Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proving that Charles Lechmere is a very good suspect

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
    Then, as Baxter concluded that the original assessment of Lechmere finding the body at 3.40 was wrong, and that he likely found it at 3.45 instead, that timing forms a noose around the neck of Lechmere.
    Maybe Baxter et al should have been told in that case. No more murder victims and no ripperology. Bliss!

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
      Gary
      Precise or relatively precise timekeeping was introduced due to railway timetabling, but the use and spread of precise or relatively precise timekeeping on church clocks, other public clocks, pub clocks, personal clocks or timepieces spread from that. They were synchonised daily via Greenwich - a fact of which the podcaster seems oblivious.
      I recall an annoyed letter to the Chelmsford Chronicle, circa 1885, by a gentleman complaining that the church clock, the brewery clock, and the railway station's clock all showed different times, the widest margin being 5 or 6 minutes.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post

        So you are literally running away
        I easily anticipated this post, and so I counted beforehand how many times I have answered your point (not points, there is one only). I came up with 37 answers.

        I do not know how you define running away, but I don´t define it as answering 37 posts, many of them inferring that I would consciously have tried to keep material from the readers of Cutting Point. Far from running anywhere, I have been extremely patient with you. That ends here.

        What you seem to be asking is for me to say "I intentionally tried to deceive the readers and I left the word "about" out of Cutting Point." That is not going to happen, because neither claim is true. One is a matter where we disagree, the other one is effectively debunked. And disagreeing or debunking is not the same as running.

        You have had your answers, and if there is anything I regret, then it is that I have spent too much time on somebody who was never going to accept anything else than his own claims as true - although one of those claims has been effectively disproven.

        There we are, end of story!
        "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post

          I easily anticipated this post, and so I counted beforehand how many times I have answered your point (not points, there is one only). I came up with 37 answers.

          I do not know how you define running away, but I don´t define it as answering 37 posts, many of them inferring that I would consciously have tried to keep material from the readers of Cutting Point. Far from running anywhere, I have been extremely patient with you. That ends here.

          What you seem to be asking is for me to say "I intentionally tried to deceive the readers and I left the word "about" out of Cutting Point." That is not going to happen, because neither claim is true. One is a matter where we disagree, the other one is effectively debunked. And disagreeing or debunking is not the same as running.

          You have had your answers, and if there is anything I regret, then it is that I have spent too much time on somebody who was never going to accept anything else than his own claims as true - although one of those claims has been effectively disproven.

          There we are, end of story!

          Are you saying than you've answered my question (about 3.33 being reasonably consistent with "about 3.30") about 37 times?

          Other than saying that it's more consistent than 3.34 and less consistent than 3.32, which wasn't what I asked you, I don't believe you have answered it at all.

          I personally suspect it is such a difficult question for you that I don't think you will ever answer it.

          But I would like to give you one more opportunity to do so.

          Will you?
          Regards

          Michael🔎


          " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

          Comment


          • RJP
            You do realise that the letter you recall from the Chelmsford Chronicle circa 1885 would only have been printed, and the gentleman concerned motivated to write the letter, if errant timekeeping was NOT the practice!
            If it was normal and to be expected, then guess what?
            It would not have been newsworthy.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
              RJP
              You do realise that the letter you recall from the Chelmsford Chronicle circa 1885 would only have been printed, and the gentleman concerned motivated to write the letter, if errant timekeeping was NOT the practice!
              If it was normal and to be expected, then guess what?
              It would not have been newsworthy.
              Letters to newspapers are seldom newsworthy.

              Comment


              • A letter on a totally commonplace topic - I say! The sky is blue! - would hardly be printed.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                  A letter on a totally commonplace topic - I say! The sky is blue! - would hardly be printed.
                  Certainly that would be relevant - if we were talking about a letter saying "The sky is blue!".

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                    Gary
                    Precise or relatively precise timekeeping was introduced due to railway timetabling, but the use and spread of precise or relatively precise timekeeping on church clocks, other public clocks, pub clocks, personal clocks or timepieces spread from that. They were synchonised daily via Greenwich - a fact of which the podcaster seems oblivious.
                    Even before this timekeeping was not casual as shown by the diaries of Anne Lister, popularised as Gentleman Jack, which took place in the 1830s.
                    Given that Railways, along with the Post Office and Police are mentioned in the talk, its odd you suggest I was not aware of the Standard Time Company, who were the major supplier of syncronisation at the time.

                    If a clock was syncronized, was entirely dependent on the owners of the clock subscribing to the service.
                    And while some public houses used the service, not all did.
                    The company was not it seems very successful from a money making point of view, maybe suggesting there were not enough subscriptions. It failed several times the first time being in 1896.

                    Today with Much easier methods of syncronizied timing keeping, public clocks are still not absolutely accurate for much of the time, as demonstrated in the conference talk.


                    To suggest that household clocks and individual watches were also syncronizied in 1888, is I must say a somewhat questionable claim.

                    It appears you have missed the aim of the talk Mr Stow.






                    Comment


                    • Oh I know what the aim of your talk Mr Blomer.
                      It failed to mention the Greenwich Time Ball or Greenwich Mean Time or how that time was communicated. That is why I am afraid it was of no utility in understanding this subject.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post


                        Are you saying than you've answered my question (about 3.33 being reasonably consistent with "about 3.30") about 37 times?

                        Other than saying that it's more consistent than 3.34 and less consistent than 3.32, which wasn't what I asked you, I don't believe you have answered it at all.

                        I personally suspect it is such a difficult question for you that I don't think you will ever answer it.

                        But I would like to give you one more opportunity to do so.

                        Will you?
                        No, Michael, we are emphatically done, and I am of the meaning that we owe it to the boards not to repeat our respective arguments in absurdum.

                        If I should take interest in any other subject you may bring up, I will join the discussion, but any tango on the ”about” subject will have to be one-legged from now on.
                        "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post

                          Maybe Baxter et al should have been told in that case. No more murder victims and no ripperology. Bliss!

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          Yes, that is the long and the short of things: the moment somebody works out the solution, it is problem solved.
                          "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                            Oh I know what the aim of your talk Mr Blomer.
                            It failed to mention the Greenwich Time Ball or Greenwich Mean Time or how that time was communicated. That is why I am afraid it was of no utility in understanding this subject.

                            Does one really need to actually mention GMT in depth , to know that we are and were working to it in 1888.

                            With regards to the Time Ball, it sets and set the time daily between 12.55 and 1.00pm, only for those who could see it. Its not I suggest relevent for those checking their home clocks or watches in the early hours of the morning in the Whitechapel area.

                            Your opinion that the talk is of little worth is simply your opinion, and to be honest I am not at all surprised.
                            Sorry that it ruffles your feathers .

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post

                              I recall an annoyed letter to the Chelmsford Chronicle, circa 1885, by a gentleman complaining that the church clock, the brewery clock, and the railway station's clock all showed different times, the widest margin being 5 or 6 minutes.
                              Can you see how this tells us two things?

                              1. Clocks were sometimes off.
                              2. When they were, it was sometimes so odd a thing that papers found it worthwhile to write about it.

                              Normally, the clocks were more correct.

                              PS. I noticed Edward beat me to the punch!
                              "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post

                                Can you see how this tells us two things?

                                1. Clocks were sometimes off.
                                2. When they were, it was sometimes so odd a thing that papers found it worthwhile to writevabout it.

                                Normally, the clocks were more correct.

                                PS. I noticed Edward beat me to the punch!
                                Letters to newspapers aren't what the newspapers consider worthwhile writing about. They're what the readers think are worthwhile to send to the newspapers!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X