Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[A P Tomlinson]

The Christ Church Spitalfields clock was so accurate that it needed to be rewound only a couple of times per year and it was set to Greenwich Mean Time.

And Cadoche evidently relied upon it to make sure he got to work on time.

Why else would he have noted the time as he passed it?

And if that clock were set five minutes out from the one down the road, it would remain five minutes out as long as the one down the road was also accurate.
It's NOT about their ability to KEEP time. It's that the people setting them didn't have an instant and accurate reference to a central spot-on time. They were set differently.
And pocket watches and the cheaper domestic clocks were not as accurate at keeping time, so even if you set your watch to the church clock, by the following morning your watch may be out by a few minutes, and that church clock may be set a few minutes behind the clock on the wall of your boss at work. So, in that situation, what do you do? You probably set your slightly unreliable watch to about 5 minutes ahead of the bosses clock, so that you won't be late to work... it doesn't matter to anyone at all whether any of the times on any of the clocks say the same time as the people in Greenwich have decreed, as long as people are getting where they need to be by the time the person expecting them to be there has stated, using THEIR clock.

The Town Hall clock in my home town is about three minutes ahead of the one remaining church clock, which is about half a mile out of town. There is another, non chiming clock on the archway to the covered market that's a few minutes ahead of the Town Hall.
All three keep excellent time, because these discrepancies never widen or shorten. But at least TWO of them are obviously "wrong" and if I check when I go up this afternoon I will probably find that all three are out on GMT by at least a minute or so.

If that super accurate clock wasn't in time with the Inpsectors watch at the scene of crime, (or whoever was compiling the timeline for the Police) there would be a disparity in the reported times.
Like with Robert Paul and Abberlines established time line at Bucks row.

[rjpalmer]

I wonder what exactly is meant by "public clocks". I presume it means clocks on Government buildings, or what is referred to as the "public sector", as opposed to the "private sector"?

Legal standard time is merely the time as far as the law is concerned, for example with regard to the opening of licensed premises. It doesn't mean that clocks were required by law to be set to GMT. They weren't.

You might recall Howard Brown posting this suggestive 1883 cartoon from Punch.

"Metropolitan Prize Puzzle: To Know the Right Time at Waterloo Station."

It wouldn't have been funny if the readers didn't also know that it was true.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The timings given at the Eddowes' inquest didn't test very many clocks.

Lawende used the clock at the Imperial Club.

Harvey used the Post Office clock.

We do not know which clock Watkins used, but we know he was able to time his arrival at Mitre Square and estimate the time of Collard's arrival, which suggests that he had a watch.

Morris must have used his own watch or clock.

Inspector Collard may have used a clock at Bishopsgate Police Station, but may have had a watch, as he was able to time his arrival at Mitre Square.

Dr Sequeira similarly may have had a watch, as he was able to time his arrival at Mitre Square.

Dr Brown was able to say that he was called shortly after 2 a.m., which suggests he referred to a clock, and estimate his time of arrival, which suggests he had a watch, unless he passed a clock shortly before he arrived.

"Overall, I think that if you found a clock in the East End that was telling the time to within ten minutes of GMT you were doing well."

It seems that many people who testified at Catherine Eddowes' inquest had been 'doing well'.

[Doctored Whatsit]

What is Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) - and why does it matter? | Royal Museums Greenwich (rmg.co.uk)

This article is from Royal Museums Greenwich. It includes:

By the mid-1850s, almost all public clocks in Britain were set to Greenwich Mean Time and it finally became Britain’s legal standard time in 1880.

I wonder what exactly is meant by "public clocks". I presume it means clocks on Government buildings, or what is referred to as the "public sector", as opposed to the "private sector"?

Legal standard time is merely the time as far as the law is concerned, for example with regard to the opening of licensed premises. It doesn't mean that clocks were required by law to be set to GMT. They weren't.

Chris McKay, writing about East End clocks in the 1880s wrote, "Overall, I think that if you found a clock in the East End that was telling the time to within ten minutes of GMT you were doing well."

The article I referred to was written by a working class East Ender who didn't ever own a watch until he was presented with one on his retirement in about 1893-1895. It expressed his surprise at just how much variation he observed with the local clocks.

[Doctored Whatsit]

The timings given at the Eddowes inquest suggest otherwise.

The timings given at the Eddowes' inquest didn't test very many clocks.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What is Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) - and why does it matter? | Royal Museums Greenwich (rmg.co.uk)

This article is from Royal Museums Greenwich. It includes:

By the mid-1850s, almost all public clocks in Britain were set to Greenwich Mean Time and it finally became Britain’s legal standard time in 1880.

The Christ Church Spitalfields clock was so accurate that it needed to be rewound only a couple of times per year and it was set to Greenwich Mean Time.

And Cadoche evidently relied upon it to make sure he got to work on time.

Why else would he have noted the time as he passed it?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Victorian clocks, especially the large ones in churches etc, were almost always well made and kept fairly accurate time. Unfortunately, there was no universally agreed standard time, and GMT was not used by very many of them. It was used by the railways and the police, but not many others.

What is Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) - and why does it matter? | Royal Museums Greenwich (rmg.co.uk)

This article is from Royal Museums Greenwich. It includes:

By the mid-1850s, almost all public clocks in Britain were set to Greenwich Mean Time and it finally became Britain’s legal standard time in 1880.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Daily News, Sept 10th:

“About six o'clock, however, John Davis, who lives at the top of the house, before setting out to his work happened to go into the yard.”


Evening Standard, Sept 10th:

“In this recess John Davis, as he crossed the yard at five minutes to six o'clock, saw the body of a woman, her clothes so disarranged as to show that the lower part of her body had been horribly mutilated”


Morning Advertiser, Sept 10th:

“Nothing further can be traced of the dreadful tragedy until shortly before six o'clock. At that hour John Davis, a porter in Spitalfields market, who lives in the house, 29 Hanbury street, was passing through the yard on the way to his work, when he saw the mutilated body of the murdered woman”


Pall Mall Gazette, Sept 8th:

“by a Mr. Davis, who lodges in the house. As Mr. Davis, who is a market porter, was going to work at about six o'clock”


The Star, Sept 10th:

“It was half an hour later, at six o'clock, that John Davis, before going to his work, walked along the passage into the yard, and made the horrifying discovery of the mutilated body”


Daily Telegraph, Sept 11th (inquest):

“and then fell asleep until a quarter to six, when the clock at Spitalfields Church struck. I had a cup of tea and went downstairs to the back yard”


The Times, Sept 11th (inquest):

“He got up about a quarter to 6. Soon afterwards he went across the yard.”


———————————


So we have pre-inquest newspaper reports plus the two Press reports of the inquest giving us:

About 6.00 (x 2)

5 to 6 (x1)

Before 6.00 (x1)

6.00 (x1)

After 5.45 (x1)

Soon after 5.45 (x1)


So which do we go with? From these it’s reasonable to say that Davis discovered the body definitely no later than 6.00 but after 5.45. And from a closer reading, nearer to but just before 6.00 would appear the likeliest estimate.

He then ran straight out into the street where he ran into two men. So this would have been pretty much spot on 6.00 right?

Not quite.


James Kent:

“On Saturday I arrived about ten minutes past that hour. Our employer's gate was open, and there I waited for some other men. Davis, who lives two or three doors away, ran from his house into the road and cried, "Men, come here."”


James Green:

“…. a packing-case maker, in the same employ as last witness, said: I arrived in Hanbury-street at ten minutes past six on Saturday morning”


Henry Holland:

“a boxmaker, stated: As I was passing 29, Hanbury-street, on my way to work in Chiswell-street, at about eight minutes past six on Saturday. I spoke to two of Bayley's men. An elderly man came out of the house and asked us to have a look in his back yard”


Inspector Chandler:

“On Saturday morning, at ten minutes past six, I was on duty in Commercial-street. At the corner of Hanbury-street I saw several men running. I beckoned to them. One of them said, "Another woman has been murdered."




So was Davis wrong. Or lying? Should we be suspicious about what he’d been doing for the ‘missing’ 10 minutes? Or were Kent, Green, Holland and Chandler all wrong? Or lying?

Or were they all correct but there was simply an explicable discrepancy in time which causes us no problem when we sensibly apply a reasonable margin for error?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Does not the information provided in # 763 suggest that the Christ Church clock was more accurate than had been conceded by several posters?

And does not the fact that Harvey's timings do not conflict with Lawende's or Watkins' timings, nor with the movements of Eddowes, if she was the woman seen by Lawende, suggest that the Post Office clock was fairly accurate too?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

almost all clocks in the East End were inaccurate, usually by about 5 minutes, and often ten or more.

The timings given at the Eddowes inquest suggest otherwise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A comparison. I’ve said that as a general rule we can’t assume that all clocks were correct and perfectly synchronised. An example was then provided of how some clocks appeared to have been accurate. Is that a reasonable point?

To compare I’d say that it’s a reasonable general rule the men are usually physically stronger that women. Would that point be negated in any way if someone posted examples of some women who were stronger than some men?


A general rule like the one where we can’t assume accuracy can’t be negated by individual examples of accuracy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No assessment of any part of this case can be considered valid if an margin for error isn’t applied to every single time mentioned in the case without exception.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Should the margin of error on time estimates be the same for all witnesses, or should it change depending on how well an estimate conforms with those given by other witnesses?

The later could be problematic for the same reason that multiple eyewitness descriptions are never blended into one, in case or more of those witnesses saw someone different. In this case, if it is not certain that Mrs Long saw Annie when she thinks she did, then she cannot be used to narrow the time range that Cadosche was outside. That is, the estimate given by Cadosche is no more precise than that given by Herschburg.

I’d simply say that a margin for error has to be applied to all. Individuals can debate that likelihood of any proposed margin. Herschburg’s time is clearly in conflict with the other witnesses and by a considerable amount.

The point that I make about Long and Cadosch isn’t that we should say that it’s proven that Long saw Chapman because we can’t say that. It’s that we can’t dismiss the possibility just on times. Especially when all that’s needed is a 5 or 6 minute margin on both witnesses.

So how seriously can we take any suggestion that times should be assumed to have been spot on? Especially when Cadosch was very clearly unsure.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Lawende reckoned he saw Eddowes at about 1.35.

Levy made it about 1.34.

Neither saw Harvey, who was there at 1.28 by the post office clock.

Harvey did not see the couple.

Watkins was in Mitre Square at 1.30.

He did not see Harvey.

Harvey would probably have been able to see the couple as early as 1.38 had they still been in Church Passage.

He did not see Lawende and company either.

There is no conflict whatsoever.

With clocks often being out by five or ten minutes, would you expect that?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don’t know. Herschburg was estimating and we have no way of knowing how he came by a time that clearly made no sense in regard to other witnesses.

Should the margin of error on time estimates be the same for all witnesses, or should it change depending on how well an estimate conforms with those given by other witnesses?

The later could be problematic for the same reason that multiple eyewitness descriptions are never blended into one, in case or more of those witnesses saw someone different. In this case, if it is not certain that Mrs Long saw Annie when she thinks she did, then she cannot be used to narrow the time range that Cadosche was outside. That is, the estimate given by Cadosche is no more precise than that given by Herschburg.