An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[GBinOz]

I agree that Fanny Mortimers account is problematic. In particular her lack of a clear view of the gates or yard of the club whilst inside her house. Her timings regarding when she was actually on her doorstep are questionable.

Nevertheless there is no reason she was not genuine. It is also confusing when she states that the man walking past her house with the shiny bag (Goldstein) may have been coming from the club, as if he was then he would have crossed over the road for her to see him or she went out onto the pavement as he was walking towards the Nelson. Just cant figure that out.

This was also a puzzlement to me, until I considered the possibility that Mortimer saw the man with the black bag headed south, and a different woman, married to an artisan, saw a man with a black bag headed north, that might have been coming from the club. I should add that this theory has not gained any general support, but is at least on topic rather than Schwartz....again.

[GBinOz]

2) Also when Schwartz describes a man coming out of the doorway of the pub this must be the small recess on the corner. Pub was shut.
Suppose Pipeman has just arrived and, due to the windy night he pauses to shelter in the alcove around the pub door to light his pipe. He hears a commotion in the direction of the yard and steps out to see a man standing over a woman shouting at another man headed south on the opposite corner to where he is standing. What is his assessment? It the man on the opposite side of the street escaping an assault on the woman, or is the man standing over her the culprit.

Or, he is JtR and avails himself of an opportunity.

Not sure how descriptions match but is pipe/knife man in fact Parcel Man/JTR hanging about
I don't think he is Parcel man, who is either in the toilet or in the club or in the printing office.

Schwartz clears off chased a bit, BSM clears off when seeing the knife.

Pipe/knife man returns takes Stride into yard.(he was her earlier partner so no worries in her mind)
I don't think he was her earlier partner, but presents as her present rescuer.

Kills her

NW

My theory is that immediately after he cuts her throat Parcelman returns and there is a chase through the streets. YMMV.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I think that the simplest explanation is the likeliest in this instance NW. I think that Fanny went onto her doorstep later than she believed that she had and that she had heard other footsteps and assumed that they were the beat Constable passing (which she would have known actually occurred at around 12.30 or so) So one suggestion - Smith passed at around 12.30 - the couple left at around 12.31 - Lave stands on the pavement at around 12.33 for a couple of minutes and goes back into the yard at around 12.35 - Eagle returns at around 12.37 - Woman arrives at the gateway at around 12.38 - BS man arrives at around 12.39 (with Schwartz behind him) - the incident occurs and is over by around 12.40 - Fanny comes onto her doorstep at around 12.41 to an empty street - she goes back indoors at around 12.59 (which still mean that she had spent 18 minutes out of 30 on her doorstep, which isn’t too far off her ‘nearly the whole time’ when we consider human judgment.)

PC Smith: It takes about 25 minutes to half an hour to go round the beat.

You implicitly have Smith arriving at the yard as early as 12:55, and no later than 1:00am. That would push the discovery back to no later than about 12:50, making a mess of your latest attempt at a timeline.

FM: A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

Does she refer to the couple you suppose left at around 12:31?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I agree that Fanny Mortimers account is problematic. In particular her lack of a clear view of the gates or yard of the club whilst inside her house. Her timings regarding when she was actually on her doorstep are questionable.

Nevertheless there is no reason she was not genuine. It is also confusing when she states that the man walking past her house with the shiny bag (Goldstein) may have been coming from the club, as if he was then he would have crossed over the road for her to see him or she went out onto the pavement as he was walking towards the Nelson. Just cant figure that out.

Then it might be worth considering what others have said about this.

So genuine but a bit muddly.

The quote of Fanny Mortimer states that the man came from the Commercial Road. A man coming from there cannot also be coming from the club, especially if he is walking up (i.e. North on) the street.

As for the couple she says were on the corner and saw nothing just doesn't work out.

For example if it was an unknown couple and they were there for the whole period they MUST have seen something. We know with certainty that Diemschutz comes home at 1am (pretty much) So if they were genuine they are gone before his arrival.

James Brown: As I was going home I saw a man and woman standing against the wall by the board school in Fairclough-street.

Why MUST they have seen something, from Fairclough St?

The couple cannot be Stride and a partner as clearly she at some point in that period goes to the club gates and ends up dead inside before 1am

Brown said the woman he saw was almost certainly the deceased.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Fanny confidently claimed to have been on her doorstep for nearly the whole time between 12.30 and 1.00 and is seen as the main reason why Schwartz gets disbelieved. And yet…at around 12.30-12.35 PC Smith passed and Fanny didn’t see him. Yes, she felt that she had gone onto her doorstep after he’d passed but it’s still a point to note. Then we have Parcelman and his companion standing across the road. How soon after Smith left the street did they do the same we have no way of knowing but Fanny didn’t see them either. We get around five different versions of what Joseph Lave did so he’s impossible to put any time to but he claimed to have, for a time at least, gone onto the street and yet Fanny didn’t see him either. Then we have Morris Eagle saying that he returned to the club at around 12.40. We don’t know if the police checked his story but it was certainly checkable. Fanny didn’t see him. And although we don’t know at what time, we do know that at some point before Diemschitz return Elizabeth Stride arrived at Dutfield’s Yard, again, entirely unseen by Fanny Mortimer. So, discounting Stride’s killer we have 6 people spending at least some time in Berner Street entirely unseen by the woman that is used to discredit Schwartz. The woman who was supposedly on her doorstep for ‘nearly the whole time’ between 12.30 and 1.00. This suggestion isn’t possible and so the question is why is she relied upon? So what actually happened?

The lack of witnesses to the 'Schwartz incident' would amount to no more than about half the issue with Schwartz's account. Of that half, the women in the kitchen would be of more relevance than Mortimer, and the couple at the corner are at least as relevant. They certainly seem to push the incident far enough back in time to make timelining the last half-hour, extra difficult. All other witnesses, both known and unknown, are also important. For example, Edward Spooner, who did not report seeing the chase down Fairclough St, mentioned by Woolf Wess. So, Fanny would amount to no more than about a quarter of a half of the total case against Schwartz. This one-eighth might be revised, dependent on assuming she is or is not the subject of the 3rd-person report, and the interviewed neighbour in the Evening News.

All the above is my opinion, of course. Others might suppose that Fanny Mortimer is of more relevance. If you have particular members in mind in claiming that Mortimer provides the bulk of the case against Schwartz, can I suggest that you quote one or more relevant posts, and we can take it from there ...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Couple of observations.

1) when the Star reports the following on 1st October when talking of a person arrested after Schwartz description;

This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted. (That's why they need to make more enquiries because there is doubt)

I think they mean the prisoners statement has not been wholly accepted. The reporter states this to explain why he is being held (the prisoner ) for further enquiries. If it was related to Schwarz he would have ended the piece by saying 'the Hungarian mans statement is not wholly accepted' that's how it reads to me. I guess this has been debated before

It has been debated before, and most people (including myself) seem to agree that it is the prisoner's statement that is not wholly accepted. Fascinating, as this would seem to imply that the prisoner is not denying being anywhere near the crime scene at around the time of the murder. Yet, the following day, it appears that doubts have moved from the prisoner, onto Schwartz. However, when we look at Swanson's report, there is no hint that either man described by Schwartz has been identified.

It has been argued, or perhaps just asserted, by members such as Abby Normal, that Schwartz would have been taking a terrible risk by lying about the incident, placing both himself and his family in jeopardy. However, the prisoner situation and the respective views of the Leman St police versus those at Scotland Yard, suggest that we have one man's claims contradicting those of another witness. There is no CCTV with which to adjudicate the issue. Therefore, the risk of providing misinformation is relatively minor.

2) Also when Schwartz describes a man coming out of the doorway of the pub this must be the small recess on the corner. Pub was shut.

Pub was shut, and a man in that closed doorway would not have been visible to a man messing with a woman in the Dutfield's Yard gateway. Perhaps the Star got this bit wrong? Shudder the thought.

Not sure how descriptions match but is pipe/knife man in fact Parcel Man/JTR hanging about

Schwartz clears off chased a bit, BSM clears off when seeing the knife.

Pipe/knife man returns takes Stride into yard.(he was her earlier partner so no worries in her mind)

Kills her

That would incredibly risky, given the possibility that shouting and screams would draw attention.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that the simplest explanation is the likeliest in this instance NW. I think that Fanny went onto her doorstep later than she believed that she had and that she had heard other footsteps and assumed that they were the beat Constable passing (which she would have known actually occurred at around 12.30 or so) So one suggestion - Smith passed at around 12.30 - the couple left at around 12.31 - Lave stands on the pavement at around 12.33 for a couple of minutes and goes back into the yard at around 12.35 - Eagle returns at around 12.37 - Woman arrives at the gateway at around 12.38 - BS man arrives at around 12.39 (with Schwartz behind him) - the incident occurs and is over by around 12.40 - Fanny comes onto her doorstep at around 12.41 to an empty street - she goes back indoors at around 12.59 (which still mean that she had spent 18 minutes out of 30 on her doorstep, which isn’t too far off her ‘nearly the whole time’ when we consider human judgment.)

[New Waterloo]

I agree that Fanny Mortimers account is problematic. In particular her lack of a clear view of the gates or yard of the club whilst inside her house. Her timings regarding when she was actually on her doorstep are questionable.

Nevertheless there is no reason she was not genuine. It is also confusing when she states that the man walking past her house with the shiny bag (Goldstein) may have been coming from the club, as if he was then he would have crossed over the road for her to see him or she went out onto the pavement as he was walking towards the Nelson. Just cant figure that out.

So genuine but a bit muddly.

As for the couple she says were on the corner and saw nothing just doesn't work out.

For example if it was an unknown couple and they were there for the whole period they MUST have seen something. We know with certainty that Diemschutz comes home at 1am (pretty much) So if they were genuine they are gone before his arrival.

The couple cannot be Stride and a partner as clearly she at some point in that period goes to the club gates and ends up dead inside before 1am

Could it have been Spooner and his girlfriend. Their timing is wrong. Would Spooner have a watch. Would his girlfriend.

Spooner walks her home. Gets involved on his way home so later the couple can say. We were there the whole time and saw nothing.

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

If we accept the suggestion that a few witnesses do indeed lie (although usually with a fairly apparent reason) and that witnesses in general can be guilty of error and misjudgment then we of course have to apply this consideration to all witness, and not just to one and yet it’s Isreal Schwartz alone that is the usual focus of this doubt. Why do we not apply this to Fanny Mortimer? Why is Schwartz the liar and Fanny the paragon of exactitude?

Fanny confidently claimed to have been on her doorstep for nearly the whole time between 12.30 and 1.00 and is seen as the main reason why Schwartz gets disbelieved. And yet…at around 12.30-12.35 PC Smith passed and Fanny didn’t see him. Yes, she felt that she had gone onto her doorstep after he’d passed but it’s still a point to note. Then we have Parcelman and his companion standing across the road. How soon after Smith left the street did they do the same we have no way of knowing but Fanny didn’t see them either. We get around five different versions of what Joseph Lave did so he’s impossible to put any time to but he claimed to have, for a time at least, gone onto the street and yet Fanny didn’t see him either. Then we have Morris Eagle saying that he returned to the club at around 12.40. We don’t know if the police checked his story but it was certainly checkable. Fanny didn’t see him. And although we don’t know at what time, we do know that at some point before Diemschitz return Elizabeth Stride arrived at Dutfield’s Yard, again, entirely unseen by Fanny Mortimer. So, discounting Stride’s killer we have 6 people spending at least some time in Berner Street entirely unseen by the woman that is used to discredit Schwartz. The woman who was supposedly on her doorstep for ‘nearly the whole time’ between 12.30 and 1.00. This suggestion isn’t possible and so the question is why is she relied upon? So what actually happened?

This is my opinion as to what is the likeliest scenario. Bear in mind how many times Fanny Mortimer would have seen or heard a Constable passing on his beat at around 12.30-12.35. How she might even have been confident of the time by seeing him.

I think that Joseph Lave went back into the club just before Morris Eagle returned when he said that he did, sometime around 12.40 (possible something like 12.38), with Fanny Mortimer being in her house since before 12.30. Between Eagle’s return and BS man’s arrival a woman arrives to stand in the gateway (possibly Stride?) Then BS man comes walking south on Berner Street followed by Schwartz. Fanny hears his footsteps (she didn’t hear Eagle’s) and continues doing whatever she’s doing. She believes that the steps were from a beat Constable’s and so in her mind she fixes the time to close to 12.30. As she is doing whatever she was doing indoors the incident occurs. Remember that we have to time from her hearing BS man’s steps so we are talking of seconds. Jeff has shown how poor we are at estimating periods of time so her memory of going onto her doorstep ‘immediately’ after the steps only had to have been a matter of seconds; a minute at most, and Fanny goes onto her doorstep to an empty street.

In mistaking BS man for a Constable she has mistakenly assumed that she had been on her doorstep from 12.30/12.35 until just before 1.00. Fanny was simply mistaken.

[New Waterloo]

Couple of observations.

1) when the Star reports the following on 1st October when talking of a person arrested after Schwartz description;

This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted. (That's why they need to make more enquiries because there is doubt)

I think they mean the prisoners statement has not been wholly accepted. The reporter states this to explain why he is being held (the prisoner ) for further enquiries. If it was related to Schwarz he would have ended the piece by saying 'the Hungarian mans statement is not wholly accepted' that's how it reads to me. I guess this has been debated before


2) Also when Schwartz describes a man coming out of the doorway of the pub this must be the small recess on the corner. Pub was shut.

Not sure how descriptions match but is pipe/knife man in fact Parcel Man/JTR hanging about

Schwartz clears off chased a bit, BSM clears off when seeing the knife.

Pipe/knife man returns takes Stride into yard.(he was her earlier partner so no worries in her mind)

Kills her

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

On this particular issue we basically have four questions.

1. How far behind BS man was Israel Schwartz as he walked along Berner Street.
2. Where was Schwartz when the incident began.
3. Where was the woman standing.
4. Where was Schwartz, in relation to BS man, when he crossed the road.

We have two sources of information.

1. A general synopsis events from Donald Swanson.
2. An article in The Star.

So…

1. We have absolutely no way of putting a figure on this distance between the two men. Swanson makes no mention of it so he is of no help. The Star, however, does say: “As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated.” Now, we can all agree that newspapers aren’t always the most reliably accurate sources of information but we can ask why they would simply invent this part? It doesn’t add any drama or insert anything that might add sensation to sell papers and it can’t be used as a chance of making the Police look bad. So there has to be a very reasonable chance that this part is correct and that there was a ‘some distance’ between them. Added to this we might ask ourselves if we often see two people, who don’t know each, walking down a deserted street but directly behind each other. If we saw that I’d suggest that it would look slightly strange. Therefore I believe that it’s very likely that there was a fair distance between the two men. How far? I don’t know. But it could have been ten or twenty or thirty yards.

2. In both Swanson’s synopsis and The Star we can see no reason to assume any notable gap of time between BS man stopping to talk to the woman and him putting his hand on her shoulder to pull/push her (according to which ever version we read) So if, as seems likely, there was a fair sized gap between the two men, and the actual incident began (as it appeared to) pretty much as soon as BS man spoke to the woman then it’s reasonable to assume that Schwartz couldn’t have walked far in a two or three seconds. So he could easily still have been twenty yards, or ten yards or even five yards behind him. We have zero reason to suspect that that either a) BS man and the woman chatted for a few seconds and then the ‘incident’ only occurred when Schwartz was adjacent to them, or b) or that Schwartz didn’t bother about the incident that was occurring up ahead until he’d walked to a position right next to them. Therefore it’s reasonable to assume, and is far more like to a point of close to certainty, that Schwartz was at least a few feet, maybe a few yards, back from BS man when the incident began.



3. The woman was said to have been standing in the gateway but was she standing back inside the passage next to the actual gate. Clearly not when BS man spoke to her or Schwartz wouldn’t have been able to see her. Also, if she was waiting for someone why would she stand back into the passageway where she wouldn’t have been able to see up and down the street? I’d suggest that it would make far more sense if we accept that ‘gateway’ as a figure of speech can be taken to mean the gap between the two buildings. And let’s not forget that it was Swanson who used the word ‘gateway.’ I’m unsure but had he ever visited Berner Street? Did he know that the gate sat back. So could she have been further out? According to The Star she stood at:” …the entrance to the alley way.” Just as I suggest as the likeliest location.




4. Schwartz crossed the road while there was still some distance between them. It might not have been much, but there would have been a distance.


Why is this an issue?

I’d like to add a point:

“As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated.”

I seem to recall someone mentioning this point recently. I believe it was RD?

If this is correct (and I can see no reason for The Star to invent something so trivial although it’s possible that an error of translation may have occurred) then Schwartz hadn’t noticed BS man until he got into Berner Street which also implies a fair sized gap.

[Fiver]

Leon Goldstein is an interesting character and I have noticed there are some strange coincidences (I am sure they have been noticed before) Goldstein is said to live at 22 Christian Street. I believe Schwartz lived at 22 Ellen Street. In fact I think the number 22 comes up on another street in the area.

Charles Allen Cross lived at 22 Doveton Street. John Pizer lived at 22 Mulberry-street. Then there's the Batty Street Lodger at 22 Batty Street. One of the witnesses against Israel Lipski lived at 22 Fairclough Street.

Are these somehow clues.

NW

Probably not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On this particular issue we basically have four questions.

1. How far behind BS man was Israel Schwartz as he walked along Berner Street.
2. Where was Schwartz when the incident began.
3. Where was the woman standing.
4. Where was Schwartz, in relation to BS man, when he crossed the road.

We have two sources of information.

1. A general synopsis events from Donald Swanson.
2. An article in The Star.

So…

1. We have absolutely no way of putting a figure on this distance between the two men. Swanson makes no mention of it so he is of no help. The Star, however, does say: “As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated.” Now, we can all agree that newspapers aren’t always the most reliably accurate sources of information but we can ask why they would simply invent this part? It doesn’t add any drama or insert anything that might add sensation to sell papers and it can’t be used as a chance of making the Police look bad. So there has to be a very reasonable chance that this part is correct and that there was a ‘some distance’ between them. Added to this we might ask ourselves if we often see two people, who don’t know each, walking down a deserted street but directly behind each other. If we saw that I’d suggest that it would look slightly strange. Therefore I believe that it’s very likely that there was a fair distance between the two men. How far? I don’t know. But it could have been ten or twenty or thirty yards.

2. In both Swanson’s synopsis and The Star we can see no reason to assume any notable gap of time between BS man stopping to talk to the woman and him putting his hand on her shoulder to pull/push her (according to which ever version we read) So if, as seems likely, there was a fair sized gap between the two men, and the actual incident began (as it appeared to) pretty much as soon as BS man spoke to the woman then it’s reasonable to assume that Schwartz couldn’t have walked far in a two or three seconds. So he could easily still have been twenty yards, or ten yards or even five yards behind him. We have zero reason to suspect that that either a) BS man and the woman chatted for a few seconds and then the ‘incident’ only occurred when Schwartz was adjacent to them, or b) or that Schwartz didn’t bother about the incident that was occurring up ahead until he’d walked to a position right next to them. Therefore it’s reasonable to assume, and is far more like to a point of close to certainty, that Schwartz was at least a few feet, maybe a few yards, back from BS man when the incident began.



3. The woman was said to have been standing in the gateway but was she standing back inside the passage next to the actual gate. Clearly not when BS man spoke to her or Schwartz wouldn’t have been able to see her. Also, if she was waiting for someone why would she stand back into the passageway where she wouldn’t have been able to see up and down the street? I’d suggest that it would make far more sense if we accept that ‘gateway’ as a figure of speech can be taken to mean the gap between the two buildings. And let’s not forget that it was Swanson who used the word ‘gateway.’ I’m unsure but had he ever visited Berner Street? Did he know that the gate sat back. So could she have been further out? According to The Star she stood at:” …the entrance to the alley way.” Just as I suggest as the likeliest location.




4. Schwartz crossed the road while there was still some distance between them. It might not have been much, but there would have been a distance.


Why is this an issue?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agreed. The problem is that Herlock sees himself as a sort of guardian of the truth. That being his truth.

This is untrue. All that I’m doing is trying to warn against people flying off into flights of fantasy. Like someone suggesting that Mr Richardson might have been running a brother from her cellar in 29 Hanbury Street. And yet I get criticised for that. Why is caution such a dreaded word?

A commendable attitude.

True

It's astonishing that an unambiguous phrase in an important report authored by the senior investigator of the case, has, by being taken literally, resulted in so much derision. It's not as though, by doing so, Schwartz is being dismissed as an unreliable witness. Rather it's about what exactly did occur, as best we can tell. Yet even that is too much for some to deal with.

But you are arguing for something that you cannot prove and the evidence points away from it. So why go on about it?

Your views are appreciated by myself, and I'm sure others too.

Myself too.

It's unfortunate but I think you would have enjoyed this forum more in years gone by. If you look at old threads, you can see there were more people posting and sharing a wider range of views. It would have impossible years ago for one member to dismiss so many others as posting rubbish. This forum is not what it was.

Of course there were more. And those topics have largely been exhausted. It’s very easy for you to make me the bad guy here Andrew perhaps you should look at your own contribution’s. Have you ever for once considered that I might be correct on anything? Have you noticed that I’m not universally disagreed with on this topic? So…maybe I’m right. Who would have thought it? You accused me of having set ideas that I defend but I have to ask this question - why do you only really ever post on the subject of Berner Street? A bit of an obsession maybe?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Respectfully, this is sometimes the response and tone taken when someone really doesn't like being disagreed with and feels the need to retain control by dismissing others views as stupid.

I've never been one for conformity though and I've felt compelled to ask questions regardless of how stupid, silly or pathetic they may sound.

I have always adhered to the belief that we should...

Accept nothing
Believe nobody
Challenge everything

The truth is that nobody knows what really happened throughout the series of murders; because we weren't there.

I will only add that when a statement says that the witness reached as far "as the gateway" before he sees an assault takes place; I would assume that logic and common sense would mean that the witness meant what he said and had got as far "as the gateway."

But based on your views on Schwartz, you clearly don't believe Schwartz got as far as the gateway. That is despite the official police statement; endorsed by Swanson and Abberline, saying that he did reach the gateway.

Quite literally.

And yet by me referring to & taking words directly from the actual police statement that underpins Schwartz's entire validity as a witness, it's somehow seen as irritating and my views on this are seen as both stupid and a waste of time.

I can appreciate we have different views & opinions on this. I would only have hoped for the same mutual reciprocative humility.

But maybe my views on this topic are wrong and I have no idea what the hell i am talking about.

If that really is the case, then I can only apologise for wasting everyone's time.
I can see that it is futile to try and navigate through the unwavering beliefs that some choose to take.

I really don't have the energy or will to do this anymore.

Regards to all


RD

Let me be clear RD. When I said “ Let’s stop wasting time with nonsense, inventions and subterfuge” I said it because for years we have had the same debate, usually centred around Michael Richards theory that Schwartz was basically acting on orders of the club to give the police the impression that the killer was a gentile and therefore not a club member because the police might have closed down the club if a murder had been committed on its premises. Whilst I’m not saying that Andrew (or yourself for that matter) supports this theory we are still getting this idea that Schwartz was lying and it appears that every means is being used to propagate this. If I came across as irritable or intolerant then I apologise but after a while it can feel like I’m in a world where some people are trying to inject their own narrative just for the sake of it. Your posts certainly aren’t stupid or a waste of time.

I get accused of many things but one is that I’m some kind of ‘guardian of an official version.’ This is untrue. I just think that we need strong evidence to justify a suggestion that a witness was lying or that the version of events that we have is wrong. If there is a reasonable chance that they could be wrong it should be said openly and discussed openly but I think that we often get two things happening - we get some people coming up with a theory (or a suspect) then they feel the need to defend it at all costs, also, to me, it appears that some people think that because some version has become ‘established’ then it’s time that this was changed, so they invent a scenario and argue strongly that this knew scenario must be the case. I’m for caution..nothing more. I think that on the majority of occasions witness tell the truth as they see it and I think that people usually do or say things for a reason. I think that we have to make allowances for poorly synchronised timings, poor estimates of periods of time etc.