If Schwartz Lied ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Just to address an omission in my previous post. Lamb was making it clear that he wasn't quoting a time from a watch, which would not have been an estimate. In the case of his estimate of 6-7 minutes he was estimating an interval, which is independant from chronological time. But in the case of the time he was called, he is stating a time deduced from an interval applied to a clock time. It had to be an estimate as he was not standing in front of a clock at the time and he wasn't looking at a watch. He passed by the Harris on his way east, probably to inform Ayliffe of how long before he could be released from duty, and on his way west when he knew he was about to be involved in a murder investigation. To deduce his estimate for the time he was called he had to apply an interval to a sighting of the clock one or both of the times he passed it. Do you suppose he would have kept his job had he been debriefed by Reid and told him that he didn't bother checking that clock when he knew he was about to be involved in a murder investigation? Reid already knew that detail and had no need to ask that question. You involve yourself in a great may "maybe he" speculations to insist that Diemshitz couldn't possibly have lied or polished up his evidence.

Cheers, George

This just isn’t the case George. Why do we keep assuming that Diemschutz couldn’t simply have done what he said that he did. Saw a clock and was under absolutely no doubt that it said 1.00 when he passed.

It appears to be ok to openly accuse him dishonesty or stupidity but in the case of Lamb we have to make sumptuous to try add weight to an earlier that 1.00 suggestion. Why is this?

The facts for me are beyond dispute. Lamb specifically mentioned having no watch for one reason and one reason only. That he was clearly letting his questioners know that he was estimating his time and that they shouldn’t hold him to an exact time. When we add his wording: “around 1.00” or “just before 1.00” it’s an absolute no brainer George.

Then we have to keep assuming that Lamb checked that clock. If he had done that George why wasn’t he more confident in his time? Why bother mentioning his lack of a watch?

Added to this George why didn’t the Police doubt Diemschutz unless they knew what hasn’t passed down to us. That they spoke to Lamb and he told them that he hadn’t checked that clock. There’s nothing ‘wow’ about this George. As I’ve said before, maybe Lamb felt that this clock was unreliable? Maybe he’d previously checked the time by one clock walked on for few minutes and seen that Harris clock said the same. Therefore he decided not to use Harris clock.

Plus George, as I’ve raised on the other thread, according to Letchford sister, nothing had occurred by 12.50.

Lamb’s “just before 1.00” could mean that he felt that it was a minute or so before 1.00. So how can it be impossible that he might have been 5 minutes out? Why can’t we allow of this possibility? Why do we try to sideline a bloke seeing a clock?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi,

This got me thinking of PC Harvey in the Eddowes' case. In his testimony he indicates he would check the time at the post office clock during each beat. This would make sense, as each beat he would then be able to check if he's on schedule, ahead, or behind, in order to pace himself to the regulation 2.5 mph patrol speed. Checking multiple clocks along the way would be unnecessary, particularly once a PC was used to their beat. I suspect Smith would have done something similar, and somewhere on his beat there was a clock that he used to time each round, and would use that to note the time he should pass it next. Once familiar with the beat, and knowing how long it generally takes, he would have a pretty good, if not entirely accurate, idea of the time simply based upon how far along in the beat he was.

- Jeff

Exactly Jeff. Why would he have checked potentially half a dozen or more clocks on his route? Clocks which were unlikely to have been synchronised. Surely individual officers would have would have found 2 or 3 that tied up. Beginning, middle and end say. Maybe if an officer went onto a beat for the first time the previous officer or the sergeant might have informed him of the best clocks to use. It just can’t be impossible or even unlikely that Lamb checked Harris’s clock. His wording speaks against this.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

He was travelling east along Commercial Road and would have turn right across the carriageway. He was never in front of the clock.

I see.

So does anyone else think that if the clock had been behind a window, which was inset from the framework, is it possible Diemschitz may not have even been able to see the clock, let alone read it accurately?

The jury disbelieved his account of the procedings that resulted in his imprisonment. Point is, he wasn't at all adverse to lying to attempt to achieve a purpose.

I meant lying about the exact time. Sorry, I didn't frame that very well.

It is my belief that he was not physically able of seeing the clock past the masonary from the angle of his cart as he turned across Commercial Road.

Would the same apply to Smith, if he had approached from the same direction?

Hi Andrew,

Lamb and Smith didn't have pocket watches. They needed public clocks to know the time. How many public clocks would you imagine were in the backstreets, Berner, Batty, Grove etc of Smith's beat. Public clocks would have been in the major thoroughfare of Commercial Road. I don't know how many public clocks were available, but I venture to say very few. If you want to propose that the police had reason to ignore a clock you need to provide reasons why and indicate how they would have otherwise kept track of time. Are you joining HS and Caz in suggesting that they just guessed times based on when they started their shifts?

Cheers, George

Of course not. I just wonder about that clock in particular, and I doubt a multitude of clocks would have been an issue for Lamb. His beat seems to have consisted of traversing up and down a section of Commercial Road, so I can imagine he could get by with the aid of a single clock.

For anyone wanting to do a timeline, two of the big issues to be resolved are:

* Was it Lamb's duty to tell the fixed point officer when his shift was over, at 1am? If yes, then Lamb cannot have been alerted any later than 1am. If no, then there will be more of a reliance on Smith's testimony.

* Smith said that he left for an ambulance after seeing the deceased, and when doing so, Johnston was arriving. That seemingly has Smith arriving as late as 1:11, which would align him with the footsteps heard shortly before 12:45. On the other hand, if the one paper that captured Smith's reference to writing a report is to be trusted, then he could seemingly arrive several minutes earlier.
The Times: When I saw deceased lying on the ground I recognized her at once and made a report of what I had seen.
If that is true, then he may well have arrived at the top of Berner street when he said he did.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Are you joining HS and Caz in suggesting that they just guessed times based on when they started their shifts?

I really don’t like saying this George but you are beginning to sound like Michael.

Myself, Caz and now Jeff (and for me there’s no more reasonable poster than Jeff) simply state that it’s not a given that Lamb looked at Harris’ clock.

1) As Jeff rightly pointed out, why would a Constable have checked his timings my multiple clocks? The chances of them being synchronised would have been close to non-existent. Far more logical that they’d have selected certain clocks perhaps of proven reliability) Maybe the same clocks were used by every officer on that beat. Why is this an outlandish suggestion? I’d say that’s entirely logical and reasonable.

2) Yes, when comparing a Constable guessing and a civilian guessing then we would have to say that the Constable is probably the more likely to have been correct. But a) this simply can’t be a hard and fast rule, and b) this can’t apply when we have a Constable estimating and a civilian using a clock.

3) We cannot simply assume that Diemschutz lied out of hand. We have no reason for doing so. It doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have lied of course but just that we have no evidence for it or reason to suspect it.

4) As none of us were there and know the exact layout and conditions we also cannot assume that Diemschutz could have seen the clock properly. Indeed his wording leaves no doubt that he himself felt that he had no sighting issues.

5) What we do know for certain is that Lamb was at pains to point out that he had no watch. This wasn’t simply to gain sympathy, it was to let he questioners know quite clearly that he was estimating his time and that complete accuracy should not be expect. I can’t see how this can’t be disputed?

6) Lamb’s very wording “around 1.00” or “just before 1.00,” couldn’t have been a clearer example of a man estimating. And absolutely certainly they don’t sound like the words of a man who had just seen a clock.


For me it couldn’t be clearer. We have to imagine things to go for Lamb over Diemschutz. To go for Diemschutz over Lamb we simply have to read and use reason and common sense.

Diemschutz over Lamb for me on this occasion.

[DJA]

Myself, Caz and now Jeff (and for me there’s no more reasonable poster than Jeff)

Would be nice to stay on topic,rather than turning this into a thread about Dimshits.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I agree with DJA's comment, but I'll make a final comment about the steward.

Added to this George why didn’t the Police doubt Diemschutz unless they knew what hasn’t passed down to us.

What has passed down to us, is this:

Smith: I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock.

If the police didn't doubt Diemschitz, why didn't they doubt Smith? One of them must have been wrong.

Now let's get back to that bad boy Schwartz...

[DJA]

May the Schwartz be with us.... - YouTube

[GBinOz]

I really don’t like saying this George but you are beginning to sound like Michael.
I appreciate that you mean this a an insult, but I don't dismiss Michael out of hand, so I don't feel insulted.
Myself, Caz and now Jeff (and for me there’s no more reasonable poster than Jeff) simply state that it’s not a given that Lamb looked at Harris’ clock.

1) As Jeff rightly pointed out, why would a Constable have checked his timings my multiple clocks? The chances of them being synchronised would have been close to non-existent. Far more logical that they’d have selected certain clocks perhaps of proven reliability) Maybe the same clocks were used by every officer on that beat. Why is this an outlandish suggestion? I’d say that’s entirely logical and reasonable.
OK. Let's assume that Lamb disregarded the Harris clock as being unsyncronised and unreliable. Therefore the police were on a different time zone to the Harris clock, and when Diemshitz saw the Harris clock reading 1:00 it was actually 12:40 by police time and the Club clock. That vindicates Michael. Entirely logical and reasonable.
2) Yes, when comparing a Constable guessing and a civilian guessing then we would have to say that the Constable is probably the more likely to have been correct. But a) this simply can’t be a hard and fast rule, and b) this can’t apply when we have a Constable estimating and a civilian using a clock.
If the civilian could actually see the clock and it wasn't "unreliable".
3) We cannot simply assume that Diemschutz lied out of hand. We have no reason for doing so. It doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have lied of course but just that we have no evidence for it or reason to suspect it.
The jury in 1889 disagreed with your opinion. They found him to be a liar despite his protests to the contrary.
4) As none of us were there and know the exact layout and conditions we also cannot assume that Diemschutz could have seen the clock properly. Indeed his wording leaves no doubt that he himself felt that he had no sighting issues.
But for his brief memory loss the day before.
5) What we do know for certain is that Lamb was at pains to point out that he had no watch. This wasn’t simply to gain sympathy, it was to let he questioners know quite clearly that he was estimating his time and that complete accuracy should not be expect. I can’t see how this can’t be disputed?
Who said anything about gaining sympathy?
6) Lamb’s very wording “around 1.00” or “just before 1.00,” couldn’t have been a clearer example of a man estimating. And absolutely certainly they don’t sound like the words of a man who had just seen a clock.
They sound to me like the words of a professional who knew what he was talking about.

For me it couldn’t be clearer. We have to imagine things to go for Lamb over Diemschutz. To go for Diemschutz over Lamb we simply have to read and use reason and common sense.
Yes, we have to imagine that Lamb was "incompetent" and Diemshitz was a fine upstanding member of the community that would never even think of lying, and not at all anarchistic.
Diemschutz over Lamb for me on this occasion.

Fine, suit yourself.

[GBinOz]

Would be nice to stay on topic,rather than turning this into a thread about Dimshits.

Hi Dave,

I'm dizzy from too much time on the round about. I don't think Schwartz lied (topic) and see Diemshitz arrival time as far less important than the interval between Schwartz's departure and Diemshitz's arrival. A fifteen minute gap allows for more suspects than a five minute gap.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

1) As Jeff rightly pointed out, why would a Constable have checked his timings my multiple clocks? The chances of them being synchronised would have been close to non-existent. Far more logical that they’d have selected certain clocks perhaps of proven reliability) Maybe the same clocks were used by every officer on that beat. Why is this an outlandish suggestion? I’d say that’s entirely logical and reasonable.

OK. Let's assume that Lamb disregarded the Harris clock as being unsyncronised and unreliable.Therefore the police were on a different time zone to the Harris clock, and when Diemshitz saw the Harris clock reading 1:00 it was actually 12:40 by police time and the Club clock. That vindicates Michael. Entirely logical and reasonable.

So we have to assume that the shopkeeper allowed his clock to be out by 20 minutes just to keep this plot in place? Come on George.

Also, I’d ask that you check the Letchford thread. Letchford’s sister and Letchford himself clearly point to a time nearer 1.00

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
2) Yes, when comparing a Constable guessing and a civilian guessing then we would have to say that the Constable is probably the more likely to have been correct. But a) this simply can’t be a hard and fast rule, and b) this can’t apply when we have a Constable estimating and a civilian using a clock.

If the civilian could actually see the clock and it wasn't "unreliable".

Which is another assumption the you have to make, based on nothing solid, to get to an earlier time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. 3) We cannot simply assume that Diemschutz lied out of hand. We have no reason for doing so. It doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have lied of course but just that we have no evidence for it or reason to suspect it.

The jury in 1889 disagreed with your opinion. They found him to be a liar despite his protests to the contrary.

This is the kind of thing that I meant by my ‘Michael’ comment. I wouldn’t previously have expected you to have made such a point. You cannot dismiss what Schwartz said on this point. Wasn’t Koz involved in some kind of issue?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
4) As none of us were there and know the exact layout and conditions we also cannot assume that Diemschutz could have seen the clock properly. Indeed his wording leaves no doubt that he himself felt that he had no sighting issues.

But for his brief memory loss the day before.

Why the implication? The Press report of the Inquest wasn’t a verbatim transcript. Maybe it wasn’t until the Inquest that someone said “how can you be sure?” Maybe he just felt that at an Inquest he needed a fuller account?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. his brief memory loss the day before.
5) What we do know for certain is that Lamb was at pains to point out that he had no watch. This wasn’t simply to gain sympathy, it was to let he questioners know quite clearly that he was estimating his time and that complete accuracy should not be expect. I can’t see how this can’t be disputed?

Who said anything about gaining sympathy?

Just my attempt at humour George. I was making the point that he didn't mention not having a watch for any other reason - like trying to elicit sympathy for not being able to afford a watch. He mentioned it for a reason. We can't assume because he used a clock or why would he have bothered? So he obviously said it to prewarn that his estimate couldn't be taken as an exact time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
For me it couldn’t be clearer. We have to imagine things to go for Lamb over Diemschutz. To go for Diemschutz over Lamb we simply have to read and use reason and common sense.

Yes, we have to imagine that Lamb was "incompetent" and Diemshitz was a fine upstanding member of the community that would never even think of lying, and not at all anarchistic.

No we don't have to assume incompetence George although equally we can't assume that all Police Office were perfect or averse to cutting corners.

All that we have to consider is the entirely reasonable suggestion that it wouldn't have made much sense for a Constable to set his times by any number of unsynchronized clocks. Surely it's far more reasonable to assume that experience would tell them which clocks were the reliable ones that were close as can be to being synchronized?

You suggested that Harris's click might have been 20 minutes out but are we really to believe that a Constable wouldn't have spotted that he passed a clock at 6.30, walked for 10 minutes to find Harris clock saying 6.20?

So it's reasonable to suggest that a Constable would be better served by using certain clocks.

And as Lamb didn't mention using Harris's clock and as he was keen to let everyone know that he was estimating and as his language supports this I can't see the problem or why we have to bin a man who saw a clock just to promote Lamb knowing an exceedingly accurate time.

Again, I'll suggest the Letchford thread. His evidence points to a time certainly after 12.50 and almost certainly nearer 1.00.