Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    It’s all witchcraft Erobitha.

    You might find it hard to believe but I know quite a few people my age (56) who are far worse than I am. My main gripe is the language. Especially from tech companies and experts who I think are just completely incapable of explaining things clearly. An example is that a few weeks ago my iPad suddenly couldn’t ‘locate’ my printer. I ended up calling the helpline. I began by saying “look, I’m not a tech person. So please don’t to get too tech when you’re explaining.” The guy said “of course, no problem, I understand.” He then proceeded with 3 sentences that might as well have been in Norwegian! He simply couldn’t conceive that not everyone is an expert in computer technology. That not everyone knows what these things mean. I can use an iPad but if I try and read instructions my brain just shuts down. It’s sooo boring. I’m thinking “I don’t care about what’s causing it just fix the f****ng thing!
    My other bugbear is when I’m considering something new and people say “it’s simple.” Yeah right. I can hardly remember anything that’s ‘simple.’ They give you a step by step guide but something always pops up leaving me thinking “well, you never mentioned this!”

    Life’s complicated enough.
    Joking aside, you make good points. I am 42 and have worked in the internet industry since I was 17. Tech speak is a second language in many ways. Plus I can also code a little, which are actual languages.

    The generation after me are even more tech savvy.

    Somewhere along the way we forgot to simplify what is simple to us, to those who did not have such exposure to tech. There should much more simplified solutions that assumes you have little to zero tech experience or knowledge.

    Tech as a whole can be much better at this.
    Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
    JayHartley.com

    Comment


    • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

      Joking aside, you make good points. I am 42 and have worked in the internet industry since I was 17. Tech speak is a second language in many ways. Plus I can also code a little, which are actual languages.

      The generation after me are even more tech savvy.

      Somewhere along the way we forgot to simplify what is simple to us, to those who did not have such exposure to tech. There should much more simplified solutions that assumes you have little to zero tech experience or knowledge.

      Tech as a whole can be much better at this.
      I couldn’t agree more Erobitha. I know a lot of people like myself who in general get along ok using computers but they are certainly not advanced and have no desire to become advanced. There might disagree but I’d say that I’m a fairly intelligent man and yet when I checked online about the question that I asked the ‘simple guidance’ was a mystery.
      Regards

      Herlock Sholmes

      Comment


      • When people use things that they do not understand that often that leads to confusion and errors, as in the case of the missing printer issue discussed. The same can be said for people reading materials and forming opinions without having a firm grasp on what they have read.

        Comment


        • Now read that back to yourself.
          Regards

          Herlock Sholmes

          Comment


          • If Mr Schwartz lied ir nay suggest that hw knows more about the Liz Stride murder than he is willing to or even able to tell. Is it possible that he suspects he knows the man he saw with "Long Liz "that night...Yes but suspicions aren't going to help the Yard catch the killer.

            Kind regards
            Mr. Holmes

            Comment


            • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

              Joking aside, you make good points. I am 42 and have worked in the internet industry since I was 17. Tech speak is a second language in many ways. Plus I can also code a little, which are actual languages.

              The generation after me are even more tech savvy.

              Somewhere along the way we forgot to simplify what is simple to us, to those who did not have such exposure to tech. There should much more simplified solutions that assumes you have little to zero tech experience or knowledge.

              Tech as a whole can be much better at this.
              Hi Erobitha,

              I am 72 and at 17 I was an early adopter back in the pioneering days when, what we can now do on a basic laptop, required four floors of a major building to house gigantic banks of computers replete with spinning tape disks, clattering card readers and many, many flashing lights. We have moved on fast from there, and the old adage still applies, that if you're out of the business for 6 months when you return you start as a beginner.

              I think that it is the case, as with all jargon, the people who are involved in the industry every day don't even realise that they are talking gobbledygook to those who are content to be just users....until something goes wrong.

              Cheers, George
              “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

              Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                Now read that back to yourself.
                Dont have to, I wrote it. And I understand what was written.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  And I think that there was nothing going on. He walked along Berner Street, saw an incident, the buggered off. Things happened, mistaken timing estimates were given.
                  Just for my information, what approximate times do you give for these ...?

                  * Israel Schwartz walking south along Berner street

                  * Leon Goldstein walking south along Berner street

                  When will you tell us what you think happened instead of just telling me that I’m wrong?
                  Fine then - I'll tell you some of what I think happened.

                  By mentioning Berner street and the grapes, who do you think of first? Probably Matthew Packer. Fair enough, but the initial reporting of the grapes is by Diemschitz and Kozebrodsky speaking to the press, a few days before Packer's story was published. In the case of the so-called Schwartz incident, I think we have something similar - the initial report is not made by Israel Schwartz, but rather by Woolf Wess, and captured by an Echo journalist for the Oct 1 edition ...

                  A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

                  In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the two latter running up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body. Complaint is also made about the difficulty there was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be called from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation. There is, notwithstanding the number who have visited the scene, a complete absence of excitement, although naturally this fresh addition to the already formidable list of mysterious murders forms the general subject of conversation.


                  This is the true first version of the Schwartz incident - a man pursued along Fairclough street at about 12:45, believed by witnesses to be the murderer. The time given by Schwartz was the same, he claimed to be followed by the second man in his account, and Abberline stated that both Schwartz and the second man were running. So this part of Schwartz's story is uncannily similar to the Echo report. So similar, that is hard not to suppose that they are both references to the same incident.

                  A popular interpretation of the Echo account is that the onlookers were confused about what they were seeing, which was actually two members of the club running for police - one running closely behind the other and yelling "police!" and "murder!". The main problems with that interpretation are due to what is stated in this line ...

                  The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

                  Neither member of the initial search party 'escaped', and both were definitely members of the club. The 'pursuer' in the misinterpreted search theory, is Louis Diemschitz, the club steward. Somehow I don't think Wess would have forgotten that name, if he'd actually been given it earlier in the morning.

                  On the other hand, the man pursued story does have similarities to the initial search for police, which consisted of two club members running along Fairclough street, who were seen and soon after stopped by Edward Spooner. Are these similarities just a coincidence though? I don't think so. As far as we know, no member of 'the public' referred to in the Echo report was ever questioned by the police. No witness at the inquest, nor any other newspaper report, mentions this chase. So how could Wess have learned of this but the police did not, until Schwartz arrived at Leman street station, late in the afternoon?

                  For me, the answer to this riddle is: Wess learned of the details of the police search, on his arrival at the club in the morning. He also learned of the police behaviour and attitude toward club members, while they had been on site. So Wess made the decision to frame the initial police search as the murderer being chased. This had the effect of taking the murderer away from the club, and conveniently, the pursuer (of forgotten name, but not his non-member status), and witnesses also. No mistaken onlookers or pursuer were ever found, because there was no pursuer or mistaken onlookers. The chase was an invention, but partly based on real life details, so Wess could limit the risk to himself and the club, by going public with the man pursued account. I think the account given by Schwartz was also mostly a fabrication, but also contained some real life elements.

                  Obviously there is more to Schwartz's story than just him being followed. Like the man stopping to speak to the woman in the gateway. If Wess were the mastermind of the Schwartz incident (as I'm claiming), then were does this part of the story come from? I suggest, partly from experience. Wess at the inquest:

                  [DN] About twelve months ago, I happened to go into the yard of our club, when I heard some chatting near the gate. I at once went to the gate and shut it, when I noticed a man and a woman going out. That was the only occasion on which I noticed such a thing, and I never heard of such a thing being repeated at other times.

                  [DT] Do low women frequent Berner-street? - I have seen men and women standing about and talking to each other in Fairclough-street.

                  But have you observed them nearer the club? - No.

                  Or in the club yard? - I did once, at eleven o'clock at night, about a year ago. They were chatting near the gates. That is the only time I have noticed such a thing, nor have I heard of it.


                  Now we only need add some 'friction', and an innocent passer-by, and we have most of the ingredients of Schwartz's tale. So that is part of what I think happened. Yet this leaves unanswered a couple of crucial questions ...

                  In the Echo account, the man pursued is said to be the murderer. This is very much not the case in Schwartz's account. Why the switch? Obviously Schwartz was never going to come forward as the murderer (had he been), but the Echo account would have been more similar to Schwartz's account if the man doing the pursuing was the murderer, and not the other way around.

                  The second big question is, why did Schwartz take the risk he did in coming forward with a mostly fabricated story?

                  As my ‘version’ involves no plots, conspiracies or cover-up’s we can take it as a given that you will disagree with me on every point in the case.
                  I disagree
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    Just for my information, what approximate times do you give for these ...?

                    * Israel Schwartz walking south along Berner street

                    * Leon Goldstein walking south along Berner street



                    Fine then - I'll tell you some of what I think happened.

                    By mentioning Berner street and the grapes, who do you think of first? Probably Matthew Packer. Fair enough, but the initial reporting of the grapes is by Diemschitz and Kozebrodsky speaking to the press, a few days before Packer's story was published. In the case of the so-called Schwartz incident, I think we have something similar - the initial report is not made by Israel Schwartz, but rather by Woolf Wess, and captured by an Echo journalist for the Oct 1 edition ...

                    A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

                    In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the two latter running up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body. Complaint is also made about the difficulty there was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be called from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation. There is, notwithstanding the number who have visited the scene, a complete absence of excitement, although naturally this fresh addition to the already formidable list of mysterious murders forms the general subject of conversation.


                    This is the true first version of the Schwartz incident - a man pursued along Fairclough street at about 12:45, believed by witnesses to be the murderer. The time given by Schwartz was the same, he claimed to be followed by the second man in his account, and Abberline stated that both Schwartz and the second man were running. So this part of Schwartz's story is uncannily similar to the Echo report. So similar, that is hard not to suppose that they are both references to the same incident.

                    A popular interpretation of the Echo account is that the onlookers were confused about what they were seeing, which was actually two members of the club running for police - one running closely behind the other and yelling "police!" and "murder!". The main problems with that interpretation are due to what is stated in this line ...

                    The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

                    Neither member of the initial search party 'escaped', and both were definitely members of the club. The 'pursuer' in the misinterpreted search theory, is Louis Diemschitz, the club steward. Somehow I don't think Wess would have forgotten that name, if he'd actually been given it earlier in the morning.

                    On the other hand, the man pursued story does have similarities to the initial search for police, which consisted of two club members running along Fairclough street, who were seen and soon after stopped by Edward Spooner. Are these similarities just a coincidence though? I don't think so. As far as we know, no member of 'the public' referred to in the Echo report was ever questioned by the police. No witness at the inquest, nor any other newspaper report, mentions this chase. So how could Wess have learned of this but the police did not, until Schwartz arrived at Leman street station, late in the afternoon?

                    For me, the answer to this riddle is: Wess learned of the details of the police search, on his arrival at the club in the morning. He also learned of the police behaviour and attitude toward club members, while they had been on site. So Wess made the decision to frame the initial police search as the murderer being chased. This had the effect of taking the murderer away from the club, and conveniently, the pursuer (of forgotten name, but not his non-member status), and witnesses also. No mistaken onlookers or pursuer were ever found, because there was no pursuer or mistaken onlookers. The chase was an invention, but partly based on real life details, so Wess could limit the risk to himself and the club, by going public with the man pursued account. I think the account given by Schwartz was also mostly a fabrication, but also contained some real life elements.

                    Obviously there is more to Schwartz's story than just him being followed. Like the man stopping to speak to the woman in the gateway. If Wess were the mastermind of the Schwartz incident (as I'm claiming), then were does this part of the story come from? I suggest, partly from experience. Wess at the inquest:

                    [DN] About twelve months ago, I happened to go into the yard of our club, when I heard some chatting near the gate. I at once went to the gate and shut it, when I noticed a man and a woman going out. That was the only occasion on which I noticed such a thing, and I never heard of such a thing being repeated at other times.

                    [DT] Do low women frequent Berner-street? - I have seen men and women standing about and talking to each other in Fairclough-street.

                    But have you observed them nearer the club? - No.

                    Or in the club yard? - I did once, at eleven o'clock at night, about a year ago. They were chatting near the gates. That is the only time I have noticed such a thing, nor have I heard of it.


                    Now we only need add some 'friction', and an innocent passer-by, and we have most of the ingredients of Schwartz's tale. So that is part of what I think happened. Yet this leaves unanswered a couple of crucial questions ...

                    In the Echo account, the man pursued is said to be the murderer. This is very much not the case in Schwartz's account. Why the switch? Obviously Schwartz was never going to come forward as the murderer (had he been), but the Echo account would have been more similar to Schwartz's account if the man doing the pursuing was the murderer, and not the other way around.

                    The second big question is, why did Schwartz take the risk he did in coming forward with a mostly fabricated story?



                    I disagree
                    We can only approximate Schwartz time based on the time that he gave (12.45) We have no way of knowing how accurate he was though so we would have to allow for the usual potential margin for error.

                    As far as Goldstein, I’m not aware of any quoted time from him (although there might be one somewhere) and so we’ve been left with no more than being able to say that he passed during whatever period Fanny Mortimer was on her doorstep.

                    Could it have been the case that Fanny went onto her doorstep just after the Schwartz incident rather than before it?

                    …..

                    As for Wess, by the time of the Echo article Schwartz had come forward and so he would have been aware of the incident so isn’t it more likely that Wess, getting the story of what had happened second hand (from someone present at the time) was just mistaken? He’d heard about Pipeman and thought that someone might have mentioned his name but he couldn’t recall it. I don’t see how we can ignore the fact that we have, on the one hand, Wess (who wasn’t there at the time) talking about a chase whilst on the other we have Schwartz believing that a man followed him plus two men (Diemschitz and Koz) running into Fairclough Street, without concluding that they were conflated (by Wess and possibly others?)

                    I can’t see a valid reason for Wess manipulating the Schwartz story. It seems that you are suggesting the same motive that Michael attributes to Diemschitz and the club members? And, as you yourself ask, why would Schwartz have come forward with an inverted or largely invented tile? And one that, with a little bit a bad luck, might easily have been disproven leaving the police asking him why he’d lied about being there?

                    All of the problems that we see looking back at events in Berner Street are timing-related. And so as we know that estimations we’re used and we know that estimations can be wrong (and that clocks can be wrong or unsynchronised) I don’t see why there’s a resistant to the simple question - can these events be explained in a non-sinister way by making allowances for a reasonable margin for error? And they can. I don’t see much of a problem in Berner Street if we just make this allowance.
                    Regards

                    Herlock Sholmes

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      We can only approximate Schwartz time based on the time that he gave (12.45) We have no way of knowing how accurate he was though so we would have to allow for the usual potential margin for error.

                      As far as Goldstein, I’m not aware of any quoted time from him (although there might be one somewhere) and so we’ve been left with no more than being able to say that he passed during whatever period Fanny Mortimer was on her doorstep.

                      Could it have been the case that Fanny went onto her doorstep just after the Schwartz incident rather than before it?
                      about 1 a.m.

                      We could come up with a different time for Goldstein, based on the following logic.

                      * The Echo report on the interview of Wess, states the man was pursued at about 12:45

                      * The MA report on Goldstein and Wess, states that Goldstein passed "at about the time of the murder"

                      * Arbeter Fraint stated that the murder occurred at about 12:45

                      Conclusion: Leon Goldstein passed down Berner street at about 12:45.

                      Goldstein was a club member. Schwartz supposedly wasn't, yet coincidently he gave the time 12:45.

                      As for Wess, by the time of the Echo article Schwartz had come forward and so he would have been aware of the incident so isn’t it more likely that Wess, getting the story of what had happened second hand (from someone present at the time) was just mistaken?
                      It's difficult to say with certainty when Wess was interviewed, but this is the preceding paragraph to the man pursued story ...

                      The Club itself (proceeds the reporter), which is next door to the large gate, is now closed, but all this afternoon members and others who have special business there, are admitted after knocking at the door. The committee of the institution held a meeting this morning, at which the crime was talked over, and it was decided not to admit any stranger without the payment of a fee. The fee, the secretary explained, was to [???]. The committee, it seems, did not fix the amount to be charged; but, in reply to a question, the secretary said he thought that 5s. would not be too much. Considering there is nothing to be seen, this is rather an extortionate price to be paid by those whose curiosity leads them to Berner-street.

                      Was "all this afternoon" a reference to Sunday or Monday afternoon? Assuming Monday for the sake of (your) argument, why are you assuming that Wess would have been aware of the incident? There is no evidence that the Schwartz incident was on the rumour mill, let alone that it was actually witnessed.

                      He’d heard about Pipeman and thought that someone might have mentioned his name but he couldn’t recall it.
                      Conveniently. It's incredible that Wess was made aware of this man's name, and his non-club membership, but we have nothing from the police that explicitly, or perhaps even implicitly states, that they ever knew the seconds man's identity. You seem to be claiming that Wess had better intel than the police, who were performing the biggest manhunt in history.

                      I don’t see how we can ignore the fact that we have, on the one hand, Wess (who wasn’t there at the time) talking about a chase whilst on the other we have Schwartz believing that a man followed him plus two men (Diemschitz and Koz) running into Fairclough Street, without concluding that they were conflated (by Wess and possibly others?)
                      You're jumping to that conclusion. How did Wess learn about Schwartz? Ripperology didn't learn about Schwartz until 1976. Even if knowledge of Schwartz by Wess is to be casually assumed, there are other problems with your hasty conclusion. Who exactly is it that did the conflating? Was it Wess himself, or 'the public' he refers to? The answer is the later - Wess was implying that these mystery onlookers were confused about what they saw (but not himself). Yet this leads to a paradox. These confused onlookers who supposed that the man being chased down Fairclough street at 12:45 was the murderer, were mistaken, and yet lo and behold, a man was actually chased (or at least followed) away from the crime scene, at about 12:45 - it's just that that wasn't it.

                      The paradox is resolved by understanding that Wess reframed the search as a chase, deliberately, and gave birth to the Schwartz incident in the process. Wess knew what he was doing. He was not mistaken.

                      I can’t see a valid reason for Wess manipulating the Schwartz story.
                      He didn't manipulate it, he invented it. I gave a reason for him doing so, in my last post.

                      It seems that you are suggesting the same motive that Michael attributes to Diemschitz and the club members?
                      Has MWR ever claimed that Schwartz or Goldstein could have been the murderer? Surely the identity of the murderer is going to make difference to the club's subsequent behaviour.

                      And, as you yourself ask, why would Schwartz have come forward with an inverted or largely invented tile? And one that, with a little bit a bad luck, might easily have been disproven leaving the police asking him why he’d lied about being there?
                      I've not only asked myself that question, I've also found what I believe is a good answer.

                      All of the problems that we see looking back at events in Berner Street are timing-related.
                      That is just flat out wrong.

                      And so as we know that estimations we’re used and we know that estimations can be wrong (and that clocks can be wrong or unsynchronised) I don’t see why there’s a resistant to the simple question - can these events be explained in a non-sinister way by making allowances for a reasonable margin for error? And they can. I don’t see much of a problem in Berner Street if we just make this allowance.
                      So there should not be a problem with you giving a time for both Schwartz and Goldstein, if you just make this allowance.
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • But we don’t need to give times for Schwartz and Goldstein because they aren’t verifiable. It’s only when you start trying to tie these individual events down that you get the fertile ground for various theories.

                        Yes, I should have added the word ‘possibly’ when I mentioned that Wess would have known about the Schwartz incident. It has to have been a reasonable possibility though. The interpreter might have been a club member but either way it’s no great leap to suggest a local Jewish grapevine of some sort. So Wess could have heard about the Schwartz incident and as we know, these things don’t always get passed from one person to the next accurately. So Wess would only have had to have heard that ‘someone followed’ Schwartz as he’d left the street after seeing the incident at the club then he conflates Pipeman with BS Man and Bob’s your uncle we have Schwartz being ‘chased’ by the ‘murderer.’ Simples.

                        For me, the chances of anyone being involved in the invention of the Schwartz incident is close to zero. It’s all fanciful stuff and we don’t need fanciful because we have a simpler, more grounded and vastly more likely explanation for what went on. The Schwartz incident occurred and no one saw it. So what? It’s just not an issue. Things occur unseen all of the time and this only appears to be a problem if we imagine that it took longer than it did and imagine that they made as much noise as an Iron Maiden sound check. It took a few seconds and not much noise was made therefore no one saw or heard it. To keep harping on about there being some kind of plot is just red herring. There’s zero evidence for it. It didn’t happen.

                        And yes, I stand by my statement that timings are at the root of the issues here. All we have to do is accept timing inaccuracies. It was either Frank or George who suggested looking at these events without times attached. I agree. With a + or - of 5 minutes or so there are no real issues.
                        Regards

                        Herlock Sholmes

                        Comment


                        • You said…

                          .
                          For me, the answer to this riddle is: Wess learned of the details of the police search, on his arrival at the club in the morning. He also learned of the police behaviour and attitude toward club members, while they had been on site. So Wess made the decision to frame the initial police search as the murderer being chased
                          but….

                          Witness worked in the printing office. He remained in the club until about 9 o’clock on Saturday night. He then went out and returned about half-past 10. He then remained in the club until the discovery of the deceased.
                          So Wess was there all the time that the police investigation went on.
                          Regards

                          Herlock Sholmes

                          Comment


                          • Another scenario…..

                            12.35 Constable Smith passes down Berner Street and sees Stride talking to a man across the road.

                            12.38 Stride and the man have moved to the corner of Fairclough Street. He’s trying to persuade her to go with him but she’s already arranged to meet someone (BS man?)

                            12.38 Morris Eagle returns to the club but he doesn’t see the couple because they are standing just around the corner in Fairclough Street.

                            12.39 James Brown passes and hears Stride tell the man “no not tonight, some other night.” The man leaves. Stride walks over to the gates where she’s arranged to meet BS man.

                            12.40 Stride is at the gates when BS man approaches with Schwartz following behind. The incident occurs as Schwartz passes.

                            12.41 Schwartz and Pipeman leave the street.

                            12.42 BS man cuts Strides throat inside the gateway. Not wishing to draw attention to himself by running away he forces himself to walk away at a steady, normal pace. In a minute he’s gone from Berner Street.

                            12.43 Fanny Mortimer hears his footsteps and thinks that it might be a Constable on his beat.

                            12.45 Leon Goldstein passes along Berner Street. Just as he’s passed her door Fanny comes onto her doorstep. She looks to her right and sees Goldstein adjacent to the club and wonders if he’s just left it due the fact that he looked Jewish.

                            12.55 Fanny goes back inside to prepare for bed.

                            1.00 Fanny hears Louis Diemschitz horse and cart pass.

                            1.01 She hears the disturbance and goes back onto her doorstep.
                            Regards

                            Herlock Sholmes

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                              And yes, I stand by my statement that timings are at the root of the issues here. All we have to do is accept timing inaccuracies. It was either Frank or George who suggested looking at these events without times attached. I agree. With a + or - of 5 minutes or so there are no real issues.
                              Hi Herlock,

                              I think that you are on the right track. Chris McKay, who is considered an authority on clocks of that era said: "Overall I think that if you found a clock in the East End that was telling time to within 10 mins of GMT you were doing well.".

                              There are many people quoting times, the police, Diemshitz, the club members, Mortimer, Blackwell, Johnson....etc. Suppose of the clocks being used, some were close to GMT, some ten minutes fast and some ten minutes slow. Some one could be legitimately quoting a time and still be 10 minutes different from the witness with the GMT clock who is also legitimately quoting a time, and 20 minutes if were dealing with fast and slow examples. So it is folly to be quoting times unless they can be calibrated, which they can't! They're not lying, or mistaken, they're just looking at a different clock. The same applies for estimates except there is an additional level of error being introduced. When Jeff compared his Blackwell based timeline with my police based timeline he found the differences were negligible. My timeline showed that even the 12:40 discovery time could be explained with clock calibrations.

                              Cheers, George
                              “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                              Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

                              Comment


                              • Hi Herlock,

                                Might I illustrate my last post with a scenario based on the theory of cumulative and compensating errors.

                                Witnesses A and B both leave their home at 12 midnight by their clocks and both estimate that they will arrive by walking to the same club in one hour. Witness A's clock is 5 minutes fast so he is actually leaving at 11:55pm, and his estimated walking time of an hour is actually 55 minutes, so while he is sure that he arrives at 1am, it is actually 12:50am. Witness B's clock is slow so he actually leaves home at 12:05am, and his estimated time of 1 hour is actually 1 hour and 5 minutes, so he arrives at 1:10am, but is certain it is 1am. This is cumulative error. (If the witnesses actual times for their estimated hour were reversed, it would be compensating error, and the would both arrive at the same time).

                                Haha says arm chair detective 130 years later, if they both arrived at 1am, how come they didn't see each other. Someone is lying or mistaken. No one is lying or mistaken. A clock accurate to 5 minutes was a very good clock in 1888, and a five minute error in 1 hour is also an acceptable margin of error. A third level of error is introduced in that people didn't know in advance that they would be asked in the future the time of a current event, and the phenomena of recreative memory. Only the police were required to know the time on an on going basis, and doctor's as time events occurred.

                                I hope this throws into sharp contrast the absurdity of accurate to the minute timelines for this era. I have been guilty of this in the past, but I have mended my ways and have reformed. Sequences are much better.

                                Cheers, George
                                Last edited by GBinOz; 03-11-2022, 06:31 AM.
                                “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                                Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X