If Schwartz Lied ...

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[DJA]

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