Whistling on Berner Street

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Here’s another one, from 28th June, 1887.

I believe the man said to have been the club caretaker was Israel Goldstein. He was living at 40, Berner Street until at least 1901.

William Mortimer was a railway carman and had been ‘laid up [ill] some time’.

I've seen you mention this man a few times over the last several months. You seem to have a particular interest in him, but I'm not sure what it is. Care to enlighten me?

[GBinOz]

Two links.

Mrs. Artisan: Mr. Lewis, who travels in cheap drapery things a bit now and again, had just drove into the yard when his horse shied at something that was lying in the corner.

Irish Times: Lewis, who is now found to have been on the spot rather than Koster, is the steward at the Socialist Club at No. 40, and in addition he travels in some drapery goods, the purchase of which, according to his friends necessitated his attending last night's market.

What friend in the club is going to refer to Diemschitz as Mr Lewis? It seems a good bet to me that the source for this IT report, was Mrs A, and as most people believe her to be Fanny Mortimer, they will have to consider it a serious possibility that Fanny told the reporter that 'Lewis' seemed to arrive home at about 12:45. This would be more evidence that the Schwartz incident was manufactured.

How many minutes 'correction' do you apply to Fanny's times, to keep Schwartz in the game?

Hi Andrew,

It seems to me that the different arrival times is more evidence that Mrs Artisan and FM are not the same person.

You can apply what ever clock correction you like if you back it up with an explanation. There is no doubt that clocks in this period could easily be ten minutes out, whether you like it or not. I tried to fit my timeline to disagree with as few a times as possible and I corrected FM's times to her report of footsteps actually being PC Smith, but maybe they weren't his footfalls. Maybe they were those of the ripper, or Leon on his way to the Spectacle just before he was spotted by Mrs Artisan further up the street. When I quoted clock times I gave the disclaimer that they were approximate and quoted some sync corrections to show that most of the times could fall into place. But we have yet to see your timeline published for peer inspection and comment.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
What friend in the club is going to refer to Diemschitz as Mr Lewis? It seems a good bet to me that the source for this IT report, was Mrs A, and as most people believe her to be Fanny Mortimer, they will have to consider it a serious possibility that Fanny told the reporter that 'Lewis' seemed to arrive home at about 12:45. This would be more evidence that the Schwartz incident was manufactured

Or that Fanny Mortimer was an unreliable witness.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Herlock would have heard Caz argue for years - that Schwartz is to be believed because he dithered on who 'Lipski' was called to - and never once complained. Yet when I pointed out (amongst other things) that Abberline only said that Schwartz had the strong Jewish appearance, and therefore Schwartz's claim that it was called to the second man rather than him, was more than a bit strange, this is how he responded

Any witness can be accused 134 years later of lying when it’s suits an agenda. All that it requires is for imagination to triumph over reason . Then all that you have when I or anyone else disagrees or provides a possible non-sinister explanation is the tired old “ you’re just defending the orthodoxy.” As if I or anyone else has some kind of sentimental attachment to events in Berner Street. It’s laughable. When someone is proposing a ‘theory’ or a suspect then the likelihood is that they themselves are the ones getting carried away by seeing everything through a distorting lens.

One of your previous posts is an illustration of this. The only 2 posters that are reluctant to accept a reasonable margin for error in regard to the timings are yourself and Michael. ‘Coincidentally’ the 2 posters inclined toward conspiracy/cover up.

If you want to believe that Israel Schwartz invented his story then that’s obviously up to you. Why wouldn’t a man lie and place himself alone at the scene of a brutal murder with no one there to confirm that he wasn’t involved? Why wouldn’t he invent 2 non-existent characters? Despite the fact that the Police would have interviewed him at length and very obviously took his story seriously.

And what do you base this on? Your theory that if something wasn’t witnessed it couldn’t have happened. No one saw him therefore he wasn’t there. Despite that fact that we can’t tie FM down to any specific time that she was on her doorstep you still hang on to the desperate claim that this incident of a few seconds duration must have been seen had it occurred. Plus a couple of slight difference in a version of his story in The Star. Ignoring that the 2 versions were given via 2 different interpreters (who’s command of the language we can’t be sure of) Could Schwartz have lied? Well we can’t dismiss the possibility that he added the part about the knife either after considering that he’d scarpered without offering the woman any help or after this was pointed out to him.

You’ve provided nothing to prove any kind of cover-up or plot in Berner Street and you haven’t even stated what you think happened? Are you simply supporting Michael’s ‘theory?’ Or do you have one even less believable? The creation of ‘plots’ and ‘cover-up’s’ is the easiest thing in the world especially in a case this old but providing real evidence is another thing and it’s also the easiest thing in the world to resort to the old “well you would say that wouldn’t you?”

Perhaps the ‘little boy’ Kozebrodski did it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Herlock is a joke.

Coming from the man who once claimed that Mrs Richardson was running a brothel from the cellar of number 29 Hanbury Street I hardly think that your comment needs taking seriously.

[drstrange169]

>>I took that as meaning you were associating Mortimer's non-calling to the inquest ...<<

Mortimer's story appeared in the the papers on the day the inquest started.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

There does appear to be a possible link with the name "Mr Lewis".

Two links.

Mrs. Artisan: Mr. Lewis, who travels in cheap drapery things a bit now and again, had just drove into the yard when his horse shied at something that was lying in the corner.

Irish Times: Lewis, who is now found to have been on the spot rather than Koster, is the steward at the Socialist Club at No. 40, and in addition he travels in some drapery goods, the purchase of which, according to his friends necessitated his attending last night's market.

What friend in the club is going to refer to Diemschitz as Mr Lewis? It seems a good bet to me that the source for this IT report, was Mrs A, and as most people believe her to be Fanny Mortimer, they will have to consider it a serious possibility that Fanny told the reporter that 'Lewis' seemed to arrive home at about 12:45. This would be more evidence that the Schwartz incident was manufactured.

When it comes to the time, your last paragraph is similar to my timeline with clock corrections taken into account. I had the Schwartz incident, which would have lasted only minutes, just after FM went inside.

How many minutes 'correction' do you apply to Fanny's times, to keep Schwartz in the game?

Andrew, while it is fun to take small clues and language interpretations and extrapolate them into theories, one must always be careful not to fall for the Venutian Dinosaur Fallacy : https://bigthink.com/articles/the-ve...osaur-fallacy/

Whereas I think the big fallacy seen around here in recent times, has occurred in the production of timelines. Margins of error in quoted times, should be not be regarded as providing scope for creativity. As in, "I can move her forward 10 minutes, and him back about the same, because the respective times quoted have a margin of error of +/- 10 minutes". These margins of error are being used to 'prove' whatever the timeline creator wants to prove, and so they end being little more than exercises in confirmation bias.

Perhaps this is what Herlock has been suggesting to you?

Cheers, George

Herlock would have heard Caz argue for years - that Schwartz is to be believed because he dithered on who 'Lipski' was called to - and never once complained. Yet when I pointed out (amongst other things) that Abberline only said that Schwartz had the strong Jewish appearance, and therefore Schwartz's claim that it was called to the second man rather than him, was more than a bit strange, this is how he responded ...

Im not going to waste time in yet again nitpicking over who might have said what to whom and how it was worded. There’s no mystery here just tedious fantasising. I’m utterly bored with Berner Street. We know what happened. End of story as far as I’m concerned. I’ll leave you to your ongoing effort to knit a theory out of fog

Herlock is a joke.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Dusty,

Here's another version:

https://www.casebook.org/official_do...er-street.html

Cheers, George

Here’s another one, from 28th June, 1887.

I believe the man said to have been the club caretaker was Israel Goldstein. He was living at 40, Berner Street until at least 1901.

William Mortimer was a railway carman and had been ‘laid up [ill] some time’.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

>>How could the police have dismissed the information about Goldstein, prior to the commencement of the inquest? <<

Who said anything about prior to the commencement of the inquest?

You said ...

The only unique information she could have offered, Goldstein, had already been dismissed. There is no surprise she wasn't called.

I took that as meaning you were associating Mortimer's non-calling to the inquest, with a supposed dismissal of her information on Goldstein. I think others would have read it the same way.

In what sense was her Goldstein information, dismissed?

[drstrange169]

>>Here's another version<<


Yes, I remember that one.

[GBinOz]

You're right George - the kids weren't old enough to have left home. It does seem a mystery that Fanny was described in the manner she was. If it was her, of course.

Do you agree with my suggestion in #364, that the source for that Irish Times snippet, was Mrs. Artisan? If yes (or even if no), what do you make of this bit ...?

He seems to have returned home about a quarter to 1...

Did Mrs A give the IT reporter that information? Is that what she was told? If yes, perhaps Fanny locked up at closer to 12:50 than 1am, with Diemschitz arriving just prior. That would make sense of Fanny having said that she heard Smith pass just before 12:45, and her saying she went to the yard just after 1am - she was about 5 to 10 minutes 'ahead of time'. That would seem to place Fanny at he door at 12:45. She sees Goldstein. She does not see Schwartz or anyone else from Schwartz's tale. Were they actually there to be seen?

Hi Andrew,

There does appear to be a possible link with the name "Mr Lewis". When it comes to the time, your last paragraph is similar to my timeline with clock corrections taken into account. I had the Schwartz incident, which would have lasted only minutes, just after FM went inside.

Andrew, while it is fun to take small clues and language interpretations and extrapolate them into theories, one must always be careful not to fall for the Venutian Dinosaur Fallacy : https://bigthink.com/articles/the-ve...osaur-fallacy/
Perhaps this is what Herlock has been suggesting to you?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

There must have been some kind of temporal time loop in Berner Street,

According to the 1881 census

Hi Dusty,

Here's another version:

https://www.casebook.org/official_documents/census/berner-street.html

Cheers, George

[drstrange169]

>>How could the police have dismissed the information about Goldstein, prior to the commencement of the inquest? <<

Who said anything about prior to the commencement of the inquest?

[drstrange169]

There must have been some kind of temporal time loop in Berner Street,

According to the 1881 census

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hello George,

I can't think any reason Baxter would call Mortimer to the inquest.

Baxters job was to find out who the deceased person was and how, when and where they died and to provide the details needed for their death to be registered. Mortimer had nothing to offer on any of those criteria that other witnesses weren't more qualified to give..

The only unique information she could have offered, Goldstein, had already been dismissed. There is no surprise she wasn't called.

How could the police have dismissed the information about Goldstein, prior to the commencement of the inquest? The identity of black bag man, wasn't known until late Tuesday evening, by which time the inquest had completed its second day.