The Problem With Times.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is the question (I can’t really believe that I’m having to ask it) - should we allow a reasonable margin for error on stated times or take them as being exact and perfectly synchronised to other clocks/watches?

……………………


We are always going to have disagreements on matters of interpretation but there are some things that are so basic; so obvious, that they really shouldn’t need pointing out to anyone. However, on the issue of timings a ridiculous amount of time is wasted in trying to explain the obvious to a small minority. The vast majority of posters (almost all I’d say) accept that we cannot and should not hold witnesses to exact times. Even today we can get clocks and watches which are fast or slow and how often are they poorly synchronised - even with todays technology? I did an experiment on this recently using family members and household clocks and found a difference of eight minutes (with iPhones, an iPad, smartphones and the clock on an expensive Denon hi-fi system!) How much greater the chances of discrepancy in Victorian London? And in a slum where many didn’t own a watch or a clock.

Of course we shouldn’t try taking massive liberties but a reasonable margin for error has to be allowed for. Why could any intelligent adult dispute this unless the quoted times form the foundations of a theory and are therefore a necessity in bolstering it? Not just clock times either. We have to make allowances for the fallibility of memory when witnesses are estimating periods of time. How many times have we all looked at a clock and found that it’s much earlier or later than we had estimated? We shouldn’t assume infallibility on estimating time periods simply because it’s convenient to do so. I’ll use one example - Louis Diemschitz and Abraham Heschberg.

Diemschitz said that he discovered the body at precisely 1.00. Heschberg said: “it was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think.”

So, Diemschitz sees a clock which says exactly 1.00, the yard is a matter of seconds away and he says that it was still 1.00 (according to the clock in the Whitechapel Road) when he found the body. Yes, it’s inaccurate wording from him as the clock could have ticked over to 1.01. Can we know if the clock was accurate, fast or slow? No, of course we can’t. Can we know if it was synchronised to the other clocks used that night? No, of course we can’t. So when Diemschutz saw the clock saying 1.00 it could actually have been 12.53 or 12.54 or 12.55 or any of a number of times.

Heschberg’s quote could hardly look less certain could it? What do we know from it? Well we know that he hadn’t just looked at a clock when he was alerted or he wouldn’t have been estimating. So when did he last look at a clock? Who knows? It could have been an hour or more previously for all that we know. So he was estimating a period of time from when he last saw a clock to when he was alerted to the discovery of the body - and he was doing that some time later after a series of dramatic events. What time was his questioned by the police? We don’t know. What on earth would make anyone assume that this guess was spot-on? One person on here certainly does though.

So, for all that we know, when Diemschitz found the body it might actually have been, let’s say, 12.55.

Heschberg, thinking back in time, estimated the period of time between his last seeing a clock and being alerted guessed at 12.45. Can anyone say, hand on heart, that he couldn’t have been 10 minutes or so out in his estimation? Haven’t we all been ‘out’ by more than that on many an occasion?

I’ll finish with this, which was originally posted by George:

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.".


We have to allow a margin for error and accept that this ridiculous attempt by the very few to tie everything down to exact times just isn’t a valid or honest approach.

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Herlock!

I voted for the obvious here because I always enjoy a good Casebook poll!

Of course clock times were unreliable and unsynchronised in that era.

I feel like perhaps the question is subtly leading though (ie subtle like a sledgehammer!)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock!

I voted for the obvious here because I always enjoy a good Casebook poll!

Of course clock times were unreliable and unsynchronised in that era.

I feel like perhaps the question is subtly leading though (ie subtle like a sledgehammer!)

[Fleetwood Mac]

Providing there is consistency applied across all threads and situations then not a problem. There's no use, however, in using the time issue when it suits a particular argument and then not applying that same principle when it doesn't suit.

In the event we're saying that we cannot trust the times, then bang goes Albert, Elizabeth and just about every witness relating to each murder.

I would say, however, that you're taking this 'nobody knew the time' eventuality as a given when in fact it's not.

In actual fact, Victorians were sticklers for punctuality. It is said that Victorians had a mania for punctuality.

Also, good time keeping was very important in that age. For one thing, get the precise time coordination wrong and you have chaos and disaster with trains that share a track. All of the clocks worked on the same coordination principle in that they set their clock according to a 'master clock' which effectively was a centralised body delegating the time. A random individual would be setting his or her clock based on another clock which was based on the master clock, ultimately coordinated back to the centralised body.

I know, I know, somebody somewhere has written an article on all of the clocks being miles out, but did that person have a vested interest in proposing that in order to bolster his or her theory? Has it largely gone unchallenged and become received wisdom?

I wouldn't be so confident. As I said, Victorians were sticklers for punctuality. It was more important to them than it is to us. And, all of the clocks were ultimately synchronised with the master clock.

It's interesting that nobody at any inquest, including the coroner and the police, bothered to say: "well, we can't rely on the times because none of us have the first clue what time of day it is." On the contrary, witnesses at inquests were pressed for times. These people would have known whether or not time was reliable given at least one of them would have experienced a situation where they turned up for a train thinking they were on time only to find out they were 15 minutes late.

People guessing the time not based on a clock or a watch, aye, in the realms of guesswork. Those who saw a clock, don't be so sure the clock wasn't fairly precise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Providing there is consistency applied across all threads and situations then not a problem. There's no use, however, in using the time issue when it suits a particular argument and then not applying that same principle when it doesn't suit.

In the event we're saying that we cannot trust the times, then bang goes Albert, Elizabeth and just about every witness relating to each murder.

I would say, however, that you're taking this 'nobody knew the time' eventuality as a given when in fact it's not.

In actual fact, Victorians were sticklers for punctuality. It is said that Victorians had a mania for punctuality.

Also, good time keeping was very important in that age. For one thing, get the precise time coordination wrong and you have chaos and disaster with trains that share a track. All of the clocks worked on the same coordination principle in that they set their clock according to a 'master clock' which effectively was a centralised body delegating the time. A random individual would be setting his or her clock based on another clock which was based on the master clock, ultimately coordinated back to the centralised body.

I know, I know, somebody somewhere has written an article on all of the clocks being miles out, but did that person have a vested interest in proposing that in order to bolster his or her theory? Has it largely gone unchallenged and become received wisdom?

I wouldn't be so confident. As I said, Victorians were sticklers for punctuality. It was more important to them than it is to us. And, all of the clocks were ultimately synchronised with the master clock.

It's interesting that nobody at any inquest, including the coroner and the police, bothered to say: "well, we can't rely on the times because none of us have the first clue what time of day it is." On the contrary, witnesses at inquests were pressed for times. These people would have known whether or not time was reliable given at least one of them would have experienced a situation where they turned up for a train thinking they were on time only to find out they were 15 minutes late.

People guessing the time not based on a clock or a watch, aye, in the realms of guesswork. Those who saw a clock, don't be so sure the clock wasn't fairly precise.

If clocks and watches and phones can be wrong and poorly synchronised in 2023 how much more likely in Victorian London and in a slum to boot?

Why ‘bang goes Albert, Elizabeth..?’

When dealing with every single time across the board we have to allow for the possibility of clocks being wrong or poorly synchronised. Police would do this today so why shouldn’t we apply the same principle for then? No one is saying that time had to have been wrong, just that we should be reluctant to prove or dismiss something on the basis of times when it’s a matter of a very few minutes.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If clocks and watches and phones can be wrong and poorly synchronised in 2023 how much more likely in Victorian London and in a slum to boot?

This isn't relevant to my post nor is it relevant to your posts over a course of time. What you're claiming that is the Victorians had a hard job knowing the time.

I'll answer it anyway.

I'm looking at four clocks and my laptop. None of them are telling the same time. That's because I don't give the first **** about whether it's 6 minutes, 8 minutes or 10 minutes past 9. Around 10 past 9 is good enough. That's the world we live in. You pay a bit more attention to the clock when having to get logged in for work by a certain time and that's about it. As I said, punctuality mattered far more to Victorians and that necessitated knowing the time. That was a part of their culture.

Why ‘bang goes Albert, Elizabeth..?’

Of course it does. You can't have it both ways. In the event nobody knew the time, then Albert could equally have been quarter to 6 and Elizabeth 5 o'clock.

As I said, they referenced their times to a master clock just as we do, and nobody at any inquest bothered to say: "we need to be careful about times because none of us have a clue". Do you think they were all wandering around blissfully unaware that the clocks weren't right?

[Herlock Sholmes]

This isn't relevant to my post nor is it relevant to your posts over a course of time. What you're claiming that is the Victorians had a hard job knowing the time.

I'll answer it anyway.

I'm looking at four clocks and my laptop. None of them are telling the same time. That's because I don't give the first **** about whether it's 6 minutes, 8 minutes or 10 minutes past 9. Around 10 past 9 is good enough. That's the world we live in. You pay a bit more attention to the clock when having to get logged in for work by a certain time and that's about it. As I said, punctuality mattered far more to Victorians and that necessitated knowing the time. That was a part of their culture.



Of course it does. You can't have it both ways. In the event nobody knew the time, then Albert could equally have been quarter to 6 and Elizabeth 5 o'clock.

As I said, they referenced their times to a master clock just as we do, and nobody at any inquest bothered to say: "we need to be careful about times because none of us have a clue". Do you think they were all wandering around blissfully unaware that the clocks weren't right?

No one is suggesting that all clocks and watches were always wrong or that times were never accurate, only that we should apply a reasonable level of caution. I can’t see why that point is worth disputing? We also have to consider that some didn’t own watches or clocks. Even police officers didn’t all have watches.

I’m also not suggesting that a margin for error should only be in one direction either but in the case of Cadosch and Long the point being made is that we shouldn’t dismiss them on the basis of time because it requires an assumption of accuracy and synchronicity that we can’t confirm. Cadosch said that he got up at ‘about 5.15.’ That’s not a time, it’s an estimation of a time. So how can we know that it wasn’t 5.20 or 5.21? He then went into the yard: “It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think.” So another estimation. Then he talked about when he returned from the loo. So how long was he in there? How can we not apply caution here?

The allowance of a reasonable margin for error should be standard practice. It’s a far greater fault to claim that clocks must have been right and perfectly synchronised than it is to suggest caution and suggest awareness that they might not have been.

[Lewis C]

There certainly needs to be some allowance for a reasonable margin of error. The more difficult question is, How much of an allowance?

This issue was addressed by Coroner Baxter at the Chapman inquest: "There is some conflict in the evidence about the time at which the deceased was dispatched. It is not unusual to find inaccuracy in such details, but this variation is not very great or very important." He was talking about a discrepancy of 10 or 15 minutes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There certainly needs to be some allowance for a reasonable margin of error. The more difficult question is, How much of an allowance?

This issue was addressed by Coroner Baxter at the Chapman inquest: "There is some conflict in the evidence about the time at which the deceased was dispatched. It is not unusual to find inaccuracy in such details, but this variation is not very great or very important." He was talking about a discrepancy of 10 or 15 minutes.

Yes, it’s impossible to put a figure to what would be considered reasonable so even with an allowance being made it could still result in disagreement.

[Enigma]

I also voted for the bleeding obvious.

Is anyone familiar with the term 'push polling' ?

[Wickerman]

There certainly needs to be some allowance for a reasonable margin of error. The more difficult question is, How much of an allowance?

This issue was addressed by Coroner Baxter at the Chapman inquest: "There is some conflict in the evidence about the time at which the deceased was dispatched. It is not unusual to find inaccuracy in such details, but this variation is not very great or very important." He was talking about a discrepancy of 10 or 15 minutes.

A Coroner only needs to establish the date she died, they may need to be more precise for a murder trial.

[Enigma]

Were the public clocks illuminated at night? I ask because if they were not, then people would be forced to estimate the time from when the last chime sounded. This is in addition to any inherent inaccuracy of the clock.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I also voted for the bleeding obvious.

Is anyone familiar with the term 'push polling' ?

I wasn’t until I just Googled it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One person has voted against the obvious. One of the tiny minority that I’d expected.

Its difficult to find the words to explain this - mind-boggling!, staggering!, unbelievable! Take your pick. How can an adult view the case with those kind of blinkers on?

No wonder we get deluged with barking mad theories on this case.

[Enigma]

One person has voted against the obvious. One of the tiny minority that I’d expected.

Its difficult to find the words to explain this - mind-boggling!, staggering!, unbelievable! Take your pick. How can an adult view the case with those kind of blinkers on?

No wonder we get deluged with barking mad theories on this case.

There is always a maverick.