Proving that Charles Lechmere is a very good suspect

[Chris Phillips]

Some more posts have had to be deleted.

As people, including the person who started this thread, are unable to maintain a basic level of civility, I am closing it here.

[R. J. Palmer]

I think he's saying he only lives there for part of the year, not that the clocks are only wrong for part of the year.

Ah, of course--silly me.

Here's a commentator writing from South Shields in 1889. He is quite witty on the subject.

[Christer Holmgren]

Christer you started a thread entitled "Proving that Charles Lechmere is a very good suspect" yet when I ask you a very simple question relating to one of the most basic and fundamental issues in your theory, you refuse to engage.

I certainly understand that the question I asked is too dangerous for you to answer directly.

If you admit that, consistent with his evidence, Lechmere might easily and realistically have left his house at 3.33 it puts your entire theory about Lechmere being a good suspect in jeopardy.

Yet you can't credibly deny that he might have left at 3.33 because that would be ridiculous.

If you don't want to discuss the word "about", despite that word being part of the evidence, I'll happily remove it from the question.

Here is my question re-worded.

Is it reasonably consistent with Lechmere's evidence on oath at the inquest that he could have left his house at 3.33?

This is a perfectly reasonable and fundamental question which is at the very heart of the "The Timing Aspect", a section spanning five pages in your book.

Are you now prepared to answer it?

Tango on, Michael. I mean what I say, its discussion over.

[Michael Banks]

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.

Christer you started a thread entitled "Proving that Charles Lechmere is a very good suspect" yet when I ask you a very simple question relating to one of the most basic and fundamental issues in your theory, you refuse to engage.

I certainly understand that the question I asked is too dangerous for you to answer directly.

If you admit that, consistent with his evidence, Lechmere might easily and realistically have left his house at 3.33 it puts your entire theory about Lechmere being a good suspect in jeopardy.

Yet you can't credibly deny that he might have left at 3.33 because that would be ridiculous.

If you don't want to discuss the word "about", despite that word being part of the evidence, I'll happily remove it from the question.

Here is my question re-worded.

Is it reasonably consistent with Lechmere's evidence on oath at the inquest that he could have left his house at 3.33?

This is a perfectly reasonable and fundamental question which is at the very heart of the "The Timing Aspect", a section spanning five pages in your book.

Are you now prepared to answer it?

[Christer Holmgren]

So, when I see a letter to the editor complaining about, say, people texting on their cellphones while driving, I should realize that it was probably written and published because this is an 'odd thing' --not unlike a strange cloud formation or a rain of frogs---and not because it is so common and irritating that someone finally got fed-up and dashed off a letter?

Here's the letter again. Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't have the tone of a "man bites dog" story. Indeed, the correspondent even refers to it as a "very frequent" occurrence.

All the best.

It may well be that it was common that the three clocks were off, but the gist of the matter is that the writer found it remarkable that this was so.
We may also note how the writer kept track of the clocks. If he was asked about the time, he would likely compensate for the errors involved. We get used to the particular errors of clocks we are familiar with by way of being in contact with them frequently.

[Chris Phillips]

I can't quite fathom why 'Tempus Fugit' is complaining that this phenomenon is more frequent during "some parts of the year," but, whatever the case, the letter was published on 17 July 1885.

I think he's saying he only lives there for part of the year, not that the clocks are only wrong for part of the year.

[Christer Holmgren]

But were they really written by the newspaper when you worked there?

Of course not. They were letters from the readers, but there is always a sifting process before anything is published. At any rate, I think that in our case, the letter was not written because the three clocks were always dramatically out of order, but instead because the writer found it remarkable that they were when he observed them.

[R. J. Palmer]

I can't quite fathom why 'Tempus Fugit' is complaining that this phenomenon is more frequent during "some parts of the year," but, whatever the case, the letter was published on 17 July 1885.

[R. J. Palmer]

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.

So, when I see a letter to the editor complaining about, say, people texting on their cellphones while driving, I should realize that it was probably written and published because this is an 'odd thing' --not unlike a strange cloud formation or a rain of frogs---and not because it is so common and irritating that someone finally got fed-up and dashed off a letter?

Here's the letter again. Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't have the tone of a "man bites dog" story. Indeed, the correspondent even refers to it as a "very frequent" occurrence.

All the best.

[Chris Phillips]

I spent ten years working with letters to the editor, so am very aware how this works. Not everything that reaches the papers get into them.

But were they really written by the newspaper when you worked there?

[Christer Holmgren]

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!

I spent ten years working with letters to the editor, so am very aware how this works. Not everything that reaches the papers get into them.

[Michael Banks]

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.

Apparently the Swedish word is överlämna

[Chris Phillips]

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!

[Christer Holmgren]

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!

[Steve Blomer]

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 .