The Problem With Times.

[Michael W Richards]

Nonsense. You spend all of your time on here supporting exact times.

You were given a chance to have decent exchanges and chose not to, but since you havent actually read anything I post or been able to convey that you understand it, I oppose you in particular using not what times as they are given in evidence, but rather what value you give those estimated times. In every argument you and I have had over times I have then addressed what you believe is correct then tried to compare it with other data, which almost always shows it to be improperly re-interpreted.

I use the times that are given by witnesses, you believe many of those times are incorrect. i tried to remind you and others today that it is not within your authority or anyones interest to disregard the known and recorded times given based on your own beliefs. If you need a specific to grasp this concept, in the case od Louis Diemshitz, he stated an arrival time, he said it was precisely that time, and I pointed out that many witnesses gave times that are very different. You say they were wrong and he was correct, not based on anything but your subjective view and your dislike with me. Well, as I remind you regularly, nobody cares about your constant self serving subjective revisions to times that were given and are evidence, they care about how the times given can be used in recreating an event. Louis's time does not match with many others and, as given, does not support an event or timeline that can be accurately re-constructed.

I have said over and over and over again to you... and you either ignore it or for some reason are unable to process information, but use the times as given by the witnesses. As they are. That all you have to use, no-one asked for or wants you subjectively guessing as to who had an accurate time and whose wasnt. You try and re-write witness evidence times all the time, and you have no business, no authority, and no support anywhere for doing so.

Use evidence because your subjective opinions have been proven to be as valuable as refuse.

[Michael W Richards]

More nonsense. Ask anyone on here how many times they estimated the time based on when they last saw a clock and have been surprised to see how far out they are. Your blatantly trying to tailor reality to suit your theory. You’ll try absolutely anything.

Again, it would seem that you are hopeless and lack the ability to read, comprehend, or discuss anything cordially. The evidence is the evidence, when it disagrees with what you believed, then suck it up, or find a responsible way to make your own point. Other people read these you know, and Im sure they see that, yes, I can get pissed off, but also that you piss everyone off with your rudeness, lack of insight and misrepresentation of evidence.

[Michael W Richards]

More nonsense. Ask anyone on here how many times they estimated the time based on when they last saw a clock and have been surprised to see how far out they are. Your blatantly trying to tailor reality to suit your theory. You’ll try absolutely anything.

Maybe that suggests a problem for you, but its clear you are without a doubt problematic anyway.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Cadosch said that he got up about 5.15, that's not a time, it's an estimation of a time.

Aye, but a considerable part of your OP concerns clocks and timekeeping in the Victorian age.

What you're saying in the quote above is that "about 5.15" isn't the same as "precisely 5.15". That should be obvious to anyone.

I'd have to ask the question: in the event this is the point of your OP, then what exactly is the point? A small, malnourished weasel knows the difference between "about" and "precisely".

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.

Nobody would claim the clocks must have been right. The clocks aren't necessarily 'right' today. I've got one upstairs and it's been saying 10 past 9 for a few days now because I haven't got 'round to putting a battery in it.

What I said in my post is this: don't be so sure all of the clocks can't be relied upon by virtue of the Victorian way of life, which is what you claimed in your OP.

[Michael W Richards]

Aye, but a considerable part of your OP concerns clocks and timekeeping in the Victorian age.

What you're saying in the quote above is that "about 5.15" isn't the same as "precisely 5.15". That should be obvious to anyone.

I'd have to ask the question: in the event this is the point of your OP, then what exactly is the point? A small, malnourished weasel knows the difference between "about" and "precisely".



Nobody would claim the clocks must have been right. The clocks aren't necessarily 'right' today. I've got one upstairs and it's been saying 10 past 9 for a few days now because I haven't got 'round to putting a battery in it.

What I said in my post is this: don't be so sure all of the clocks can't be relied upon by virtue of the Victorian way of life, which is what you claimed in your OP.

I think what can be said here is that IF a witness gives a time they state as "precisely" or "exactly", it must have been based on some source of time they had seen very recently, or at that exact moment. Whether that time is the same time source other witnesses use is unlikely, but that doesnt preclude both sources as being close in their respective times using different sources either. If one witness says I saw the clock on the tower and it was exactly 6am and another claims to use in that same area and using that same source at approximately that same time and claims they saw it reading 6:10am, then its unclear whose time is the one that can be trusted. But if a witness says "exactly" or "precisely" or "without question" then its more a question of their credibility than it is what the actual time was. We cannot extend plus/minus allowances to witnesses that state such a thing in that vehement a manner. They intended to have that recorded without dispute. And if that statement contradicts multiple corroborated statements which gave times that are vastly different for that same place and actions witnessed, it goes back to the credibility of the witness who stated a time that they left no margin of error for. You are right...almost and exactly are not the same and everyone knows this, but you are also right that we cannot dispute times given based solely on our perceptions of how mismatched all time pieces were.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You were given a chance to have decent exchanges and chose not to, but since you havent actually read anything I post or been able to convey that you understand it, I oppose you in particular using not what times as they are given in evidence, but rather what value you give those estimated times. In every argument you and I have had over times I have then addressed what you believe is correct then tried to compare it with other data, which almost always shows it to be improperly re-interpreted.

I use the times that are given by witnesses, you believe many of those times are incorrect. i tried to remind you and others today that it is not within your authority or anyones interest to disregard the known and recorded times given based on your own beliefs. If you need a specific to grasp this concept, in the case od Louis Diemshitz, he stated an arrival time, he said it was precisely that time, and I pointed out that many witnesses gave times that are very different. You say they were wrong and he was correct, not based on anything but your subjective view and your dislike with me. Well, as I remind you regularly, nobody cares about your constant self serving subjective revisions to times that were given and are evidence, they care about how the times given can be used in recreating an event. Louis's time does not match with many others and, as given, does not support an event or timeline that can be accurately re-constructed.

I have said over and over and over again to you... and you either ignore it or for some reason are unable to process information, but use the times as given by the witnesses. As they are. That all you have to use, no-one asked for or wants you subjectively guessing as to who had an accurate time and whose wasnt. You try and re-write witness evidence times all the time, and you have no business, no authority, and no support anywhere for doing so.

Use evidence because your subjective opinions have been proven to be as valuable as refuse.

And after all that waffle what do you actually say in this post. That we should just accept times given as being correct.

What I’ve said is that we should accept the possibility of clocks be wrong or poorly synchronised.

You’re point is black and white (and wrong)

Mine allows for grey areas, human fallibility and errors in technology.

Well, as I remind you regularly, nobody cares about your constant self serving subjective revisions to times that were given

The fact that 13 posters agree with me and only one agrees with you tells its own story.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again, it would seem that you are hopeless and lack the ability to read, comprehend, or discuss anything cordially. The evidence is the evidence, when it disagrees with what you believed, then suck it up, or find a responsible way to make your own point. Other people read these you know, and Im sure they see that, yes, I can get pissed off, but also that you piss everyone off with your rudeness, lack of insight and misrepresentation of evidence.

CORDIALLY!

Can anyone be more hypocritical? You’ve called me a dolt, an a**hole and a troll plus you’ve said that I have ‘learning difficulties’ (plus at least 2 others that I can’t recall at the moment.) Some on here would have reported you but I haven’t. I’ve mocked your theory but I’ve used no low insults like the ones above. For twenty years people have tried discussing this with you but most of them have just given up because it’s impossible to do. You are totally rigid in your thinking. You simply want this theory to be right and it sticks in your throat that no one agrees with it. Allowing for a reasonable margin for error is elementary stuff (as the poll shows) That an experienced, intelligent adult can deny it reduces the whole subject to an embarrassment. You really do need to let go of your obsessional, black and white, agenda-driven approach.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Aye, but a considerable part of your OP concerns clocks and timekeeping in the Victorian age.

What you're saying in the quote above is that "about 5.15" isn't the same as "precisely 5.15". That should be obvious to anyone.

I'd have to ask the question: in the event this is the point of your OP, then what exactly is the point? A small, malnourished weasel knows the difference between "about" and "precisely".

Firstly, if it’s obvious to everyone please tell Michael.


Nobody would claim the clocks must have been right. The clocks aren't necessarily 'right' today. I've got one upstairs and it's been saying 10 past 9 for a few days now because I haven't got 'round to putting a battery in it.

What I said in my post is this: don't be so sure all of the clocks can't be relied upon by virtue of the Victorian way of life, which is what you claimed in your OP.

That’s not what I claimed at all. What I’m saying (and 13 people on here so far appear to agree with me) is that we can’t assume that they were correct. I also agree that we can’t assume that they’re wrong either but Michael says that we should simply take times stated in evidence at face value, with no consideration of the possibility of error.

An example unconnected to Berner Street. Long and Halse both said that they passed down Goulston Street at exactly the same time and yet they didn’t see each other. Do we assume that one of them was lying? Or that it’s an issue of timing. Most would say the latter. If true to form Michael would say that one of them was lying.

So in general my point is, if there is a discrepancy in two people’s testimony on time, we have to consider the possibility of error. I don’t mean that we should always assume error but I don’t think that we should call a particular issue ‘solved’ if there is a reasonable alternative.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think what can be said here is that IF a witness gives a time they state as "precisely" or "exactly", it must have been based on some source of time they had seen very recently, or at that exact moment. Whether that time is the same time source other witnesses use is unlikely, but that doesnt preclude both sources as being close in their respective times using different sources either. If one witness says I saw the clock on the tower and it was exactly 6am and another claims to use in that same area and using that same source at approximately that same time and claims they saw it reading 6:10am, then its unclear whose time is the one that can be trusted. But if a witness says "exactly" or "precisely" or "without question" then its more a question of their credibility than it is what the actual time was. We cannot extend plus/minus allowances to witnesses that state such a thing in that vehement a manner. They intended to have that recorded without dispute. And if that statement contradicts multiple corroborated statements which gave times that are vastly different for that same place and actions witnessed, it goes back to the credibility of the witness who stated a time that they left no margin of error for. You are right...almost and exactly are not the same and everyone knows this, but you are also right that we cannot dispute times given based solely on our perceptions of how mismatched all time pieces were.

Can you still not get it?

Using the word ‘precisely’ you are clearly referencing Diemschitz. No one is claiming that when he said “precisely 1.00,” that he wasn’t stating the exact truth. I’m happy that the clock that he saw said 1.00.

But that doesn’t mean that the clock was accurate. Please try and understand this Michael. I’m not saying the clock must have been wrong. Only that we should acknowledge the possibility of it being wrong. That clocks can be wrong is about as factual as any statement could be.

[Lewis C]

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

Even if that's the case, it doesn't mean that Baxter would have said something that he didn't think was true, so i don't know what you're getting at here.

[JeffHamm]

There is one thing that hasnt changed in all this time, the individuals ability to roughly gauge how much time has transpired since they referred to a time source. I know from my own experience, that if I see a clock that states 12:00pm I will be fairly accurate when guessing when it will then read 12:10, or 12:20. People can roughly gauge the time elapsed, if relatively brief, between a previously established time and the current one.

Actually, no, we're rubbish at it. I presented actual research into this very point, our ability to estimate the duration of a time interval, and we're pretty awful at it when looking at how wide the margins of error are. The short version is that people tend to overestimate short durations (up to about an hour; so if they say it was 5 minutes, it was probably more like 3 minutes, type thing). After an hour or so, we tend to underestimate the duration (so if we say it was 1.5 hours, it was probably more like 1.7 hours type thing - by the way, those aren't the actual numbers from the study, I'm just using them to clarify what I mean).

Here's a table I put together from the research, which shows the relationship between a stated duration (the leftmost column) and actual durations showing the lower (min), average, and upper (max) values for the actual durations of the event. By lower and upper, those combined comprise the 95% confidence interval. For example, when someone says an interval was 5 minutes, then the actual interval could be somewhere between 1m 38s and 15m 06s, with the average actual interval being around 3m 37s (we overestimate short intervals).

Of course, some people may be better at this than others, so maybe you're particularly good at it. But anecdotal evidence doesn't help us, because we have no idea of how good or bad the witnesses were, so we need to recognize that duration estimation by people is, in the end, not all that impressive.



- Jeff

[Enigma]

A good post Jeff.

An easy test at how poor people are at estimating time is is to estimate one minute. Wait until a clock ticks over to a minute and then look away without counting and then check the clock after you think a minute has elapsed. I suggest that the result would be even worse when people are not consciously trying to calculate the time which has elapsed.

I'll be interested to hear the results if anyone tests themselves.

Regards, Gazza

[Wickerman]

Even if that's the case, it doesn't mean that Baxter would have said something that he didn't think was true, so i don't know what you're getting at here.

I was addressing what you said - "The more difficult question is, How much of an allowance?".

I was giving the reason why Baxter said "not very great, or very important".

[Herlock Sholmes]

Actually, no, we're rubbish at it. I presented actual research into this very point, our ability to estimate the duration of a time interval, and we're pretty awful at it when looking at how wide the margins of error are. The short version is that people tend to overestimate short durations (up to about an hour; so if they say it was 5 minutes, it was probably more like 3 minutes, type thing). After an hour or so, we tend to underestimate the duration (so if we say it was 1.5 hours, it was probably more like 1.7 hours type thing - by the way, those aren't the actual numbers from the study, I'm just using them to clarify what I mean).

Here's a table I put together from the research, which shows the relationship between a stated duration (the leftmost column) and actual durations showing the lower (min), average, and upper (max) values for the actual durations of the event. By lower and upper, those combined comprise the 95% confidence interval. For example, when someone says an interval was 5 minutes, then the actual interval could be somewhere between 1m 38s and 15m 06s, with the average actual interval being around 3m 37s (we overestimate short intervals).

Of course, some people may be better at this than others, so maybe you're particularly good at it. But anecdotal evidence doesn't help us, because we have no idea of how good or bad the witnesses were, so we need to recognize that duration estimation by people is, in the end, not all that impressive.



- Jeff

Thanks for posting this info again Jeff. Didn’t you also post some evidence on timekeeping/clocks in the Victorian era too at one point?

[Herlock Sholmes]

A good post Jeff.

An easy test at how poor people are at estimating time is is to estimate one minute. Wait until a clock ticks over to a minute and then look away without counting and then check the clock after you think a minute has elapsed. I suggest that the result would be even worse when people are not consciously trying to calculate the time which has elapsed.

I'll be interested to hear the results if anyone tests themselves.

Regards, Gazza

I just tried that twice Gazza. Once without counting the seconds in my head and once with counting.

Without counting I got 46 seconds. (Perhaps to be expected from a man with zero patience)

With counting I got 53 seconds.

It’s just not difficult to see how someone like Heschberg might have seen the clock in the club at some point before hearing the alarm, let’s say 12.15 for discussions sake. Then he’s interviewed by the police but when? They would have interviewed all members and staff so it might been, again for discussions sake about 2.30. So he has to remember seeing the clock 2 hours ago and recall the time then estimate the time period between then and when he heard to alarm. Can anyone really have a level of confidence that he couldn’t have been mistaken? Surely the more likely explanation about Heschberg and Kozebrodsky (and 50% of Spooner’s testimony) is that they were simply mistaken considering they disagree with the majority of witnesses?