If Schwartz Lied ...

[GBinOz]

Round in circles we go George. I don’t know how I missed it but I did. Can you link me to it please.

For me Caz nailed it. Lamb was as good as telling us that his time shouldn’t be taken as accurate. If he was remotely sure about his time he would not have mentioned his not having a watch. For me it gets no clearer than this. I think that Lamb was simply mistaken and possibly a little incompetent. Caz also pointed this out. I agree with her. Louis said that he saw a clock. Lamb didn’t. Louis over Lamb in this instant for me.

There’s no contradiction in Diemschutz. Why are you so determined to show that he was wrong? I’m happy with Louis seeing the clock at 1.00 and Eagle getting to Lamb at around 1.05. We have no need to quibble on these times though. We know that no one lied and we know that there was no cover up. This is all that matters for me.

Hi Herlock and Caz,

Check Post #2500, with the big photo.

I believe you have drawn the last straw to condemn Lamb as incompetent for his inquest testimony. He was answering a question from a Police Inspector in a professional manner and making it clear as to how he derived his estimate from a previous clock sighting and not from a pocket watch. This was a discussion between professionals who knew what they were talking about and were aware of police standards and requirements. But you can all be happy that Louis, who didn't suffer from human frailties, said he saw a clock at 1:00. You don't need to quibble because no one ever lies and there are never any cover ups and that is all that matters. You can all find bliss in evidence from a person who wasn't there, and witnesses guessing times from indeterminate beginnings, and a time from a person who never mentioned times, and the dismissal of all (accompanied by self applause) who would cast a shadow of doubt on your theories. I don't have any more time to spend attempting to point to reality.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

She doesn't need to know. In talking to the couple, they made it clear to her that they had been at the scene when they became aware that a murder had occurred. That is the 'worst case scenario'. The best case is that Fanny was aware the couple had been standing at the corner, because she could see them from her doorstep. Whatever the case, the DN report makes it quite clear that the couple were present at the time, and did not independently return to the spot after hearing whistles.

DN: It also transpired that shortly before the man with the pony trap raised the alarm that a woman had been murdered. A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found.

There is only one reason anyone would want to move this couple on, well before the murder, and that is to clear the stage for Schwartz & co.



So Pipeman was indeed an accomplice to BS? What sort of accomplice? He doesn't warn BS of Schwartz' presence, before the assault occurs, so what good is he? Then in the Star account, supposedly the same man comes out of the pub doorway after BS has drunkenly walked down Berner street. That sounds like a coincidence, to me.

If Parcelman had picked up that literature, then run into Stride on the street, one could easily guess why the two might have quickly departed prior to Mortimer opening her door. Yet as a club member, or at least a member of another club, he would have to fit Smith's description.



If Spooner's 5 minutes is included, and it is supposed that Lamb was alerted shortly before 1am, then the murder and discovery have to be pushed right back - to the extent that Arbeter Fraint's estimate looks accurate. On the other hand, if Diemschitz is to be believed, then including the 5 minutes pushes the police arrivals so far forward, that it becomes impossible for Fanny to have locked up by 12:45.



George,
my only snipe is in regard to your removal of the board school couple. Removing Spooner's 5 minutes does not seem as arbitrary, but it does seem like a big call. As for me doing a timeline, that would be pointless - I'm a non-Schwartzist, surrounded by Schwartzists.

Hi Andrew,

You seem to have no trouble answering your own loaded questions without the necessity of any input from me. It is really not cricket to protest that your laying out of your theory would just attract the attention of dissenters, when you are engaging in that practice yourself.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

You seem to have no trouble answering your own loaded questions without the necessity of any input from me. It is really not cricket to protest that your laying out of your theory would just attract the attention of dissenters, when you are engaging in that practice yourself.

Cheers, George

George,
dismissal is not the same as dissent. No feedback is something else again. Having said that, I'm sure I'll come up with something more interesting than Charles Letchford, eventually.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock and Caz,

Check Post #2500, with the big photo.

I believe you have drawn the last straw to condemn Lamb as incompetent for his inquest testimony. He was answering a question from a Police Inspector in a professional manner and making it clear as to how he derived his estimate from a previous clock sighting and not from a pocket watch. This was a discussion between professionals who knew what they were talking about and were aware of police standards and requirements. But you can all be happy that Louis, who didn't suffer from human frailties, said he saw a clock at 1:00. You don't need to quibble because no one ever lies and there are never any cover ups and that is all that matters. You can all find bliss in evidence from a person who wasn't there, and witnesses guessing times from indeterminate beginnings, and a time from a person who never mentioned times, and the dismissal of all (accompanied by self applause) who would cast a shadow of doubt on your theories. I don't have any more time to spend attempting to point to reality.

Cheers, George

George, is this the photograph that you are talking about?

http://www.stgitehistory.org.uk/dire...oad1880s-1.jpg

the alternative appears to be this one

http://www.stgitehistory.org.uk/dire...oad1880s-2.jpg

…….

Surely you can’t be using these photographs to prove the visibility of the clock George? You can’t even see the window.

making it clear as to how he derived his estimate from a previous clock sighting

But that’s the point George. He wasn’t. He doesn’t mention noting the time from that clock. You’ve just stated an assumption as a fact. What cannot be denied though was that he very specifically let his questioners know that he didn’t have a watch. Why would he have needed to have said that if he’d just seen a clock? I’m not saying that we can ‘prove’ any exact time George but I genuinely don’t see why you have an issue with this point. Police officers were human after all. My ‘incompetent’ comment may have been too strong a word of course but what I mean is that we can’t assume that they were perfect. We read many stories of officers being drunk on duty or sacked for various offences. We have no word against Lamb of course but we can’t assume that he was perfect.

Can we be certain that a Police officer would have checked every single clock on his route? Or might he simply have formed the habit of using certain clocks. Maybe 2, maybe 3. Maybe there were clocks that experience had told him were less reliable. Maybe when he got near Harris’s clock someone across the road distracted him?

We just can’t say with certainty that Lamb looked at Harris’ clock. To say that it is is an assumption.

We know that he stated that he didn’t have a watch which is an obvious way of pre-warning that his time was an estimate. This is a fact.

We know that Diemschutz said that he’d seen Harris’ clock. This is a fact.

We know that he said ‘precisely’ which indicated confidence in that he’d seen the clock correctly enough to give an accurate time. This is a fact.

…..

Ive manufacture, manipulated or misinterpreted nothing there George. I’m afraid that you’re making the assumptions on this one.

For me, the weight of evidence points to Harris’ clock being at 1.00 when Diemschutz passed and that Lamb didn’t look at it. If you can find a statement where he said that he looked at the clock then the emphasis would change. But he didn’t say that.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I very much liked another poster addressing this peculiarity. To remove witnesses without having evidence to do so, not just a contrary statement but perhaps a group of contrary arguments that by content validate the individual stories, is counter productive behaviour. Nothing is discounted before proven to be incorrect. Lambs estimate of when he saw Eagle and arrived at the gates, Issacs statement, Heschbergs, Spooners approximations, the unknown variables with the moments when Fanny actually stood at her door, these statements suggest activities and peoples in the time frame that is most critical...12:40 until 1am....that are not included in any statements given by Louis, Issac, Lave, Morris or Israel. Aside from Israel at that point in time, the 4 other men are directly connected to club operations. Lave I believe acted as photographer for the club and Wess. It is odd that only these men gave times and activities that not one other person saw or heard. Morris returning, Lave at the gate at the same time, Louis arriving, Liz tussling on the street with a hoodlum while a shadowy figure watches....not one person saw or heard any of that aside from the person who claimed to see it. Witnesses hear things they think sound like X and some presume that anyone can attribute that sound to a known individual. Without any visual confirmation.

Michael,
that is not quite true in the case of Eagle. Mrs D said:

It was just one o'clock when my husband came home. Some twenty minutes previously a member of the club had entered by the side door, but he states that he did not then notice anybody lying prostrate in the yard. It was, however, very dark at the time, and he might, in consequence, have failed to see any such object on the ground.

That sounds a lot like Eagle, and yet Lave, who seems to have been outside until about the same time, is not mentioned. Presumably Lave reentered prior to Eagle, making Eagle the last entrance prior to Diemschitz. The issue that arises with Lave, is that he now seems to be out on the street at the same time Smith passes. Yet he claims to see nothing unusual. I went over Lave in more detail in #2493, but so far no specific response from anyone. Perhaps Lave placing himself on the street at a time that coincides with the victim being witnessed just yards from the gateway, by a PC, is not regarded as significant.

I also note that you haven't answered my question to you, in #2492.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael,
that is not quite true in the case of Eagle. Mrs D said:

It was just one o'clock when my husband came home. Some twenty minutes previously a member of the club had entered by the side door, but he states that he did not then notice anybody lying prostrate in the yard. It was, however, very dark at the time, and he might, in consequence, have failed to see any such object on the ground.

That sounds a lot like Eagle, and yet Lave, who seems to have been outside until about the same time, is not mentioned. Presumably Lave reentered prior to Eagle, making Eagle the last entrance prior to Diemschitz. The issue that arises with Lave, is that he now seems to be out on the street at the same time Smith passes. Yet he claims to see nothing unusual. I went over Lave in more detail in #2493, but so far no specific response from anyone. Perhaps Lave placing himself on the street at a time that coincides with the victim being witnessed just yards from the gateway, by a PC, is not regarded as significant.

I also note that you haven't answered my question to you, in #2492.

I went back to see the post and I think I skipped by it too quickly because it makes some sense. In the quote you posted Mrs D is not recounting actually seeing or hearing Morris entering the side door, she is relying on what she has been told.

My point was that the statements that contrast with the majority of witness accounts.. that by their nature validate each others accounts,... are the only ones from people whose story activities and timings cannot be validated by a secondary source. IF Lamb arrived before 1 as he said, and Isaac K and Heschberg were accurate, then Louis was incorrect with his estimate, or he lied. Morris Eagles timings would be either incorrect, or fabricated, Joseph Lave the same. Israel Schwartz and his whole escapade would have to have been seen by the men in the passageway if what he said was accurate. If witnesses were by Stride dying at 12:40, then Israel would have to be either incorrect, or he fabricated timings.

Any other witnesses that claimed events around 1:00am, like Gilleman, or witnesses that were told timing details by others, Mrs D for example, are not problematic within the scenario that is dictated by the "12:40 by the body" accounts. The only stories in question would be ones that rely on the honor of the witness for assurances, rather than the more amenable secondary validating source. Like Goldstein is for Fanny when he comes in Tuesday night, claiming that he was black bag man.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again, the majority of witness tends to be used to mean Kozebrodski and Hoschberg. TWO.

Those that point to around the 1.00 are dismissed simply because they’re inconvenient to an imaginary and comprehensively disproven plot..

Reason should rebel against this kind of thinking. Koz and Hosch were clearly mistaken. Apart from them we have a perfectly workable timeline. Irritating to some of course but that’s tough. Could they have been 15 minutes out? Spooner was 25 minutes out so I’d say that 15 is no issue.

Its informative to see how Lamb’s ‘around 1.00’ or ‘just before 1.00’ appears to cover 12.45 or 12.50. Convenient. A man who mentions seeing no clock but specifically wants his questioners to know that he had no watch. Something he’d only have done if he wanted to pre-warn them that he was simply estimating. There can be no other conclusion. A guess at ‘just before 1.00’ could have been a guess at 12.59. So could he have been 5 minutes out? Of course he could as long as we remove the conspiracy goggles.

[Michael W Richards]

Again, the majority of witness tends to be used to mean Kozebrodski and Hoschberg. TWO.

Those that point to around the 1.00 are dismissed simply because they’re inconvenient to an imaginary and comprehensively disproven plot..

Reason should rebel against this kind of thinking. Koz and Hosch were clearly mistaken. Apart from them we have a perfectly workable timeline. Irritating to some of course but that’s tough. Could they have been 15 minutes out? Spooner was 25 minutes out so I’d say that 15 is no issue.

Its informative to see how Lamb’s ‘around 1.00’ or ‘just before 1.00’ appears to cover 12.45 or 12.50. Convenient. A man who mentions seeing no clock but specifically wants his questioners to know that he had no watch. Something he’d only have done if he wanted to pre-warn them that he was simply estimating. There can be no other conclusion. A guess at ‘just before 1.00’ could have been a guess at 12.59. So could he have been 5 minutes out? Of course he could as long as we remove the conspiracy goggles.

Tsk tsk........the MAJORITY of witnesses either state 12:40 as the specific time, or approximate time, and Lamb by virtue of his statement that he was there before 1am, corroborates a story that has people going out for help 5-10 minutes before he saw them. So thats 3 people. Add Spooner who also did estimate around that time, and you have 4. Add Fanny at 1am then you can say without challenge that Louis must have arrived earlier than 1am. Ive never fixed that arrival time, you have repeatedly then argued against it in some bizarre ritual you have, Ill just say that it must have been before the men were summoned to the passageway around 12:40.

You have no evidence Kozebrodksi and Hescheberg were mistaken...desist lying about that. And no, even when you try to throw out the majority of the witness accounts, which is peculiar investigative technique at the least, you do not have a "workable timeline".

Since you post inaccuracies with bold face lies its hard to stay on top of your posts so they can be corrected.
Maybe try to be accurate first then I and others wouldnt have to waste time making sure inaccurate info isnt being put forward as factual. This doesnt have to be as unprofessional, inaccurate or misleading as you make it.

And for the last time, since you seem to have a concrete filled skull, the policemen HAD to know their times. Not one other witness there did. The police times have only been disparaged by you, everyone else seems to understand that in almost all the cases the police times are to be trusted and used. Because....once more...they HAD TO KNOW THEIR TIMING.

Lamb said before 1. That means before 1. Louis said he first discovered Stride at 1. We know he didnt arrive at 1. And we know Lamb couldnt have seen Eagle and then returned to the gates with him, joined by Issac, before 1am if they hadnt gone out for help before that meeting, before 1.

Finally getting a sense of how unlikely an after 1 am discovery is? Or do you need pictures.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Tsk tsk........the MAJORITY of witnesses either state 12:40 as the specific time, or approximate time, and Lamb by virtue of his statement that he was there before 1am, corroborates a story that has people going out for help 5-10 minutes before he saw them. So thats 3 people. Add Spooner who also did estimate around that time, and you have 4. Add Fanny at 1am then you can say without challenge that Louis must have arrived earlier than 1am. Ive never fixed that arrival time, you have repeatedly then argued against it in some bizarre ritual you have, Ill just say that it must have been before the men were summoned to the passageway around 12:40

You have no evidence Kozebrodksi and Hescheberg were mistaken...desist lying about that. And no, even when you try to throw out the majority of the witness accounts, which is peculiar investigative technique at the least, you do not have a "workable timeline".

Since you post inaccuracies with bold face lies its hard to stay on top of your posts so they can be corrected.
Maybe try to be accurate first then I and others wouldnt have to waste time making sure inaccurate info isnt being put forward as factual. This doesnt have to be as unprofessional, inaccurate or misleading as you make it.

And for the last time, since you seem to have a concrete filled skull, the policemen HAD to know their times. Not one other witness there did. The police times have only been disparaged by you, everyone else seems to understand that in almost all the cases the police times are to be trusted and used. Because....once more...they HAD TO KNOW THEIR TIMING.

Lamb said before 1. That means before 1. Louis said he first discovered Stride at 1. We know he didnt arrive at 1. And we know Lamb couldnt have seen Eagle and then returned to the gates with him, joined by Issac, before 1am if they hadnt gone out for help before that meeting, before 1.

Finally getting a sense of how unlikely an after 1 am discovery is? Or do you need pictures.

What a thoroughly dishonest pile. You have no sense of shame about the depths that you’ll sink to.

Michael, you’re cover up theory is dead. Thoroughly destroyed by the points that you very obviously refuse to respond to. Do the honest thing an admit it. A cover up where they plotters hoped that the police only question a percentage of those present isn’t a plot. It’s a joke.

Its amazing that you claim that Lamb was immune from the possibility of a 5 minute error and yet you assume that the police were such a bunch of witless cretins that they didn’t suss these witnesses who contradicted Diemschutz time. Didn’t they notice the times they gave? Or maybe they did some investigating, you know, as police do, and that they came to the conclusion that those witnesses simply made mistaken estimates. Of course you will say ‘no way!’ The police investigating? What next? And of course you know more than those investigating at the time. Those that interviewed the witnesses fully - not like us relying on Press fragments. Those that saw the witnesses face to face which allowed the to form meaningful opinions. No, of course we should ignore then in favour of a man who has created a cover up simply to back up a theory of who murdered Nichols and Chapman.


No we have to endure nonsense like this:

. the policemen HAD to know their times

So at any point in time a police man without a watch could have quoted the exact time? He could never have been 5 minutes out? And of course when a police man was confident of the exact time he would always stress that he didn’t have a watch first. Why? Just volunteering random information I suppose according to cover up merchants. Or was he letting people know that he was estimating? Like in various quotes when he said ‘around’ or ‘just before.’ Do they sound like a man confident in the accuracy of the time that he gave? Perhaps we should break out the dictionaries because some appear to have a language problem.

Not one other witness there did

But when they see a clock and confidently state the time you stoop to accusing them of lying because it conforms to you disproven cover up.

…….


The work is done. The cover up lies have been exposed. The offences to logic and reason have been highlighted. Your ducking and diving and twisting and deliberate misquoting and misinterpreting have been shown more than enough.

Game over Michael.

[GBinOz]

George, is this the photograph that you are talking about?

http://www.stgitehistory.org.uk/dire...oad1880s-1.jpg

the alternative appears to be this one

http://www.stgitehistory.org.uk/dire...oad1880s-2.jpg

…….

Surely you can’t be using these photographs to prove the visibility of the clock George? You can’t even see the window. Thank you. You have made my point. You can't even see the window and the clock was behind the window. It was not visible at an oblique angle to Louis or anyone else!

But that’s the point George. He wasn’t. He doesn’t mention noting the time from that clock. You’ve just stated an assumption as a fact. What cannot be denied though was that he very specifically let his questioners know that he didn’t have a watch. Why would he have needed to have said that if he’d just seen a clock? I’m not saying that we can ‘prove’ any exact time George but I genuinely don’t see why you have an issue with this point. Police officers were human after all. My ‘incompetent’ comment may have been too strong a word of course but what I mean is that we can’t assume that they were perfect. We read many stories of officers being drunk on duty or sacked for various offences. We have no word against Lamb of course but we can’t assume that he was perfect. We know that Diemshitz had a criminal record but you assume he was perfect and certainly couldn't lie. https://www.jack-the-ripper-tour.com...hutz-in-court/. Or were the jury mistaken?

Can we be certain that a Police officer would have checked every single clock on his route? Or might he simply have formed the habit of using certain clocks. Maybe 2, maybe 3. Maybe there were clocks that experience had told him were less reliable. Maybe when he got near Harris’s clock someone across the road distracted him?

We just can’t say with certainty that Lamb looked at Harris’ clock. To say that it is is an assumption.

We know that he stated that he didn’t have a watch which is an obvious way of pre-warning that his time was an estimate. This is a fact.

We know that Diemschutz said that he’d seen Harris’ clock. This is a fact.
Yes he said that, once.

We know that he said ‘precisely’ which indicated confidence in that he’d seen the clock correctly enough to give an accurate time. This is a fact.

…..

Ive manufacture, manipulated or misinterpreted nothing there George. I’m afraid that you’re making the assumptions on this one.

For me, the weight of evidence points to Harris’ clock being at 1.00 when Diemschutz passed and that Lamb didn’t look at it. If you can find a statement where he said that he looked at the clock then the emphasis would change. But he didn’t say that.

Hi Herlock,

Would the emphasis change if Diemshitz hadn't added the clock sighting to his inquest testimony and stuck to his original contention that he arrived at his usual time of about one o'clock? The police constables would have reported to their superiors before the inquest to ensure that they had adhered to all procedures. It would have wasted the coroner's time for Lamb to have given the details of his beat including all the clocks he used and all the clocks he ignored and all the times that he noted on the clocks. Smith actually did give some detail of his beat and it was cosidered so irrelevant that most newspapers didn't even both reporting it.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I went back to see the post and I think I skipped by it too quickly because it makes some sense.

Then perhaps we could have a chat (on the WoBS thread would be more appropriate) about how it was that a WVC man came to know of the murder so early, and what else he might have been witness to? Or would you prefer to argue with HS & Caz, for a few more years?

In the quote you posted Mrs D is not recounting actually seeing or hearing Morris entering the side door, she is relying on what she has been told.

How did you come to that conclusion?

SD: Just about one o'clock on Sunday morning I was in the kitchen on the ground floor of the club, and close to the side entrance, serving tea and coffee for the members who were singing upstairs.

When she saw the body and the blood...

I screamed out in fright, and the members of the club, hearing my cries, rushed downstairs in a body out into the yard.

Now that's rather odd, because...

C: What did you do with the pony in the meantime?
D: I left it in the yard by itself, just outside the club door.

So in effect, Louis is saying he left the cart right beside the body. So when the members came pell-mell down the stairs, what happened? I would suggest; nothing in particular, because Diemschitz' discovery story is BS.

My point was that the statements that contrast with the majority of witness accounts.. that by their nature validate each others accounts,... are the only ones from people whose story activities and timings cannot be validated by a secondary source. IF Lamb arrived before 1 as he said, and Isaac K and Heschberg were accurate, then Louis was incorrect with his estimate, or he lied. Morris Eagles timings would be either incorrect, or fabricated, Joseph Lave the same. Israel Schwartz and his whole escapade would have to have been seen by the men in the passageway if what he said was accurate. If witnesses were by Stride dying at 12:40, then Israel would have to be either incorrect, or he fabricated timings.

Why do suppose Stride was dying at 12:40, and not dead? Who just missed seeing her be killed?

Any other witnesses that claimed events around 1:00am, like Gilleman, or witnesses that were told timing details by others, Mrs D for example, are not problematic within the scenario that is dictated by the "12:40 by the body" accounts. The only stories in question would be ones that rely on the honor of the witness for assurances, rather than the more amenable secondary validating source. Like Goldstein is for Fanny when he comes in Tuesday night, claiming that he was black bag man.

He also claimed the bag contained empty cigarette boxes. That was never independently verified.

[GBinOz]

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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Thank you. You have made my point. You can't even see the window and the clock was behind the window. It was not visible at an oblique angle to Louis or anyone else!

George,
can you remind me of what end of Commercial Road, Diemschitz would have travelled from?

We know that Diemshitz had a criminal record but you assume he was perfect and certainly couldn't lie. https://www.jack-the-ripper-tour.com...hutz-in-court/. Or were the jury mistaken?

Can you place this lie in a wider context? What do you suppose was the point of it?

Yes he said that, once.

That's true. It is a fact that he said he saw the clock, and that it read bang on 1:00. The truth of this, is something only Diemschitz could know.

Hi Herlock,

Would the emphasis change if Diemshitz hadn't added the clock sighting to his inquest testimony and stuck to his original contention that he arrived at his usual time of about one o'clock? The police constables would have reported to their superiors before the inquest to ensure that they had adhered to all procedures. It would have wasted the coroner's time for Lamb to have given the details of his beat including all the clocks he used and all the clocks he ignored and all the times that he noted on the clocks. Smith actually did give some detail of his beat and it was cosidered so irrelevant that most newspapers didn't even both reporting it.

Cheers, George

What I don't quite understand, is why you're so adamant that Lamb and Smith would have used the Harris clock as a reference. Was it regarded as being a public clock? Was it reliable? What is illuminated at all, at night time? I can imagine the police ignoring this clock entirely - as Diemschitz probably did.

[GBinOz]

George,
can you remind me of what end of Commercial Road, Diemschitz would have travelled from?

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

Can you place this lie in a wider context? What do you suppose was the point of it?

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.

That's true. It is a fact that he said he saw the clock, and that it read bang on 1:00. The truth of this, is something only Diemschitz could know.

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.

What I don't quite understand, is why you're so adamant that Lamb and Smith would have used the Harris clock as a reference. Was it regarded as being a public clock? Was it reliable? What is illuminated at all, at night time? I can imagine the police ignoring this clock entirely - as Diemschitz probably did.

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

[JeffHamm]

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

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