Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    Hi Andrew,

    Bit of speculation required here, but IMO he had checked the Harris clock, walked to the fixed point and informed Ayliffe that it was a few minutes to 1:00, turned around and resumed his beat, and was between Christian-street and Batty-street when Eagle and Koz came running towards him just before 1:00.

    Cheers, George
    If so, then Diemschitz must have arrived at about the time you suppose - around 12:50. Either that or he arrived after the discovery of the body. Can you see how that supposition could resolve the conflict between the times given by the PCs, and the time according to Louis? That is, they were more or less both right. It's just that Isaac's "saw blood", before the steward arrived home.
    Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      I'm not about conspiracy, I'm talking about consistancy and not trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear when talking about dodgy time guesstimates.
      Thats a false accusation. I have not done that. Ever.
      "Therefore Eagle strongly points to Stride’s body being discovered at 1.00."
      "Pretty reasonable timing gauges I’d say. So this takes his time of hearing the cries for a Constable to just the right time that Diemschutz and Kozebrodski passed."
      These are your conclusions for the long dodgy guesstimates of Eagle and Brown.

      George are there any times involved in these events which you think might be reasonably accurate? We’ve both agreed that a reasonable allowance must be made on timings so I can’t understand why you appear to give weight to the three least believable times in terms of other witnesses. Koz and Hoschberg at 12.45 and Spooners 12.35. For them to have been correct Diemschutz clock had to be either 15 or 30 minutes out. Surely that far less likely? If they were there at 12.45 how come the Constable didn’t get to Blackwell’s until 20-25 minutes later? I suggested 1.05 for Lamb being informed but maybe it was just before 1.00 and that Louis clock was out. If Lamb got to the yard at around 1.00 then this is more reasonable with the PC getting to Blackwell’s between 1.05 and 1.10. Don’t you think 20-25 minutes is just way too long.

      So I’ll ask…

      What sequence of events would you suggest?

      What approximate times would you suggest?


      Would you accuse any witness of deliberate dishonesty?
      Hi Herlock,

      I rate the police times as the benchmark. Next I rate times that can be reconciled with police times, even if a calibration is required (FM), and medical times. Johnson is an enigma. His was an inquest statement and yet we have reports from journalists who are listening to the same words and giving completely different times. His few minutes after one agrees with the police but disagrees with Blackwell's 10 minutes past one, and his 5 to 10 minutes past one has the reverse disagreements. I'm still working on who agrees with Blackwell's 1:16 at the yard. Next I rate those who had access to a clock, but didn't specifically say that they didn't look at it, and have other statements to corroborate. I know you don't like Koz and Hoschberg, but their statements do corroborate each other. However, they are out of step with others, so short of a convincing alternative theory, I think we have to settle for an explanation of cumulative clock regulation errors. Then we come to the guesstimates (Eagle, Brown, Spooner) which IMO are highly unlikely to acheive an end result that is in any way accurate.

      I rather like Frank's sequence of events and the fact that he didn't show times. I would have a couple of discussion points, but they are minor. I don't know that I would care to add times to his schedule.

      I wouldn't say that I believe that any one was consciously lying. There is a dissertation here:-

      It was originally published in Ripperologist #66. It addresses the functions of encoding, storage and retrieval of memories and suggest that sometimes what you genuinely think happened, wasn't what actually happened. It is my opinion that Diemshitz's late recall of actually viewing the Harris clock, rather than it just being his usual time, falls into this category, but I accept that other have formed contrary opinions.

      Cheers, George

      It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

      ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
        If we accept that any given time might be wrong to some extent how do we assess individual times? How do we assess Diemschutz 1.00 for example?

        Then when we see that this aligns with Eagle, Brown and Lamb (estimations yes) I remain firmly of the position that Hoschberg and Kozebrodski were mistaken. And Spooner arrived 5 minutes or so before Lamb (whatever time he arrived)
        Hi Herlock,

        I hope I satisfactorily addresses my views on Diemshitz in my previous post. I don't think that mistaken is a fair word to use with regard to Hoschberg and Kozebrodski, perhaps working from a different time zone calibration would be a better conclusion.

        When it comes to Spooner, I appear to have been unclear in my previous posts. I look at Spooner as an obvious example of my theory on guesstimates. Spooner's 12:35 is based on a series of estimates added to the margin of time taken to close a Pub and is obviously incorrect. How do we know it is incorrect? Because it is so far from traditional times. But the mechanics of the estimates of Eagle and Brown are the same as that of Spooner. The difference is that they appear to be correct because they work out to be closer to the target times that are expected, and become a means used to reinforce those target times. Circular logic. Suppose the actual correct times were different to the times calculated by Eagle and Brown. That wouldn't be noticed because the incorrect times are reinforcing the times that are traditionally accepted. Confirmation Bias. So the answer is, IMO, to place little to no faith in estimates derived in this manner, even if they appear to yield the answer for which you were hoping. This is why the medical fraternity use double blind testing and our friends in the USA express this as "garbage in, garbage out".

        Now let us look at the second example involving Spooner. He testified that when he arrived at the yard he put his hand under Stride's chin to observe her wound and then stood by the body for four to five minutes before Lamb arrived. But Diemshitz testified :-
        A man whom I met in Grove- street returned with me, and when we reached the yard he took hold of the head of the deceased. As he lifted it up I saw the wound in the throat.
        [Coroner] Had the constables arrived then? - At the very same moment Eagle and the constables arrived.

        This is what I was previously pointing out when you mistook me as referring to Diemshitz and the Harris clock. We are not talking here about times, but estimates for the difference in time interval between the arrivals of Diemshitz and Spooner compared with Lamb et al. Spooner says 5 minutes, Diemshitz says zero. It is hard to imagine that either could be out in that short an estimate of time, but they can't both be right. So, given Spooner's track record with his 12:35 estimate, if pressed one might plump for Diemshitz being the more accurate. But Lamb testified that there was no one near the body when he arrived, which contradicts Diemshitz. So whow was right?

        The other times that cause problems stem from Blackwell's pocket watch time of 1:16. It is generally agreed that Johnson arrived 3-4 minutes before Blackwell. If you read the accounts of the inquest and carefully note the details regarding when the gates were closed and who opened the buttons on Stride's dress, it becomes apparent from the testimonies of Lamb and Diemshitz that they both thought that Johnson was the first doctor on the scene and were relating their arrival times to him, not to Blackwell. So when it is asked "how long were you in the yard before the first doctor arrived", they were giving time intervals from 1:12 (Johnson), not 1:16 (Blackwell). Now what time zone Blackwell's pocket watch was calibrated to is another question.

        As you said, when it is all said and done, we are quibbling over short periods of time fraught with contradictions, only some of which can be explained by clock calibrations. My current conclusion is that the police times exhibit sufficient accuracy to allow us to have confidence in Smith's times in Berner St, which are traditionally accepted. If a clock correction is applied to FM's time intervals, with the proviso that while the intervals are short they are still only estimates, we have Stride in the yard around 12:35, Schwartz about 12:46 -47 start to finish and Diemshitz around 12:50. Eagle, Brown, Spooner and Letchford were IMO before Smith. So why is the 12:50 rather than 1:00 of any consequence. As clock times it isn't, it is within error margins. But as a time interval from the Schwart incident, it is of consequence.

        Going back to Swanson, it has been thought that there was a 15 minute gap between Stride's altercation with BS and the discovery of the body. The traditional theory has been that this was enough time for another person to arrive on the scene to murder Stride. Reduce that time to 3-4 minutes and it comes down to either BS continuing his attack, Parcelman lurking in the shadows, and at a stretch, Pipeman returning.

        Cheers, George
        It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

        All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

        ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

          If so, then Diemschitz must have arrived at about the time you suppose - around 12:50. Either that or he arrived after the discovery of the body. Can you see how that supposition could resolve the conflict between the times given by the PCs, and the time according to Louis? That is, they were more or less both right. It's just that Isaac's "saw blood", before the steward arrived home.
          Hi Andrew,

          I can see that there are two theories that both go against traditional views. My theory is not that far from tradition but is vehemently opposed. I think you will need to develop your theory beyond an interpretation of statements of one or two witnesses, particularly with the twin problems of reporting inconsistency and clock calibrations. Good luck and keep us informed.

          Cheers, George

          It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

          All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

          ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

            Collins arrived before Diemschitz and whoever, returned from Grove street? So Collins arrived prior to Lamb & Ayliffe?
            My understanding is, about the same time or just after.

            Cheers, George
            It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

            All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

            ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

              This is what I was previously pointing out when you mistook me as referring to Diemshitz and the Harris clock. We are not talking here about times, but estimates for the difference in time interval between the arrivals of Diemshitz and Spooner compared with Lamb et al. Spooner says 5 minutes, Diemshitz says zero. It is hard to imagine that either could be out in that short an estimate of time, but they can't both be right. So, given Spooner's track record with his 12:35 estimate, if pressed one might plump for Diemshitz being the more accurate. But Lamb testified that there was no one near the body when he arrived, which contradicts Diemshitz. So whow was right?
              Spooner. Diemschitz was confusing Lamb with the 'policeman' seen by James Brown.

              The other times that cause problems stem from Blackwell's pocket watch time of 1:16. It is generally agreed that Johnson arrived 3-4 minutes before Blackwell. If you read the accounts of the inquest and carefully note the details regarding when the gates were closed and who opened the buttons on Stride's dress, it becomes apparent from the testimonies of Lamb and Diemshitz that they both thought that Johnson was the first doctor on the scene and were relating their arrival times to him, not to Blackwell. So when it is asked "how long were you in the yard before the first doctor arrived", they were giving time intervals from 1:12 (Johnson), not 1:16 (Blackwell). Now what time zone Blackwell's pocket watch was calibrated to is another question.
              I agree there was confusion as to who was the first doctor on the scene.

              Eagle, Brown, Spooner and Letchford were IMO before Smith.
              Spooner before Smith? I'm confused, as you earlier said...

              Spooner's 12:35 is based on a series of estimates added to the margin of time taken to close a Pub and is obviously incorrect.
              So why is the 12:50 rather than 1:00 of any consequence. As clock times it isn't, it is within error margins. But as a time interval from the Schwart incident, it is of consequence.

              Going back to Swanson, it has been thought that there was a 15 minute gap between Stride's altercation with BS and the discovery of the body. The traditional theory has been that this was enough time for another person to arrive on the scene to murder Stride. Reduce that time to 3-4 minutes and it comes down to either BS continuing his attack, Parcelman lurking in the shadows, and at a stretch, Pipeman returning.
              I think that's all a stretch, George. BS did not lay Stride gently down - quite the opposite. Parcelman lurking in the shadows means there would have been 2 people in the yard unnoticed, for several minutes. It would far simpler to not have Stride at the gates or in the yard until she walks by, which, to borrow a phrase, "might have only taken 30 seconds". In other words, why not take the simplest route of all - that Schwartz was telling porkies?
              Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                The thought that I have, and this is pure speculation without a shred of evidence, is that perhaps one of the men in the club that night was member of the Vigilance Committee and he had come into possession of a whistle, but why wouldn't he have said so? Were Police whistles strickly for the use of the police with consequences for utilisation by others?

                Cheers, George
                Here's a little history on the police whistle:

                http://www.whistleshop.co.uk/history.html :-
                In January 1885 a member of the public, Mr H Crosbie, wrote to the Commissioner saying he had purchased two Metropolitan Police whistles but could he use them? The whistles were advertised in the Illustrated London News and were made by Bent & Parker. Tit Bits magazine made it known that J Hudson & Co were also selling Metropolitan Police whistles to the public. The legal position was unclear but steps were taken to prevent further retail sales. This was done by requiring both companies to sign a legal undertaking not to sell whistles marked ‘Metropolitan Police’ to anyone other than the Metropolitan Police.


                Members of the committee were unhappy with the level of protection the local community was receiving from the police, so it introduced its own system of local patrols, using hand-picked unemployed men to patrol the streets of the East End every evening from midnight to between four and five the next morning. Each of these men received a small wage from the Committee, and each patrolled a particular beat, being armed with a police whistle, a pair of galoshes and a strong stick. The committee itself met each evening at nine in The Crown, and once the public house closed at 12.30 am the committee members would inspect and join the patrols. These patrols were shortly to be joined by those of the Working Men's Vigilance Committee

                So that would seem to be the most likely source of the police whistle that was heard before Lamb arrived. An LVC member in the club.

                Cheers, George
                It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

                All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                  So that would seem to be the most likely source of the police whistle that was heard before Lamb arrived. An LVC member in the club.
                  So did Mr Harris hear this whistle from his home in Tiger Bay, or was he on the street at the time ... being vigilant?
                  Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    Spooner before Smith? I'm confused, as you earlier said...
                    I'm confused too. Obviously not Spooner.

                    Cheers, George
                    It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

                    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                    ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                      So did Mr Harris hear this whistle from his home in Tiger Bay, or was he on the street at the time ... being vigilant?
                      How could I know?
                      It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

                      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                      ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                      Comment


                      • In other words, why not take the simplest route of all - that Schwartz was telling porkies?
                        a) Because there’s no evidence that he was.
                        b) Because he had no motive to lie.
                        c) Because the police believed him.

                        We don’t need to do anything with the times to accommodate Schwartz. The 12.45 time quoted by him and Fanny can’t be taken as set in stone accurate. Also we have Fanny coming onto her doorstep just after Smith. So the timings are not even an issue worthy of debate. The fact that Fanny didn’t see Schwartz is about as relevant as the fact that I didn’t see you eating your breakfast this morning.

                        So the simplest, a by far the most likely, is that we know what happened. Give or take a very few minutes here and there. Yes there are unanswered questions like the whistle (did Harris and Hoschberg hear the same one?) but there’s nothing we can do about that.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                          How could I know?
                          Do you find it just a bit of a coincidence, that of the two men we know of who heard an early whistle, we have:

                          * One who just happens to be acquainted with a man who was on the street at the time (Harris/Spooner), who then run around to the yard together

                          * Another who just happens to be acquainted with a man who apparently claimed to have discovered the body (Herschburg/Koster), the later having been in the vicinity of the murder location, who then manages to evanesce by the time AH is talking to the press

                          What are the odds?
                          Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            a) Because there’s no evidence that he was.
                            b) Because he had no motive to lie.
                            c) Because the police believed him.

                            We don’t need to do anything with the times to accommodate Schwartz. The 12.45 time quoted by him and Fanny can’t be taken as set in stone accurate. Also we have Fanny coming onto her doorstep just after Smith. So the timings are not even an issue worthy of debate. The fact that Fanny didn’t see Schwartz is about as relevant as the fact that I didn’t see you eating your breakfast this morning.

                            So the simplest, a by far the most likely, is that we know what happened. Give or take a very few minutes here and there. Yes there are unanswered questions like the whistle (did Harris and Hoschberg hear the same one?) but there’s nothing we can do about that.
                            Wess threw Schwartz under a bus. There is one very good reason for him to have done that.
                            Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                              Wess threw Schwartz under a bus. There is one very good reason for him to have done that.
                              And are you going to share this with us?
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                              “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                              Comment


                              • Question: Was Smith correct in identifying Stride as one of the couple that he saw in Berner Street considering that Mortimer claimed that she spoke to them after the discovery of the body?
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X