Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whistling on Berner Street

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Whistling on Berner Street

    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    I find it interesting how often the times are assumed incorrect because they don't fit with the preconceptions.
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

    It's got nothing to do with preconceptions, and everything to do with the events described. If Heshberg says that he was alerted to the murder by the sound of police whistles, that means the police were at the gates before Heshberg, whatever time he thought it might be.
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Exactly Joshua, put aside the times and simply apply the sequence of events, the story speaks for itself.
    Estimated times can be unreliable, but the sequence of events does not lie.
    There are seemingly two references to a whistle being heard, prior to PC Lamb's arrival at Dutfield's yard.
    Firstly, that of Abraham Herschburg, in the Irish Times, Oct 1:

    In the course of an interview with a witness shortly after 6 o'clock this morning Abraham Herschberg, a young fellow, living at 20 Berner street, said- "I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to 1 o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter in the gateway. Two or three people had collected..."

    Herschburg makes no reference to any police being on site, and gets close enough to the victim to note the following details.

    "...and when I got there I saw a short dark young woman lying on the ground, with a gash between 4 and 5 inches long in her throat. I should think she was 25 to 28 years of age. Her head was towards the north wall, against which she was lying. She had a black dress on, with a bunch of flowers pinned on the breast. In her hand there was a little piece of paper containing five or six cachous."

    To have counted the cachous in the paper in Stride's left hand, suggests that Herschburg was able to get very close to the victim, and Lamb's testimony suggests that Herschburg probably was on site prior to his arrival...

    Coroner: Was any one touching the body when you arrived?
    Lamb: No. There was no one within a yard of it. As I was examining the body some crowded round. I begged them to keep back, and told them they might get some of the blood on their clothing, and by that means get themselves into trouble. I then blew my whistle.

    The other reference to an early whistle comes from Edward Spooner, who of course arrived at the yard prior to Lamb. Morning Advertiser, Oct 3:

    By a Juryman. - I did not meet anyone as I was hastening to Berner-street, except Mr. Harris, who was coming out of his house in Tiger Bay when he heard the policeman's whistle. He came running after me.

    The point of this post and thread, is to uncover either the source of or the misconceptions behind the early whistle anomaly.

    In Ripper Confidential, Tom Wescott (who claims Herschburg's real name was Abraham Ashbrigh) says:

    The first police whistle was blown by PC Lamb, who stated there were about 30 people in the yard upon his arrival and more that followed him in. Unless a civilian, such as a member of the vigilance committee, was first to blow a whistle, it would have been Lamb's whistle that caught Ashbrigh's attention, in which case he was not among the first people on the scene. Being young, he may have pushed his way to the front. Even though his boasting of being one of the first at the scene might have been exagerated, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of his statement. After all, think of how many policemen were 'first on the scene' at Miller's Court. Indeed, his statement was more accurate than many of the ones given at the inquest.

    Regarding Spooner and Mr Harris, Tom says:

    Spooner states that as he was hurrying along, he saw was Mr. Harris coming out of his house. Spotted by Spooner, and probably addressed by him, Mr Harris stated that he had heard the police whistle and was coming out to check what the matter was. He then followed Spooner to Dutfield's Yard.
    The problem with this statement is that no one had whistled.


    Before agreeing with Tom, we should consider the possibility he mentions but does not follow up on - that the whistle heard by Herschburg and Mr Harris came from a member of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee. The following press snippet is from the Star, Sep 8:

    London lies to-day under the spell of a great terror. A nameless reprobate - half beast, half man - is at large, who is daily gratifying his murderous instincts on the most miserable and defenceless classes of the community. There can be no shadow of a doubt now that our original theory was correct, and that the Whitechapel murderer, who has now four, if not five, victims to his knife, is one man, and that man a murderous maniac. There is another Williams in our midst. Hideous malice, deadly cunning, insatiable thirst for blood - all these are the marks of the mad homicide. The ghoul-like creature who stalks through the streets of London, stalking down his victim like a Pawnee Indian, is simply drunk with blood, and he will have more. The question is, what are the people of London to do? Whitechapel is garrisoned with police and stocked with plain-clothes men. Nothing comes of it. The police have not even a clue. They are in despair at their utter failure to get so much as a scent of the criminal.

    Now we have a moral to draw and a proposal to make. We have carefully investigated the causes of the miserable and calamitous breakdown of the police system. They are chiefly two: (1) the inefficiency and timidity of the detective service, owing to the manner in which Sir Charles has placed it in leading strings and forbidden it to move except under instructions; (2) the inadequate local knowledge of the police. Our reporters have discovered that the Whitechapel force knows little of the criminal haunts of the neighborhood. Now, this is a state of things which obtains in no other great city in the world but London, and is entirely due to our centralised system. In New York the local police know almost every brick in every den in the district, and every felon or would-be felon who skulks behind it. In Whitechapel many of the men are new to their work, and others who have two or three years' local experience have not been trained to the special work of vigilant and ceaseless inspection of criminal quarters.

    Now there is only one thing to be done at this moment, and we can talk of larger reforms when we do away with the centralised non-efficient military system which Sir Charles Warren has brought to perfection. The people of the East-end must become their own police. They must form themselves at once into Vigilance Committees. There should be a central committee, which should map out the neighborhood into districts, and appoint the smaller committees. These again should at once devote themselves to volunteer patrol work at night, as well as to general detective service. The unfortunates who are the objects of the man-monster's malignity should be shadowed by one or two of the amateur patrols. They should be cautioned to walk in couples. Whistles and a signalling system should be provided, and means of summoning a rescue force should be at hand. We are not sure that every London district should not make some effort of the kind, for the murderer may choose a fresh quarter now that Whitechapel is being made too hot to hold him.

    We do not think that the police will put any obstacle in the way of this volunteer assistance. They will probably be only too glad to have their efforts supplemented by the spontaneous action of the inhabitants. But in any case, London must rouse itself. No woman is safe while this ghoul is abroad. Up, citizens, then, and do your own police work!


    Note one of the Star editorial's recommendations: "Whistles and a signalling system should be provided, and means of summoning a rescue force should be at hand."

    From the Casebook bio on Charles Reeves:

    Charles Reeves was a Jewish actor and founding member of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee. He was almost certainly the "Mr. Reeves" mentioned in several newspaper reports as having been the first to examine the "From Hell" kidney at George Lusk's residence on October 17th, 1888. His eldest daughter Ada became a famous actress on stage and screen, and the primary source of income for the Reeves family even while she was still just a child performer.

    The following is from the page Take It For a Fact - an extract from Ada Reeve's autobiography, who said:

    My father was one of the original Vigilance Committee set up to patrol the streets during the time of these murders . . . and how nervous mother used to be when he was out night after night, with only a stick and a whistle as protection. Afterwards, when the series of crimes could be seen as a whole, it was realised that the `Ripper's' victims were all street-walkers, but at the time no one felt safe.

    So here we have evidence that at least some members of the WVC did indeed carry a whistle, when patrolling the streets at night. Yet we need something a little more convincing than this remark from Ada's 1954 autobiography. The following report is from the East London Advertiser, Oct 13.

    AMATEUR DETECTIVES AT WORK.

    Should the murderer again attempt to give effect to his infamous designs in the Whitechapel district he will require, in the interests of his own personal security, not only to avoid the uniformed and plain-clothed members of the Metropolitan Police Force, but to reckon with a small, enthusiastic body of amateur detectives. Convinced that the regular force affords inadequate protection of life and property in this densely populated neighbourhood, a number of local tradesmen decided a few weeks ago to appoint a Vigilance Committee. The duties of the newly-formed band were twofold. In the first place, they were to publish far and wide their disagreement with the Home Secretary by offering a substantial reward to "anyone - citizen or otherwise," who should give information as would bring the murderer or murderers to justice: and, in the second place, they were themselves to patrol the most secluded parts of the district in the dead of night with a view to running the criminal to earth. So worthy a motive they felt confident would at once command the sympathy and support of "the tradesmen, ratepayers, and inhabitants generally." Unfortunately, however, for the realisation of their hopes, experience had proved that those to whom they appealed were more ready to commend than to co-operate. Excluding one or two subscriptions of considerable amounts they have been compelled to admit that funds have not "rolled" in. Nor has the suggestion to hold a large public meeting in furtherance of the objects of the Vigilantes been responded to with alacrity. Yet, undaunted by these disappointments, the committee have worked persistently on. Night after night, at 9 o'clock, meetings have been held in the upper room of a public-house in the Mile End-road, placed at the disposal of the committee by the landlord, who occupies the post of treasurer. The leaders of the movement are drawn principally from the trading class, and include a builder, a cigar manufacturer, a tailor, and a picture-frame maker, a licensed victualler, and "an actor." Inexperienced in practical police duty, the committee decided to call in professional assistance rather than rely solely upon their own resources. For this purpose they engaged the services of two private detectives - men who, though unattached to either metropolitan or city police forces, hold themselves out as experts in the unravelling of mysteries. At the disposal of these executive officers are placed about a dozen stalwart men possessing an intimate acquaintance with the highways and by-ways of Whitechapel. Only those have been selected who are "physically and morally" equal to the task they may any night be called upon to perform. As they were previously numbered among the unemployed, it became unnecessary to fix a high scale of remuneration. Shortly before 12 o'clock these assassin-hunters are dispatched upon their mission. Their foot-fall is silenced by the use of goloshes, and their own safety is assured by the carrying of police-whistles and stout sticks. The area over which this additional protection is afforded is divided into beats, each man being assigned his respective round. Nor is this all. At half an hour after midnight the committee-rooms close by an Act of Parliament, and thence emerge those members of the committee who happen to be on duty for the night. Like sergeants of police they make their tours of inspection, and while seeing that their men are faithfully performing their onerous duties, themselves visit the most sequestered and ill-lighted spots. The volunteer policemen leave their beats between 4 and 5 o'clock in the morning. It should be added that supervision in this way by members of the committee is not forthcoming every night. The fact that most of them are engaged from early in the morning until late at night in the transaction of their own businesses obviously renders such constant effort physically impossible. Although the work of the committee has not yet been crowned with success, it is claimed on their behalf that they have gained much information that may be of service hereafter. By the regular police, it is satisfactory to add, they have not been thwarted in their endeavour to bring the criminal to justice. Suspicions, surmises, and possible clues are notified to the nearest police-stations from time to time, and one member of the committee at least honestly believes that he is on the right track.


    So not only did the vigilance committee patrolmen wear galoshes, carry whistles and sticks, but the whistles are described as police-whistles. Furthermore, the WVC was for all intents and purposes, a private police force. Areas were divided into beats, and the men were assigned to respective rounds. The equivalent of sergeants toured these rounds, making sure that the men were properly fulfilling there duties.

    Thus there seems little doubt that the whistling heard by both Abraham Herschburg and Mr Harris, could have come from a vigilance committee patrolman. Yet that implies the man responsible for the whistling, became aware of the murder very soon after it occurred. Is there evidence for this? The ELA article makes reference to two private detectives, and this of course refers to Charles Le Grand and J.H. Batchelor. How much of the lead-up to Elizabeth Stride's murder was witnessed by one or more of the men under their command, is strongly suggested in the Evening News, when it broke the story on Matthew Packer in its Oct 4 edition.

    We are enabled to present our readers this morning in the columns of the Evening News with the most startling information that has yet been made public in relation to the Whitechapel murderer, and the first real clue that has been obtained to his identity. The chain of evidence in our possession has been pieced together by two gentlemen connected with the business of private inquiries, who, starting on the track of the assassin without any pet "theory" to substantiate, and contenting themselves with ascertaining and connecting a series of the simplest facts, have succeeded in arriving at a result of the utmost importance. There are no suppositions or probabilities in the story we have to tell; we put forward nothing but simple facts, each substantiated by the evidence of credible witnesses. What they go to establish is that the perpetrator of the Berner street crime was seen and spoken to whilst in the company of his victim, within forty minutes of the commission of the crime and only passed from the sight of a witness TEN MINUTES BEFORE THE MURDER and within ten yards of the scene of the awful deed.

    It would seem our whistle-blower had observed much more than just men running for and crying 'Police!'.

    This issue raises important questions. For me, the obvious one is; are any of the men known to be on or near Berner street, at around the time of the murder, actually unidentified members of the WVC's patrol?
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

  • #2
    As requested by Andrew, here's a little history on the police whistle:

    http://www.whistleshop.co.uk/history.html :-
    In January 1885 a member of the public, Mr H Crosbie, wrote to the Commissioner saying he had purchased two Metropolitan Police whistles but could he use them? The whistles were advertised in the Illustrated London News and were made by Bent & Parker. Tit Bits magazine made it known that J Hudson & Co were also selling Metropolitan Police whistles to the public. The legal position was unclear but steps were taken to prevent further retail sales. This was done by requiring both companies to sign a legal undertaking not to sell whistles marked ‘Metropolitan Police’ to anyone other than the Metropolitan Police.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitec...ance_Committee
    Members of the committee were unhappy with the level of protection the local community was receiving from the police, so it introduced its own system of local patrols, using hand-picked unemployed men to patrol the streets of the East End every evening from midnight to between four and five the next morning. Each of these men received a small wage from the Committee, and each patrolled a particular beat, being armed with a police whistle, a pair of galoshes and a strong stick. The committee itself met each evening at nine in The Crown, and once the public house closed at 12.30 am the committee members would inspect and join the patrols. These patrols were shortly to be joined by those of the Working Men's Vigilance Committee

    https://www.jack-the-ripper.org/whit...-committee.htm


    THE MEMBERS OF THE WHITECHAPEL VIGILANCE COMMITTEE
    George Lusk - President Joseph Aarons - Treasurer
    Mr. B. Harris - Honorary Secretary Mr. J. A. Cohen - Committee Member
    Mr. Reeves - Committee Member Mr. Haughton - Committee Member
    Mr. Lindsay - Committee Member Mr. Jacobs - Committee Member
    Mr. Isaacs - Committee Member Mr. Mitchell - Committee Member
    Mr. Hodgins - Committee Member Mr. Barnett - Committee Member
    Mr. Lord - Committee Member Mr. Lawton - Committee Member
    Mr. Vander Hunt - Committee Member Mr. Sheed - Committee Member
    Mr. Van Gelder - Committee Member Albert Bachert - Chairman (1889)
    Cheers, George
    Last edited by GBinOz; 11-04-2021, 02:38 AM.
    “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

      Note one of the Star editorial's recommendations: "Whistles and a signalling system should be provided, and means of summoning a rescue force should be at hand."
      I've had to wonder the same. On occasion I have heard different notes from a police whistle, as an example two short blasts, one short and one long, or two long blasts. Surely they had to mean different things, the user of a whistle had the ability to send a message to another constable. It came as a surprise to me that the 1888 Police Code book has no entry concerning the use of the whistle.
      Was a constable simply expected to just blow the whistle when he needed assistance, and that a constable was never taught to send a particular sequence of notes depending on the situation that presented itself?
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        I've had to wonder the same. On occasion I have heard different notes from a police whistle, as an example two short blasts, one short and one long, or two long blasts. Surely they had to mean different things, the user of a whistle had the ability to send a message to another constable. It came as a surprise to me that the 1888 Police Code book has no entry concerning the use of the whistle.
        Was a constable simply expected to just blow the whistle when he needed assistance, and that a constable was never taught to send a particular sequence of notes depending on the situation that presented itself?
        Hi Wick.

        A directive came out shortly after the murder of Alice McKenzie on the 25th of July, 1889 on WHEN to blow the whistle and what to do thereafter, but not a particular cadence to the whistle tones. Neil Bell was kind enough to provide that directive in the following thread. (Post #5 by Neil) Something Doesn't Add Up-- Alice Mackenzie & The Time Of Death - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)

        Reading the directive, a wire was to be sent stating the words, "Whitechapel Again" if a murder was involved.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          I've had to wonder the same. On occasion I have heard different notes from a police whistle, as an example two short blasts, one short and one long, or two long blasts. Surely they had to mean different things, the user of a whistle had the ability to send a message to another constable. It came as a surprise to me that the 1888 Police Code book has no entry concerning the use of the whistle.
          Was a constable simply expected to just blow the whistle when he needed assistance, and that a constable was never taught to send a particular sequence of notes depending on the situation that presented itself?
          I'm not sure about the Met, but according to Monty in Capturing Jack the Ripper:

          It would seem that, in response to Coles's murder and Constable Thompson's dilemma as to whether he should stay with the victim or pursue a suspect, the City Police, most likely in conjunction with the Metropolitan force, came up with the whistle notification system we see described above.

          Which was: One prolonged blast followed by four short distinct ones. Those hearing it will repeat the four short blasts and then hurry to the spot, questioning anyone necessary, on the way. Those hearing the four short blasts (only) should repeat that signal but stay put.

          Oh, and Jerry has already posted on this
          Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 11-04-2021, 06:05 AM.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • #6
            The Times, 1889-07-20:

            ATTACK ON A WOMAN IN WHITECHAPEL

            The neighbourhood of Castle alley, the scene of Wednesday's murder, was last night again thrown into the wildest excitement by an attack on another of the class of women who have been selected for the victims of the recent murders in this district. A woman was heard crying in East Aldgate for help. In the frame of mind that the populace were then it needed but little alarm to bring a thousand persons together in a remarkably short time, especially in the main thoroughfare at 10 o'clock in the evening.

            It was about a quarter to 10, when a woman - one of those females whose attire is peculiar to the district - was seen to approach with a man from a dark portion of the thoroughfare near the Aldgate East Station, Whitechapel. The pair did not remain long at the corner before the woman was heard to cry aloud, "No! I won't." The man then seized her, dragged her a short distance along the ground, and flung her upon the kerb.

            He seized her hair with one hand and with the other produced a knife, with which he struck her. Her screams of "Jack the Ripper" and "Murder" soon attracted attention, and crowds of men and women ran from all directions to the spot when the screams proceeded. The woman was struggling with her assailant, and the blood with which she was covered gave rise to the dreadful suspicion that she was in the hands of the dreaded and mysterious murderer.

            Amongst those who first arrived on the scene were several members of the local vigilance association, who have only just recommenced their work, and before the man had time to get far he was seized, and a struggle ensued. It was seen that the man had a long knife in his hand, and it was some time before he could be deprived of it. It was eventually taken from him, but even then his fight for liberty was determined, and in the fray the woman crawled away.

            Police whistles were heard in all directions, and soon a great number of officers, both of the City and metropolitan force, were on the scene. When the police came up the man was cut and bleeding profusely from wounds inflicted by the mob, who had raised the cry of "Lynch him," and were throwing all kinds of missiles at him. Under a strong escort of City and metropolitan police he was got to the Commercial street police station, where he was charged.

            When asked whether he had anything to say in reply to the charge he replied, "The woman robbed me." When asked why he drew the dagger, he replied, "In self defence." He said he was a sailor and gave a Scotch name, and said he arrived from South Shields about a week ago. When asked where he was on the morning of the 17th inst. he said he could not say. He did not know where he had stayed whilst in London. On being searched a smaller knife was found in his possession, together with a seaman's discharge.

            Albert Backert, of 13 Newnham street, Whitechapel, one of the Vigilance Committee, who seized the knife and whose clothes were blood stained, has made a statement which tallies in every respect with the foregoing account and in the course of which he says that the assailant held the woman's hair in the right hand and the knife in the left."


            More vigilance committee whistlers...?
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by GregBaron View Post

              It makes one wonder what were the rules or strategies of the VC? Was it like kids playing hide and seek..........you two guys take Berner St.....you three guys work commercial road..split up and meet in the middle.........stuff like that....I wonder if anyone knows how they went about there surveillance....? How many were there? How long did they stay out?
              Did they work alone? Many questions....
              Part of Monty's answer...

              Originally posted by Monty View Post

              Each committee had its own variation on patrolling. Basically they were split into pairs with one or two at fixed points. They organised themselves in a very similar fashion to the Police. They liaised with the Police often, passing on information or suspicions. The majority of Bobbies welcomed this however a report in the Irish Times of Sept 17th does show a few PCs resented the Vigilantes, probably with just cause as some of the Vigilants held an air of superiority over the locals. The report, given by a bobby, reads:-

              [...]

              The hours of work varied. At their height, the Mile End Vigilance Committee had 50 men on their books 12 of these men a an intimate knowledge of the area and were chosen to lead these patrols. Patrols were noted, routes planned and anything suspicious pencilled in a notebook. Beats were undertaken as soon as the men finished their working day. These beats were finnished around 4 or 5am, in some cases when day broke. Now some of these men had a days work, these chaps tended to finish earlier, however those who could commit to a daybreak finished did so. These men equipped themselves with lanterns, sticks and something the Police never had, rubber soled boots.
              Have you ever wondered why this...

              Edward Spooner: Between half-past 12 and 1 o'clock on Sunday morning I was standing outside the Bee Hive publichouse, at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street, along with a young woman. I had previously been in another beershop at the top of the street, and afterwards walked down. After talking for about 25 minutes I saw two Jews come running along and shouting out "Murder" and "Police." They then ran as far as Grove-street and turned back. I stopped them and asked what was the matter. They replied, "A woman has been murdered." I then went round with them to Berner-street, and into Dutfield's yard, adjoining No. 40, Berner-street. I saw a woman lying just inside the gate.

              ...sounds so similar to this...?

              James Brown: When I heard screams of "Police" and "Murder" I opened the window, but could not see any one and the screams ceased. The cries were those of moving persons, and appeared to be going in the direction of Grove-street. Shortly afterwards I saw a policeman standing at the corner of Christian-street. I heard a man opposite call out to the constable that he was wanted. I then saw the policeman run along to Berner-street.

              According to Spooner, he had been standing outside the Beehive public house, with a young woman. Presumably then, the woman accompanied him to the yard - he surely didn't leave her stranded on the street, having just been told that a woman had been murdered. Yet from the point he is told of the murder, he neither implicitly nor explicitly mentions her again. So what happened to the young woman? Did she even exist? Well perhaps Louis Diemschitz could settle the matter? Echo, Oct 1:

              I got a candle, and at once went into the yard, where I saw a quantity of blood near the body. I did not touch the body. I went for a policeman, but could not find one. When looking for the police, I told a young man of the affair, and he came with me back to the yard.

              Sorry, no woman. So what was the situation? Well considering the similarity of Spooner's story and Brown's story, I'd say: Spooner stopped Diemschitz and companion, to ask them what the matter was, and this was witnessed by James Brown. It was Spooner who appeared to Brown to be a policeman. So how is that possible?

              Monty: These men equipped themselves with lanterns, sticks and something the Police never had, rubber soled boots.

              Lamb: I went into the gateway of No. 40, Berner-street and saw something dark lying on the right-hand side, close to the gates. I turned my light on and found it was a woman.

              Spooner: Directly I got inside the yard I could see that it was a woman lying on the ground.

              Edward Spooner was not with a woman when outside the Beehive, rather, he was on vigilance committee patrol.
              Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 11-06-2021, 03:16 AM.
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • #8
                It's become accepted that Ripperology will be forever cursed by nonsense like this.
                dustymiller
                aka drstrange

                Comment


                • #9
                  Witness X

                  EN, Oct 4 (full quote in #1):

                  ... the perpetrator of the Berner street crime was seen and spoken to whilst in the company of his victim, within forty minutes of the commission of the crime and only passed from the sight of a witness TEN MINUTES BEFORE THE MURDER and within ten yards of the scene of the awful deed.

                  I suppose that the person who originally made these claims, was a man on WVC patrol, and probably also the (literal) whistle-blower. So who was the witness spoken of? To narrow it down, if the murderer passed from the sight of this witness 10 minutes before the murder, then an approximate murder time would be a big help. The following quotes were made by/to the press:

                  Diemschitz: One of the members who is known as Isaacs went out with me. We struck a match and saw blood running from the gate all the way down to the side door of the club.

                  Minsky: ... states that at the time when the alarm was raised, just after one o'clock, there were some 20 or 30 members in the club room upstairs. ... The first thing he noticed was the pool of blood by the kitchen door, and then glancing up the yard to the spot where Mr. Diemschitz was holding a lighted match in his hand, he noticed the body of a woman ...

                  Mrs D: I at once recognised it as the body of a woman, while, to add to my horror, I saw a stream of blood trickling down the yard, and terminating in the pool I had first noticed.

                  All very consistent. Lot's of blood had flown by 1am. So let's say the murder occurred at 12:50. Thus:

                  ... the perpetrator of the Berner street crime only passed from the sight of a witness at twenty minutes to one and within ten yards of the scene of the awful deed.

                  Perhaps Witness X was PC Smith, who said he was in Berner street at about that time, or perhaps it was Morris Eagle, who said he returned to the club at about that time. Other than quibbling over the times these witnesses stated, there is a more significant problem - the perpetrator was said to pass from the sight of this witness. I interpret this as meaning the perpetrator was moving, and the witness was stationary.

                  Smith at the inquest...

                  C: When you were in Berner-street the previous time did you see any one?
                  S: Yes, a man and a woman.
                  C: Was the latter anything like the deceased?
                  S: Yes, I saw her face. I have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I feel certain it is the same person.
                  C: Was she on the pavement?
                  S: Yes, a few yards up Berner-street on the opposite side to where she was found.


                  That position would be pretty much directly across from the Mortimer residence, at #36.
                  The plod of Smith's boots was apparently heard by Fanny. DN/EN, Oct 1:

                  It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat.

                  So at this moment, Elizabeth Stride and her parcel carrying companion, are almost right outside Fanny's front door. Now it has been argued that Mortimer's time does not match that of Smith - he said he was last in Berner street at 12:30 or 35, and Fanny apparently stated he passed between 12:40 and 45. However, the report in question may be working off second-hand information, and the correct interpretation might be that she went to her door at that time, having already heard Smith pass. That interpretation would have Smith walking up Berner street, fairly close to 12:40, which is 10 minutes prior to the hypothesized murder time. So now Fanny goes outside...

                  Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time.

                  Taken literally, on reaching her doorstep, Fanny should have come almost face-to-face with Stride. The only way to avoid this is to suppose that Stride and companion moved away from the point they had been seen at by Smith - far enough away that Fanny can see neither of them - within the few seconds between Smith passing and Fanny opening her door.

                  Put that way, it does seem unlikely this would have been the case. Just a few seconds longer delay in moving from their position on the pavement, and instead of just missing them, Stride and companion will pass from the view of Fanny (presumably into Dutfield's Yard), about 10 minutes before the murder, and about 10 yards from the murder location.

                  Fanny Mortimer was Witness X. Prove me wrong...
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                    It's become accepted that Ripperology will be forever cursed by nonsense like this.


                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



                    “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                    “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                      Witness X

                      EN, Oct 4 (full quote in #1):

                      ... the perpetrator of the Berner street crime was seen and spoken to whilst in the company of his victim, within forty minutes of the commission of the crime and only passed from the sight of a witness TEN MINUTES BEFORE THE MURDER and within ten yards of the scene of the awful deed.

                      I suppose that the person who originally made these claims, was a man on WVC patrol, and probably also the (literal) whistle-blower. So who was the witness spoken of? To narrow it down, if the murderer passed from the sight of this witness 10 minutes before the murder, then an approximate murder time would be a big help. The following quotes were made by/to the press:

                      Diemschitz: One of the members who is known as Isaacs went out with me. We struck a match and saw blood running from the gate all the way down to the side door of the club.

                      Minsky: ... states that at the time when the alarm was raised, just after one o'clock, there were some 20 or 30 members in the club room upstairs. ... The first thing he noticed was the pool of blood by the kitchen door, and then glancing up the yard to the spot where Mr. Diemschitz was holding a lighted match in his hand, he noticed the body of a woman ...

                      Mrs D: I at once recognised it as the body of a woman, while, to add to my horror, I saw a stream of blood trickling down the yard, and terminating in the pool I had first noticed.

                      All very consistent. Lot's of blood had flown by 1am. So let's say the murder occurred at 12:50. Thus:

                      ... the perpetrator of the Berner street crime only passed from the sight of a witness at twenty minutes to one and within ten yards of the scene of the awful deed.

                      Perhaps Witness X was PC Smith, who said he was in Berner street at about that time, or perhaps it was Morris Eagle, who said he returned to the club at about that time. Other than quibbling over the times these witnesses stated, there is a more significant problem - the perpetrator was said to pass from the sight of this witness. I interpret this as meaning the perpetrator was moving, and the witness was stationary.

                      Smith at the inquest...

                      C: When you were in Berner-street the previous time did you see any one?
                      S: Yes, a man and a woman.
                      C: Was the latter anything like the deceased?
                      S: Yes, I saw her face. I have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I feel certain it is the same person.
                      C: Was she on the pavement?
                      S: Yes, a few yards up Berner-street on the opposite side to where she was found.


                      That position would be pretty much directly across from the Mortimer residence, at #36.
                      The plod of Smith's boots was apparently heard by Fanny. DN/EN, Oct 1:

                      It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat.

                      So at this moment, Elizabeth Stride and her parcel carrying companion, are almost right outside Fanny's front door. Now it has been argued that Mortimer's time does not match that of Smith - he said he was last in Berner street at 12:30 or 35, and Fanny apparently stated he passed between 12:40 and 45. However, the report in question may be working off second-hand information, and the correct interpretation might be that she went to her door at that time, having already heard Smith pass. That interpretation would have Smith walking up Berner street, fairly close to 12:40, which is 10 minutes prior to the hypothesized murder time. So now Fanny goes outside...

                      Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time.

                      Taken literally, on reaching her doorstep, Fanny should have come almost face-to-face with Stride. The only way to avoid this is to suppose that Stride and companion moved away from the point they had been seen at by Smith - far enough away that Fanny can see neither of them - within the few seconds between Smith passing and Fanny opening her door.

                      Put that way, it does seem unlikely this would have been the case. Just a few seconds longer delay in moving from their position on the pavement, and instead of just missing them, Stride and companion will pass from the view of Fanny (presumably into Dutfield's Yard), about 10 minutes before the murder, and about 10 yards from the murder location.

                      Fanny Mortimer was Witness X. Prove me wrong...
                      Schwartz.



                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes



                      “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                      “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Schwartz.
                        As I said...

                        ... the perpetrator was said to pass from the sight of this witness. I interpret this as meaning the perpetrator was moving, and the witness was stationary.
                        Schwartz was moving.
                        Ergo, Schwartz was the perpetrator?
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                          As I said...



                          Schwartz was moving.
                          Ergo, Schwartz was the perpetrator?
                          Why would you interpret it that way apart from the obvious fact that it serves a purpose. This could just as easily mean that the witness moved and so could no longer see the attacker?

                          This was Schwartz.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



                          “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                          “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            Why would you interpret it that way apart from the obvious fact that it serves a purpose. This could just as easily mean that the witness moved and so could no longer see the attacker?

                            This was Schwartz.
                            No, it could not "just as easily mean that". The clear implication is that the witness was stationary, and in view of the perpetrator, who then moved out of the view of the witness.

                            Once again, you're creatively interpreting things to save Schwartz. The funny thing is, when I wrote that post I did not have Schwartz in mind. It is about Mortimer, Stride, Parcelman, and the observations made by a WVC patrolman. Yet even when I imply that Fanny Mortimer may not have been forthcoming with all details, Schwartz' story is still left looking vulnerable. You really need to rethink your dedicated defense of this guy.

                            If a vigilance committee man had made observations of the events on Berner street leading up to the murder, then on that dark street he cannot have been far from the action. Did Schwartz say anything about this man?

                            Abberline: There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe.

                            Apparently not.
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                              No, it could not "just as easily mean that". The clear implication is that the witness was stationary, and in view of the perpetrator, who then moved out of the view of the witness.

                              Once again, you're creatively interpreting things to save Schwartz. The funny thing is, when I wrote that post I did not have Schwartz in mind. It is about Mortimer, Stride, Parcelman, and the observations made by a WVC patrolman. Yet even when I imply that Fanny Mortimer may not have been forthcoming with all details, Schwartz' story is still left looking vulnerable. You really need to rethink your dedicated defense of this guy.

                              If a vigilance committee man had made observations of the events on Berner street leading up to the murder, then on that dark street he cannot have been far from the action. Did Schwartz say anything about this man?

                              Abberline: There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe.

                              Apparently not.

                              You are clearly trying to manipulate the English language for your own ends. There is no ‘clear implication’ here.

                              If you say x passed from the sight of y you cannot assume which one moved unless it’s specifically stated.

                              We could say ‘Herlock passed from the sight of Andrew.’ And it could mean that either one of us were in motion.

                              Enough of the fantasies.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



                              “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                              “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X