don’t mean that it’s a fact that he had longer but that it’s a fact that he ‘could’ have had longer. If you can’t accept that then there’s nothing I can do about it as you have form for making these kinds of statements.

You neatly side-stepped my point that if you have Harvey out by a couple of minutes, then he arrives at the edge of Mitre Square at the same time as Watkins enters it, which obviously did not happen.

Your suggestion that Harvey reached the edge of the Square at 1.43 would mean he was in Church Passage when Watkins found the body, which again obviously did not happen.

What would you call that?

Fantasy?

Please see my replies above.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my replies above.

Im not blaming you because I’m as much to blame but these long posts are difficult to follow (who said what) if anyone else happens to try and read them. I’d suggest that we should both try posting on one or two issues per post?


“there is no reason to reject the timings given by any witness.”

There is a difference between rejecting timings and making reasonable allowances. PI, I genuinely can’t understand why you are disputing this. You will struggle badly to find any support for your position on this point. Most people at the time didn’t own watches or clocks. Many relied on Constable’s ‘knocking them up’ so that they could get to work on time in the morning. They took their times from Church clocks, church bells, factory clocks, clocks in shop windows. Someone on here (I believe that it was Jeff Hamm, my apologies if it was someone else) posted research showing how ‘wrong’ Victorian clocks could be. How they weren’t synchronised. It wouldn’t have been unusual for a public clock to have been 10 minutes fast or slow. We simply cannot with the remotes degree of confidence hold these people to exact timings. It’s just impossible to do so. Not to accept this and to refuse to allow for a reasonable margin for error is simply a distortion of reality. Even today if you I both gave times to the police they would still make an allowance, they would check clock/watch times, they would see if my watch was synchronised with yours and anyone else involved (if close timing was so important) and this is in a world of more accurate clocks and everyone carrying a phone. The police in 1888 made no such checks as far as we know. We simply have to allow for a margin for error. We cannot assess fairly without doing so.


“I mentioned it because it means they were not yet making their way to the Square nor showing any signs of ending their conversation prior to moving.”

How could they have possibly showed signs of ending their conversation? Lawende and his friends couldn’t hear what was being said anyway and we can’t know how soon they moved off because he didn’t look back - which incidentally is another indication of how little attention he paid to them.


“You are rejecting my estimate that the murder took place at 1.38.

If, say, he arrived in the Square at 1.35, and murdered her at 1.36, then I'm out by two minutes.

1.38 minus 1.36 = 0.02.”

I think we have some confusion here and this could be a case of me misinterpreting what you said. Yes of course the killer could have killed Eddowes at 1.36. I was talking about the time taken for the murder and mutilation in total.


“You neatly side-stepped my point that if you have Harvey out by a couple of minutes, then he arrives at the edge of Mitre Square at the same time as Watkins enters it, which obviously did not happen.

Your suggestion that Harvey reached the edge of the Square at 1.43 would mean he was in Church Passage when Watkins found the body, which again obviously did not happen.

What would you call that?

Fantasy?”

Your point is a strange one because if we adopt your “all times are exact” method then we have Watkins entering at 1.44 and the last time that I checked 1.43 came before 1.44. I might also add that we have no way of verifying the accuracy of Watkins watch. How can we know that it wasn’t actually 1.45 or 1.46 when he found the body. You really get nowhere quibbling over times on this case.

I haven’t side-stepped anything by the way. I’ve no need to sidestep. An example of sidestepping is your refusal to admit that you have zero evidence that a ‘salt and pepper’ jacket was common to sailors. That’s sidestepping and you’ve done it repeatedly.

[The Baron]

"Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus described the first man who threw the woman down: age about 30, 5ft 5in, complexion fair, dark hair, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket, trousers black, cap with a peak, nothing in his hand"


TB

[The Baron]

>> light can affect our perception of colour. This is simply an established fact which you either questioned or ignored. Therefore we cannot rely on the hair colour given by Lawende.


How can anyone not accept this FACT is beyond me, furthermore we have another possible sighting of the ripper in action describing him having dark hair, insisting that he must have fair or blond hair despite this is not only completely ignoring the simple FACT Herlock wrote about, it is also cherry picking of the evidence.


TB

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Your suggestion that Harvey reached the edge of the Square at 1.43 would mean he was in Church Passage when Watkins found the body, which again obviously did not happen.

What would you call that?

Fantasy?”

Your point is a strange one because if we adopt your “all times are exact” method then we have Watkins entering at 1.44 and the last time that I checked 1.43 came before 1.44. I might also add that we have no way of verifying the accuracy of Watkins watch. How can we know that it wasn’t actually 1.45 or 1.46 when he found the body. You really get nowhere quibbling over times on this case.

If I remember correctly, you quoted Harvey as saying that he entered Church Passage at 1.40 and that he was at the end of Church Passage at 1.41 - possibly 1.42.

If you have him at the end of Church Passage at 1.43, as you suggested, then he would still have been in Church Passage at 1.44, when Watkins entered the Square, which obviously did not happen.

Morris said that he spoke with Watkins at 1.45.
Holland went some minutes later to fetch Dr Sequeira, who must have taken a few minutes to arrive, which he did at 1.55.

The timings make sense.

There are no conflicts, which means that in order for them to be wrong, all the clocks and watches used by everyone would have had to be wrong.

That is not even speculation.

That is not credible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If I remember correctly, you quoted Harvey as saying that he entered Church Passage at 1.40 and that he was at the end of Church Passage at 1.41 - possibly 1.42.

If you have him at the end of Church Passage at 1.43, as you suggested, then he would still have been in Church Passage at 1.44, when Watkins entered the Square, which obviously did not happen.

If he was at the bottom of Church Passage at 1.43 why would he still have been there at 1.44?? He didn’t enter the square. He just had a look and then left. Why would they have seen each other?

And AGAIN how can we know that it wasn’t actually 1.45 when Watkins arrived?

Its impossible to discuss the case reasonably if you are going to keep insisting that every time be taken literally. It’s impossible.

Morris said that he spoke with Watkins at 1.45.
Holland went some minutes later to fetch Dr Sequeira, who must have taken a few minutes to arrive, which he did at 1.55.

So Watkins could have entered the square at 1.45 and by the time that he got to Morris it was still 1.45.

The timings make sense.

If you are reasonable and don’t apply ridiculously rigid standards then yes they do. The world isn’t black and white PI and yet you appear to want everything to be neat and tidy and with no grey areas.

There are no conflicts, which means that in order for them to be wrong, all the clocks and watches used by everyone would have had to be wrong.

That is not even speculation.

That is not credible.

It’s not only credible I’d suggest that it was likely. I’m not going to keep discussing this. Clocks weren’t synchronised. This is a fact. It would not have been in the least surprising if you had stopped 10 people in Whitechapel at that time and asked them the time you would probably have got half a dozen different times.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It’s not only credible I’d suggest that it was likely. I’m not going to keep discussing this. Clocks weren’t synchronised. This is a fact. It would not have been in the least surprising if you had stopped 10 people in Whitechapel at that time and asked them the time you would probably have got half a dozen different times.

You keep suggesting that the timings are out but if they were, there would be conflicts between timings and there are not.

They fit perfectly.

In the Nichols inquest, there was a conflict and one witness' timing can be disregarded.

That did not happen in the Eddowes inquest.

No-one is saying they are exactly right.

All timings are approximations to the nearest or most complete minute.

There is, however, no reason to disregard them unless there is a conflict between them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You keep suggesting that the timings are out but if they were, there would be conflicts between timings and there are not.

They fit perfectly.

In the Nichols inquest, there was a conflict and one witness' timing can be disregarded.

That did not happen in the Eddowes inquest.

No-one is saying they are exactly right.

All timings are approximations to the nearest or most complete minute.

There is, however, no reason to disregard them unless there is a conflict between them.

Absolute nonsense.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Absolute nonsense.

It is not nonsense.

Have you read the Nichols inquest record?

If you have and have noticed the discrepancy in the timings then you shouldn't be calling what I've written nonsense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is not nonsense.

Have you read the Nichols inquest record?

If you have and have noticed the discrepancy in the timings then you shouldn't be calling what I've written nonsense.

If you don’t accept a reasonable margin for error on timings then you are absolutely wrong. There’s nothing further to say on this issue. A margin for error has to be allowed. There’s no need for discussion. It’s a fact not an opinion.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If you don’t accept a reasonable margin for error on timings then you are absolutely wrong. There’s nothing further to say on this issue. A margin for error has to be allowed. There’s no need for discussion. It’s a fact not an opinion.

In that case, maybe you don't know about the discrepancy in timings that came to light.

If so, I don't see how you can consider yourself qualified to say that I'm wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In that case, maybe you don't know about the discrepancy in timings that came to light.

If so, I don't see how you can consider yourself qualified to say that I'm wrong.

But I can say that you’re wrong not to allow for a reasonable margin for error PI and I can do it safe in the knowledge that you will be the only Ripperologist that doesn’t accept this. If you are happy to be the only Ripperologist in the world who thinks that the times in the case all have to be accepted as exact and correct then that’s up to you. But it’s historically inaccurate.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But I can say that you’re wrong not to allow for a reasonable margin for error PI and I can do it safe in the knowledge that you will be the only Ripperologist that doesn’t accept this. If you are happy to be the only Ripperologist in the world who thinks that the times in the case all have to be accepted as exact and correct then that’s up to you. But it’s historically inaccurate.

I never said that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I never said that.

You disagreed when I’ve suggested that a margin for error should be allowed for. See post 247 and others.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

See post 247 and others.

This is what I wrote in # 247:

You keep suggesting that the timings are out but if they were, there would be conflicts between timings and there are not.

They fit perfectly.

In the Nichols inquest, there was a conflict and one witness' timing can be disregarded.

That did not happen in the Eddowes inquest.

No-one is saying they are exactly right.

All timings are approximations to the nearest or most complete minute.

There is, however, no reason to disregard them unless there is a conflict between them.



Here is what you wrote in # 252:


If you are happy to be the only Ripperologist in the world who thinks that the times in the case all have to be accepted as exact and correct then that’s up to you.



Here is my response in # 253:


I never said that.



As I had written in # 247:


No-one is saying they are exactly right.



Your claim that I am saying that all the timings have to be accepted as exact and correct is obviously unfounded.