Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whistling on Berner Street

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

  • All three interviews/reports are here:

    https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18881001.html

    If FM saw Goldstein only once, then Mrs Artisan saw him once going in the opposite direction? The two reports are there in black and white, can't be denied, have to be explained.

    I was expecting to see that you had opened a thread on The Ashes. What in the world are your selectors thinking leaving out both Anderson and Broad?

    Cheers, George
    “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.”

    Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      You won’t let this one go will you? She saw Goldstein once. If she’d seen him twice she would have said that she’d seen him twice.
      Arguably, she did say she had seen him twice, at least implicitly. Consider her words again...

      I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by. ... It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road.

      As I've said several times in the past, the word 'previously' is redundant, if she only goes to her doorstep on one occasion. Yet the the phrase "I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this morning...", suggests she went out, in, and out again, at least once. This hints at what she is getting at, by the use of the word 'previously'. So what I think Fanny actually said was more like this...

      It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen who had passed through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road.

      If the reporter who had taken Mortimer's statement had left out these couple of small but crucial words, then Fanny's intended meaning could have been lost or made ambiguous. However, the addition of these possibly lost words has the result the word 'previously' suddenly makes sense. It means she had seen him just before she had gone indoors, and she had also seen him previously.

      I think that is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, and it is not a matter me being unable to let go of this. Rather, it is a matter of nearly everyone else being unable to cope with this evidence. It is apparently just too confronting. Yet as George said, the FM reports are there to be explained. They cannot simply be ignored. If Ripperology wants to be taken seriously by the wider world, it cannot just ignore evidence it doesn't care to acknowledge.
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Regards the FM statement, I feel she's using the "heard a commotion" as the reference point, the statement revolves around that moment, it being the critical piece of information and the point at which she becomes involved.

        She's saying that she was on her doorstep at some point prior to "the commotion" but had gone back inside before again coming out upon hearing said commotion.

        I take the "previously" to mean previous to "the commotion", as in FM is saying the only person she noticed in her time on the doorstep was the man with the bag, and this was before 1. I don't read it as she saw the same man twice. I also think FM and Mrs Artisan are the same.

        Might 'ha he been coming from the Socialist Club? That's an odd statement itself and leaves more questions than answers.
        Thems the Vagaries.....

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
          Regards the FM statement, I feel she's using the "heard a commotion" as the reference point, the statement revolves around that moment, it being the critical piece of information and the point at which she becomes involved.

          She's saying that she was on her doorstep at some point prior to "the commotion" but had gone back inside before again coming out upon hearing said commotion.

          I take the "previously" to mean previous to "the commotion", as in FM is saying the only person she noticed in her time on the doorstep was the man with the bag, and this was before 1. I don't read it as she saw the same man twice. I also think FM and Mrs Artisan are the same.

          Might 'ha he been coming from the Socialist Club? That's an odd statement itself and leaves more questions than answers.
          Hi Al,

          I'm with you on the intepretation of "previously", but how do we get around one sighting of Goldstein going down Berner St from Commercial Road and turning at the Board School, and another of him heading up Berner St, possibly from the Club? There can be no doubt about the direction of the first sighting. Where can she have been standing for the second description to make these the same sighting? I would have thought that if FM had made both sightings she would have referred to that in one of her interviews? That, and the fact that FM's husband was not an artisan, makes me suspect a second woman, but I would welcome any alternative explanations.

          Cheers, George
          “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.”

          Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
            All three interviews/reports are here:

            https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18881001.html

            If FM saw Goldstein only once, then Mrs Artisan saw him once going in the opposite direction? The two reports are there in black and white, can't be denied, have to be explained.

            I was expecting to see that you had opened a thread on The Ashes. What in the world are your selectors thinking leaving out both Anderson and Broad?

            Cheers, George
            Mrs Artisan was obviously FM.

            I’ll be amazed if England don’t lose 5-0 George with such a fragile batting line up. Then just to emphasise things the selectors decided to drop our 2 best bowlers! They might as well tell Root that he has to bat left handed for the rest of the series.
            Regards

            Herlock Sholmes

            Comment


            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

              Arguably, she did say she had seen him twice, at least implicitly. Consider her words again...

              I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by. ... It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road.

              As I've said several times in the past, the word 'previously' is redundant, if she only goes to her doorstep on one occasion. Yet the the phrase "I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this morning...", suggests she went out, in, and out again, at least once. This hints at what she is getting at, by the use of the word 'previously'. So what I think Fanny actually said was more like this...

              It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen who had passed through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road.

              If the reporter who had taken Mortimer's statement had left out these couple of small but crucial words, then Fanny's intended meaning could have been lost or made ambiguous. However, the addition of these possibly lost words has the result the word 'previously' suddenly makes sense. It means she had seen him just before she had gone indoors, and she had also seen him previously.

              I think that is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, and it is not a matter me being unable to let go of this. Rather, it is a matter of nearly everyone else being unable to cope with this evidence. It is apparently just too confronting. Yet as George said, the FM reports are there to be explained. They cannot simply be ignored. If Ripperology wants to be taken seriously by the wider world, it cannot just ignore evidence it doesn't care to acknowledge.
              It’s nothing to do with coping with evidence. It’s a question of how far we go in making suggestions or assumptions especially on something as fragile as language. If everyone spoke uniformly precise language then perhaps we could make some deductions but they don’t and then we have to add the fact that these ‘words’ were written up by a reporter. So we have 2 layers of doubt. This isn’t too ‘confronting.’ It’s not a case of “you can’t handle the truth.” Its a case of being cautious enough not to see what’s not there. If someone took the time I’m absolutely certain that they could wring alternate meanings out of most statements in this case based on wording. Either a word which someone finds to be ‘redundant’ or a variant from one report to another. I just suggest caution. I’d ask why FM didn’t say in any of these reports that she saw this man who she’d also seen earlier? Wouldn’t the police have been interested to have heard this news?

              Fanny clearly means “previous to my going onto the doorstep just after 1.00 the only man that I’d seen was….”

              PS. We note the “just after 1.00,” of course. Discovery time at 1.00.
              Regards

              Herlock Sholmes

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                Regards the FM statement, I feel she's using the "heard a commotion" as the reference point, the statement revolves around that moment, it being the critical piece of information and the point at which she becomes involved.

                She's saying that she was on her doorstep at some point prior to "the commotion" but had gone back inside before again coming out upon hearing said commotion.

                I take the "previously" to mean previous to "the commotion", as in FM is saying the only person she noticed in her time on the doorstep was the man with the bag, and this was before 1. I don't read it as she saw the same man twice. I also think FM and Mrs Artisan are the same.

                Might 'ha he been coming from the Socialist Club? That's an odd statement itself and leaves more questions than answers.
                That’s how I see it Al.

                Regards

                Herlock Sholmes

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                  Hi Al,

                  I'm with you on the intepretation of "previously", but how do we get around one sighting of Goldstein going down Berner St from Commercial Road and turning at the Board School, and another of him heading up Berner St, possibly from the Club? There can be no doubt about the direction of the first sighting. Where can she have been standing for the second description to make these the same sighting? I would have thought that if FM had made both sightings she would have referred to that in one of her interviews? That, and the fact that FM's husband was not an artisan, makes me suspect a second woman, but I would welcome any alternative explanations.

                  Cheers, George
                  “A well-to-do artisan.”

                  Can we really imagine anyone ‘well-to-do’ electing to live in Berner Street George. I reckon Fanny might have just indulged in a bit of Hyacinth Bouquet type exaggeration.

                  Just in case Hyacinth never reached Oz…

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_Up_Appearances


                  Regards

                  Herlock Sholmes

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    “A well-to-do artisan.”

                    Can we really imagine anyone ‘well-to-do’ electing to live in Berner Street George. I reckon Fanny might have just indulged in a bit of Hyacinth Bouquet type exaggeration.

                    Just in case Hyacinth never reached Oz…

                    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_Up_Appearances
                    Hi Herlock,

                    I'm well acquainted with "the bucket woman". My favourite was Onslow's reply to Daisy threatening to take up with a toy boy - "Will you get someone that's a bit handy about the place, I'm tired of living in squalor". Even if we accept your proposal, we still have two interviews with the man with the black bag going in opposite directions. He was seen returning from the Spectacle Cafe, why couldn't he have been seen going there as well. We can't just say he was only seen once and dismiss the other interview.

                    I feel sorry for Burns getting that ball as the first in the series. But Australia acheived the ideal formula - bowl line and length and hold all your catches. In my younger days I had a boss who used to say "what one fool can do, so can another". Tomorrow is a new day. Perhaps the gentlemen from Blighty can turn the tables on the colonial ruffians? I'd like to see a game made of it and it not be decided by the weather.

                    Cheers, George
                    “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.”

                    Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      Hi Herlock,

                      I'm well acquainted with "the bucket woman". My favourite was Onslow's reply to Daisy threatening to take up with a toy boy - "Will you get someone that's a bit handy about the place, I'm tired of living in squalor". Even if we accept your proposal, we still have two interviews with the man with the black bag going in opposite directions. He was seen returning from the Spectacle Cafe, why couldn't he have been seen going there as well. We can't just say he was only seen once and dismiss the other interview.

                      I feel sorry for Burns getting that ball as the first in the series. But Australia acheived the ideal formula - bowl line and length and hold all your catches. In my younger days I had a boss who used to say "what one fool can do, so can another". Tomorrow is a new day. Perhaps the gentlemen from Blighty can turn the tables on the colonial ruffians? I'd like to see a game made of it and it not be decided by the weather.

                      Cheers, George
                      Hello George,

                      The problem for me is that we have these reports second hand from reporters who were making notes or using shorthand then writing up the story later. So when a reporter sits down to write up his story he puts ‘up’ instead of ‘down’ or ‘down’ instead of ‘up.’ I’m just too wary of reading too much into these minor examples of wording. She was saying that the only person that she’d seen previous to the commotion at the club was Goldstein (unnamed of course) She says nothing about seeing him twice yet this would have been a significant issue. I honestly see nothing that dissuades me of the fac that she saw him only once.

                      I fully expect a 5-0 job George. We have some talented players but no backbone. When it gets tough, as it always will against he Aussies, our batsmen crumble.
                      Regards

                      Herlock Sholmes

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                        Hi Al,

                        I'm with you on the intepretation of "previously", but how do we get around one sighting of Goldstein going down Berner St from Commercial Road and turning at the Board School, and another of him heading up Berner St, possibly from the Club? There can be no doubt about the direction of the first sighting. Where can she have been standing for the second description to make these the same sighting? I would have thought that if FM had made both sightings she would have referred to that in one of her interviews? That, and the fact that FM's husband was not an artisan, makes me suspect a second woman, but I would welcome any alternative explanations.

                        Cheers, George
                        Hi George,

                        Can't say I've got any great alternative explanations, I honestly think it's just a confused account of FM. However, working from the point of view that it was an independent sighting, we know FM saw bag man before turning in for the night, which was before "the commotion", be that 12:50 or 1AM. This was him heading down the street, so presumably Mrs Artisans sighting is before any of this so would it be too early to be connected?

                        That's the thing with having such sparse sources, we can't answer these questions. Presumably, the police didn't take Leon's story on trust alone, but any and all record of the ground level investigation is long gone. But we do know from other sources that the police did investigate hundreds of leads.

                        It's much like the rest of the events that night. How did Mrs Artisan see LG, but not FM, Stride, the club members coming and going, PC Smith, Schwartz? At least we can identify FM and put her in place. Mrs Artisan is suitably vague, ideal for speculation but nothing conclusive. It's an interesting account, which can be rationalised to a point if it's an account of FM. As a separate witness, it's the realm of speculation from which no solid theories can be forged.

                        Always worth a musing though.
                        Thems the Vagaries.....

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Fanny clearly means “previous to my going onto the doorstep just after 1.00 the only man that I’d seen was….”
                          Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                          Regards the FM statement, I feel she's using the "heard a commotion" as the reference point, the statement revolves around that moment, it being the critical piece of information and the point at which she becomes involved.

                          She's saying that she was on her doorstep at some point prior to "the commotion" but had gone back inside before again coming out upon hearing said commotion.

                          I take the "previously" to mean previous to "the commotion", as in FM is saying the only person she noticed in her time on the doorstep was the man with the bag, and this was before 1. I don't read it as she saw the same man twice. I also think FM and Mrs Artisan are the same.
                          The reason this explanation fails, is that it does not fully contend with what Fanny is quoted as saying. The word 'previously' could mean that black bag man was the only man she saw before returning inside, but only if she had said...

                          ... the only man whom I had seen previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

                          That is not what she said, which was ...

                          ... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

                          The words '[a] man whom I had seen pass through the street', defines a category - a category of men she had seen. If black bag man had been the only man she had seen, and she had only seen him once, then it would be pointless of her to have defined this category, and she need only have said ...

                          ... the only man whom I had seen previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road.

                          So clearly she is trying to tell us something. The standard explanation also errs in assuming that black bag man was the only man she had seen. When Smith passed through Berner street, he saw at least two people. Eagle probably saw people on his return to the club. James Brown saw a couple at the board school corner when he intersected the street. What are the chances that over a considerably longer period, Fanny only saw one man? She even says...

                          ... there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club.

                          So there were very few people on the street, and not zero people. The assumption that black bag man was the only man she witnessed at her doorstep, is a heroic one.

                          Might 'ha he been coming from the Socialist Club? That's an odd statement itself and leaves more questions than answers.
                          How did you manage to turn a statement into a question, and then refer to it as a statement?

                          He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

                          This statement is completely consistent with the direction of travel noted ...

                          That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.

                          It is not confused at all.
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post



                            The reason this explanation fails, is that it does not fully contend with what Fanny is quoted as saying. The word 'previously' could mean that black bag man was the only man she saw before returning inside, but only if she had said...

                            ... the only man whom I had seen previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

                            That is not what she said, which was ...

                            ... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

                            The words '[a] man whom I had seen pass through the street', defines a category - a category of men she had seen. If black bag man had been the only man she had seen, and she had only seen him once, then it would be pointless of her to have defined this category, and she need only have said ...

                            ... the only man whom I had seen previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road.

                            So clearly she is trying to tell us something. The standard explanation also errs in assuming that black bag man was the only man she had seen. When Smith passed through Berner street, he saw at least two people. Eagle probably saw people on his return to the club. James Brown saw a couple at the board school corner when he intersected the street. What are the chances that over a considerably longer period, Fanny only saw one man? She even says...

                            ... there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club.

                            So there were very few people on the street, and not zero people. The assumption that black bag man was the only man she witnessed at her doorstep, is a heroic one.



                            How did you manage to turn a statement into a question, and then refer to it as a statement?

                            He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

                            This statement is completely consistent with the direction of travel noted ...

                            That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.

                            It is not confused at all.
                            Again, you’re reading way to much into the use of language. Especially when we can’t even be certain that the reporter wrote down what she said to the letter. None of this even remotely points to her seeing him twice. If you’re being that pedantic with language then why not ask the obvious question - why didn’t she just say that she’d seen him twice? She seemed keen to be helpful to the police so how could she not have been aware how interested they would have been to know that the same man had walked past that spot twice on the same evening? It’s absolutely obvious that she saw Goldstein once. This is blind alley number 2,412 I’m afraid.
                            Regards

                            Herlock Sholmes

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              If you’re being that pedantic with language then why not ask the obvious question - why didn’t she just say that she’d seen him twice?
                              I agree.
                              It’s absolutely obvious that she saw Goldstein once.
                              I agree
                              It's absolutely obvious that there was a second witness who saw him headed in the opposite direction. The alternative is to distort the language or completely ignor the evidence. What reasons can be found for just dismissing the possibility there couldn't be a second witness?

                              Cheers, George
                              “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.”

                              Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                                It's absolutely obvious that there was a second witness who saw him headed in the opposite direction. The alternative is to distort the language or completely ignor the evidence. What reasons can be found for just dismissing the possibility there couldn't be a second witness?

                                Cheers, George
                                How are we distorting language George? ‘Up’ or ‘down’ can be used interchangeably in conversation. There’s also a report that says ‘passing through.’ So that’s 3 ‘versions.’ I may be mistaken but haven’t I seen a ‘passing along’ somewhere? So we have a difference of one word. Against that we have absolutely no mention anywhere of FM seeing Goldstein twice. We’ll probably just have to agree to disagree on this one George but to me it’s obvious that Fanny saw Goldstein once and that we should be wary of reading too much into the vagaries of language.

                                Looks like we’re showing at least a bit of fight at The Gabba. We are too reliant on Root though. Any danger of snow over there so that we can salvage a draw.
                                Regards

                                Herlock Sholmes

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X