If Schwartz Lied ...

[GBinOz]

Hi Jeff,

I just had another look at Smith's beat as addressed here: https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...iths-beat.html

From Smith's account at the inquest, his beat started at the intersection of Commercial and Gower's Walk and headed east along Commercial Road to Christian St. But for time purposes his beat started at the corner of Commercial and Berner. I think this is a strong pointer to the Harris clock being his time benchmark.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

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

Hi Jeff,

I can see merit in your logic. I have done some pondering on what you were saying about Smith and re-examined his deposition.

William Smith, 452 H Division: On Saturday last I went on duty at ten p.m. My beat was past Berner- street, and would take me twenty-five minutes or half an hour to go round. 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.

12:30 - 12:35 + 30 - 25 minutes for his beat comes up to 1:00. Alternatively, using mean values, 12:32.5 + 27.5 minutes = 1:00. So his math is OK.
He then says that, having finished his beat he was back at his beat starting point at the intersection of Commercial and Berner at 1:00. So why would Smith consider this intersection to be the start of his beat? He could use any point as the start point. Gower's walk, for instance, when he makes a u-turn and walks back over ground just covered would seem a logical start point. I would suggest that he chose the intersection because this is the location of the clock that he is using to check if he's on schedule and the time he is taking to complete a beat. Following on from this, it would then make sense for Lamb to be using the same clock for his beat. What do you think.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

I see. Vierordt's Law - I will have to keep that one in mind.



If Diemschitz arrival time is what you are trying to prove more or less correct, then the searches should not start at 1am, but some time after.

Well, it's a good thing your opening if is false. See, if I were trying prove Diemshitz's arrival time was more or less correct, I would have included Diemshitz in the analysis. I would also have great difficulty because, unless Diemshutz stopped by Dr. Blackwell's to get the time, Diemshitz's stated time is based upon a different clock.

Could Diemschitz have really arrived a minute or two after one, and still be compatible with Blackwell's watch? That would mean the search does not begin until 1:03 or 04, and as you have used Vierordt's Law to convert Lamb's 10-12 minutes to about 9 minutes, we are already out to at least 1:12, with zero seconds of search time.

Yes. Once you take in the wide margins of error associated with all of the data we have. All but Blackwell's arrival time at the scene are based upon estimations, which, if you look at the data, you can see are associated with margins of error wide enough to incorporate almost anything you want to imagine.

Ok, Dr. Blackwell arrives at 1:16.
We'll go with 9 minutes for the Lamb-Johnson interval as you suggest above.
Johnson arrives, and he estimates he arrived 3-4 minutes before Blackwell, which would translate to 2m 2s - 2m 49s (we'll call that 2-3 minutes though).
So Johnson arrives around 1:13-1:14.
Lamb estimates Johnson's arrival 9 minutes prior, making Lamb's arrival at 1:04-1:05.

The round trip from the yard to Lamb and back we worked out to roughly 2m 24s,
Meaning that trip started between 1:01:36-1:02:36.
And if you go with a sequential search, the first trip started 1m 47 seconds earlier, so between 12:59:51 and 1:00:51.

Add a couple minutes for Diemshutz's activities, and Diemshutz arrives between 12:58 and 12:59.

Allow for clocks to be out of sync, and Diemshutz's 1 o'clock is entirely consistent. In fact, no adjustment is required if one allows for Diemshutz's original statement of "about 1o'clock" rather than his more precise "exactly at 1 o'clock" given at the inquest. I suspect he did look at the clock, noted he was home "at one", which is typically how people think of the time even if the clock technically reads 12:58, type thing. Later, he remembers that he noted the time to be 1 o'clock, and so that's what he states. But, given clock desync, we don't have to go with that as different clocks different times requires no explanation other than they weren't the same clock.

So, there is nothing implausible about Diemshutz's claim to have arrived at 1. I'm not saying that proves he arrived at that time, I'm just saying it doesn't conflict with the testimonies, particularly once one recognizes the error that is associated with the stated times and durations.

If you're going to use Vierordt's Law to interpret subjective timespans, then I would have thought this should be done consistently. For Spooner that would mean adding his victim observation period (estimated), to the 4 or 5 minutes he said he stood by the body. That would be 5 or 6 minutes of subjective time. The 4 minutes adjusted to 2:49 that you allow for Spooner, would take Lamb's arrival out to 1:04:36, but I think it should be more than that.

I see we came to the same time for Lamb, between 1:04 and 1:05.

In the DT, the phrasing is; At the very same moment Eagle and the constables arrived.


If you're arguing that Diemschitz claimed arrival time is a good match for Blackwell's watch, then aren't you implicitly arguing that Smith's time was wrong?

In the sense that Smith's time doesn't match with Dr. Blackwell's watch, yes. Why do you think Smith would know what time Dr. Blackwell's watch read?

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hello George,

My only issue was that you said that I’d deliberately left this out which I hadn’t. There really would have been no point in denying the existence of something that’s there in black and white. We can disagree on interpretations George but neither of us can argue that something is or isn’t written in black and white.

The man who wasn’t there I take to be Wess? Fair enough. The man who never mentioned times? Eagle?

Cheers.

Hi Herlock,

Not Eagle, Gilleman.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I hope I am not misreading in seeing this as an apology, for which I say thank you. My frustration level was high with your continuing to use as corroboration for 1:00 a man who wasn't there and a man who never mentioned times. But I could have phrased my criticism in a more civil fashion, and for that I offer my apologies.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

My only issue was that you said that I’d deliberately left this out which I hadn’t. There really would have been no point in denying the existence of something that’s there in black and white. We can disagree on interpretations George but neither of us can argue that something is or isn’t written in black and white.

The man who wasn’t there I take to be Wess? Fair enough. The man who never mentioned times? Eagle?

Cheers.

[GBinOz]

Hi Jeff,

Thank you for that wealth of information. You are to this forum what the Oracle of Delphi was to the ancient Greeks. Without questioning the results of the study in any way, I have to confess to some surprise at seeing an estimate of 20 minutes could actually range from 9 to 48 minutes. If we were able to gather all times and apply corrections for errors and to convert to GMT, which of course we are not, we would probably arrive at a timeline that nobody anticipated.

As you are no doubt aware, there were some differences between Blackwell's surgery clock and his pocket watch, as well as the newspaper reports:-

Daily Telegraph:
Mr. Edward Johnson: I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kaye and Blackwell. On Sunday morning last, at a few minutes past one o'clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H.
Mr. Frederick William Blackwell deposed: I reside at No. 100, Commercial-road, and am a physician and surgeon. On Sunday morning last, at ten minutes past one o'clock, I was called to Berner-street by a policeman. My assistant, Mr. Johnston, went back with the constable, and I followed immediately I was dressed. I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was 1.16 a.m.

Times:-
Edward Johnston said:- I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am assistant to Drs. Kay and Blackwell. About five or ten minutes past 1 on Sunday morning, I received a call from constable 436 H.
Mr. Frederick William Blackwell said, - I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am a surgeon. At 10 minutes past 1 on Sunday morning I was called to 40, Berner-street. I was called by a policeman, and my assistant, Mr. Johnson, went back with him. I followed immediately I had dressed. I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was just 1:10.

But I concede that regardless of the time benchmark adopted, there are going to be contradictions.

You said "So, that means we have to have Diemshutz arrive, check the body, and get people to start things. Those events would require some time. If you think those probably could be done in a minute then according to Dr. Blackwell's watch, that would suggest Diemshutz arrives at 12:59. If you think those events would take 2 minutes, then 12:58. If you think those things took 15 minutes, then 12:45."
FWIW I actually did a re-enactment of pony shie to searchers exiting the gate at it came up as 1 minute and fifty seconds.

You said "I've chosen a very narrow clock de-sync window, not because I think that's accurate (the real window is probably larger), but because we're dealing with such small differences in times when comparing various theories that if we were to accurately represent the error ranges of all of these measures I rather suspect we would end up with a clock range error closer to 20 minutes wide (+- 10 minutes)"
I am some what gratified with this comment. When I made a similar suggestion it was not well received.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes. Here's a quote form the Yarmey paper that nicely addresses that very important question.

"...Theoretical and empirical investigation of duration estimations date back to the nineteenth century with Vierordt's (1868) discovery that short intervals tend to be overestimated and longer ones under-estimated. This finding is now commonly referred to as `Vierordt's Law'. ..."

You can see in the table, that around 58 minutes estimated time, the average of the real duration is now starting to get longer than the estimated time, which would increase if we continued to even longer durations. That's been known since the 1800s (as the quote points out).

I see. Vierordt's Law - I will have to keep that one in mind.

I haven't suggested anything about Diemshutz, but, I've got the "searches" starting at 1 (Dr. Blackwell's watch time).

So, that means we have to have Diemshutz arrive, check the body, and get people to start things. Those events would require some time. If you think those probably could be done in a minute then according to Dr. Blackwell's watch, that would suggest Diemshutz arrives at 12:59. If you think those events would take 2 minutes, then 12:58. If you think those things took 15 minutes, then 12:45.

What I'm pointing out is that, if the searches began at 1, the times line up well.

And, given the errors associated with the information we have, the search could even start later than one, which means Diemshutz's arrival at 1 o'clock does not conflict.

Meaning, Diemshutz appears to have arrived very close to 1 o'clock according to Dr. Blackwell's watch, though it could be argued he arrived on either side of 1. As I've presented things above, it would be shortly before 1, by maybe a minute or two. But the variation we have to consider means he could have arrived shortly after by a minute or two as well.

If Diemschitz arrival time is what you are trying to prove more or less correct, then the searches should not start at 1am, but some time after.

Could Diemschitz have really arrived a minute or two after one, and still be compatible with Blackwell's watch? That would mean the search does not begin until 1:03 or 04, and as you have used Vierordt's Law to convert Lamb's 10-12 minutes to about 9 minutes, we are already out to at least 1:12, with zero seconds of search time.

I tend to favour the sequential reading as well, but what I favour could be wrong, so when presenting the analysis one has to consider it in light of competing theories. In this case, the analysis doesn't conflict with either, so it doesn't help us differentiate between them.

If you're going to use Vierordt's Law to interpret subjective timespans, then I would have thought this should be done consistently. For Spooner that would mean adding his victim observation period (estimated), to the 4 or 5 minutes he said he stood by the body. That would be 5 or 6 minutes of subjective time. The 4 minutes adjusted to 2:49 that you allow for Spooner, would take Lamb's arrival out to 1:04:36, but I think it should be more than that.

The phrase "almost immediately" is a very subjective phrasing. Even in the sequential version Lamb arrives a couple minutes later, so that's hardly conflicting.

In the DT, the phrasing is; At the very same moment Eagle and the constables arrived.

Smith isn't reporting his times based on Dr. Blackwell's watch though, so Smith's statement, and the time you're comparing it to, come from two different clocks.

If you're arguing that Diemschitz claimed arrival time is a good match for Blackwell's watch, then aren't you implicitly arguing that Smith's time was wrong?

[GBinOz]

I’ve just re-read to get a fuller picture. I know recall the reasons for saying that Lamb mistook Johnston for Blackwell. It was an error of memory. There really would be no point in me lying about a demonstrable fact like this. It’s in black and white. So….

Hi Herlock,

I hope I am not misreading in seeing this as an apology, for which I say thank you. My frustration level was high with your continuing to use as corroboration for 1:00 a man who wasn't there and a man who never mentioned times. But I could have phrased my criticism in a more civil fashion, and for that I offer my apologies.

Cheers, George

[DJA]

Clearly any attempt at being polite to you George makes no difference. I’ve questioned your interpretation as you’ve questioned mine. Now you accuse me of deliberate falsehoods. No matter, I think I’ll survive.

You clearly have been infected by the drivel posted by NBFN and Michael. You are no equally obsessed with trying to prove that Louis was covering something up.



What time did Eagle get to the yard with Schwartz? The doctors being, I believe, about a minute or so from Dutfield’s Yard.

[DJA]

I’ve just re-read to get a fuller picture. I know recall the reasons for saying that Lamb mistook Johnston for Blackwell. It was an error of memory. There really would be no point in me lying about a demonstrable fact like this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What time did Eagle get to the yard with Schwartz?

I think that one can safely be called an

[DJA]

Well Eagle said he had been at the club several times during the day, and Schwartz said he had gone out for the day, and before finding out if his wife had completed the expected move, so I'd say they arrived no later than mid-morning.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff, a few comments...

Is this underestimating of short time periods, a generally accepted phenomena? Has it been replicated in other studies?

Yes. Here's a quote form the Yarmey paper that nicely addresses that very important question.

"...Theoretical and empirical investigation of duration estimations date back to the nineteenth century with Vierordt's (1868) discovery that short intervals tend to be overestimated and longer ones under-estimated. This finding is now commonly referred to as `Vierordt's Law'. ..."

You can see in the table, that around 58 minutes estimated time, the average of the real duration is now starting to get longer than the estimated time, which would increase if we continued to even longer durations. That's been known since the 1800s (as the quote points out).

So at what time are you suggesting Diemschitz turned into Berner street?

I haven't suggested anything about Diemshutz, but, I've got the "searches" starting at 1 (Dr. Blackwell's watch time).

So, that means we have to have Diemshutz arrive, check the body, and get people to start things. Those events would require some time. If you think those probably could be done in a minute then according to Dr. Blackwell's watch, that would suggest Diemshutz arrives at 12:59. If you think those events would take 2 minutes, then 12:58. If you think those things took 15 minutes, then 12:45.

What I'm pointing out is that, if the searches began at 1, the times line up well.

And, given the errors associated with the information we have, the search could even start later than one, which means Diemshutz's arrival at 1 o'clock does not conflict.

Meaning, Diemshutz appears to have arrived very close to 1 o'clock according to Dr. Blackwell's watch, though it could be argued he arrived on either side of 1. As I've presented things above, it would be shortly before 1, by maybe a minute or two. But the variation we have to consider means he could have arrived shortly after by a minute or two as well.

The sequential model is more likely to be correct, because Spooner told the coroner that he made observations of the deceased, before standing by the body for 4 or 5 minutes. He must be doing the latter when Lamb arrives, as at the inquest...

C: Was any one touching the body when you arrived?
L: No. There was no one within a yard of it.

I tend to favour the sequential reading as well, but what I favour could be wrong, so when presenting the analysis one has to consider it in light of competing theories. In this case, the analysis doesn't conflict with either, so it doesn't help us differentiate between them.

So Diemschitz' memory must have been incorrect, when he stated that Spooner and Lamb arrived almost simultaneously. Going off on a tangent, a sequential search does raise the question as to why the search for police initially proceeded along Fairclough street, and not the much better bet of Commercial Road.

The phrase "almost immediately" is a very subjective phrasing. Even in the sequential version Lamb arrives a couple minutes later, so that's hardly conflicting.

The later time for Lamb, would mean that Smith does not arrive until about 1:07, and if we start the search with the assumption that Diemschitz turned into Berner street at 1:00, then the 1:07 could go to 1:09 or even later. That would imply Smith was out in his timing by about 7 minutes. That is about 25% of his beat's mean timespan.

Smith isn't reporting his times based on Dr. Blackwell's watch though, so Smith's statement, and the time you're comparing it to, come from two different clocks.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

I've gone back to the Yarmey 2000 study which examined the accuracy of people's estimation of durations, and have used their data to work "backwards", take an estimation and work out the average real duration it represents. I've also worked out the 95% confidence interval (basically, the range of real time durations that a given estimation represents). Meaning, if we have someone say "it was about 5 minutes", then the actual duration will fall, 95% of the time, between some minimum and maximum range of times. While I think the average and maximum values are probably reasonably good, working out the minimum part of the range has a few issues that I can't address due to not having the raw data and only the summary they report. However, this isn't a publication for scientific purposes and the values should be good enough to serve our purposes.

I've included the plot here, including the equations one can use to calculate the minimum (dotted series) average (solid series) and maximum (dashed series). You just enter the duration in seconds as X in the equations, and you get the "real duration" times back in seconds.





Using the above equations, here's a table that covers estimations from 1 minute up to 60 minutes that people can, if they wish, use to guide their interpretations.

The ranges present the min, average, and maximum associated with a stated estimate in minutes (which is usually what we're working with). The minimum and maximums are not absolutes, there is a 5% chance that the real duration is outside this range (2.5% chance to be shorter, and 2.5% chance to be longer). That means, you can always claim that it is not impossible for a duration to be outside this range if you need to argue it for your theory, but it also means you cannot rationally deny that your possible value is improbable. Given the ranges are clearly skewed (the difference between the minimum and average is much smaller than the difference between the average and the maximum), the mode (the most common value) will be located between the minimum and average value. I don't have enough information to work out what those would be though.

Enjoy

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What time did Eagle get to the yard with Schwartz?

Well Eagle said he had been at the club several times during the day, and Schwartz said he had gone out for the day, and before finding out if his wife had completed the expected move, so I'd say they arrived no later than mid-morning.