Whistling on Berner Street

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here's some food for thought ...

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. He thought 'twas a bundle of some kind till he got down from his cart and struck a light. Then he saw what it was and gave the alarm.

Note, she refers to Diemschitz as 'Mr. Lewis'.

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. He seems to have returned home about a quarter to 1, and to have proceeded up the entry which, though not narrow, is a very dark one, for the purpose of putting up his pony and trap. While proceeding along the wall of No. 40, which is to the north of the entry, he stumbled against something which he presently discovered to be the body of a woman, and at first feared was that of his wife. On entering his door however, he found Mrs Lewis waiting for him, and explaining that a woman was lying outside, he asked a man who was in the house to come outside with him.

Was Mrs. A the info source for this report? Did she know Diemschitz and not Koster, was the man 'on the spot'?

Mrs. A: "I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police. I ran to the door, and before I could open it I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.' I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway. Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife."

Who was this somebody who informed her of the murder?

Irish Times: About five minutes to one o'clock this morning a youth about twenty years of age named Joseph Koster was accosted by a little boy who came running up to him as he was passing on the opposite side of 40 Berner street, used by the International Socialist Club, and told him that a woman was lying in the gateway next to the club, with her throat cut. Koster immediately ran across the road and saw a woman lying on her side in the gateway leading into Dutfield's stabling and van premises. The gate which is a large wooden one, was partly opened, and the woman lying partly in the opening and on the street. He immediately roused the neighbours, and by the aid of a candle it was seen that the woman's throat was cut open very nearly from one ear to the other, and her hips were drawn up as if she had suffered sharp pain.

Arguably, it was Joseph Koster. So then who is this 'little boy'? I think that is a mistake in the report, and The Times got it right ...

Conflicting statements are made as to the way in which the body was found, but according to one account a lad first made the discovery and gave information to a man named Costa, who proceeded to the spot, where almost immediately afterwards a constable arrived.

Arguably, the young lad was Isaac Kozebrodsky, and the 'constable' was a WVC patrolman.

Note that the first IT quote refers to 'Lewis' returning home at "about a quarter to 1". That is same time given by Israel Schwartz, who claimed to see a man walking in front of him, once he turned into Berner street. What was Koster doing when alerted to the murder ...?

... he was passing on the opposite side of 40 Berner street ...

Arguably, Joseph Koster had broad shoulders.

According to Schwartz in the Star ...

... a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

Arguably, this was heard and partially understood by Isaac Kozebrodsky, who had very imperfect English. When did he claim to be first aware of the murder?

IK: About 20 minutes to 1 this morning Mr Diemshitz called me out into the yard.

Arguably, what happened on Berner street that night, is quite different to what nearly everyone supposes.

Just garbled versions of versions told by people keen to be involved.

We know what happened.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Arguably, the young lad was Isaac Kozebrodsky

Was he a dwarf? How could Kezebridski be described as ‘a little boy?’

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Arguably, this was heard and partially understood by Isaac Kozebrodsky, who had very imperfect English. When did he claim to be first aware of the murder?

IK: About 20 minutes to 1 this morning Mr Diemshitz called me out into the yard

But we know that Kozebrodski wasn’t with the body at 12.40.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Mrs. A: "I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police. I ran to the door, and before I could open it I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.' I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway. Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife."

Who was this somebody who informed her of the murder?

Eagle as he ran past her house to get a Constable?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Here's some food for thought ...

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. He thought 'twas a bundle of some kind till he got down from his cart and struck a light. Then he saw what it was and gave the alarm.

Note, she refers to Diemschitz as 'Mr. Lewis'.

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. He seems to have returned home about a quarter to 1, and to have proceeded up the entry which, though not narrow, is a very dark one, for the purpose of putting up his pony and trap. While proceeding along the wall of No. 40, which is to the north of the entry, he stumbled against something which he presently discovered to be the body of a woman, and at first feared was that of his wife. On entering his door however, he found Mrs Lewis waiting for him, and explaining that a woman was lying outside, he asked a man who was in the house to come outside with him.

Was Mrs. A the info source for this report? Did she know Diemschitz and not Koster, was the man 'on the spot'?

Mrs. A: "I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police. I ran to the door, and before I could open it I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.' I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway. Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife."

Who was this somebody who informed her of the murder?

Irish Times: About five minutes to one o'clock this morning a youth about twenty years of age named Joseph Koster was accosted by a little boy who came running up to him as he was passing on the opposite side of 40 Berner street, used by the International Socialist Club, and told him that a woman was lying in the gateway next to the club, with her throat cut. Koster immediately ran across the road and saw a woman lying on her side in the gateway leading into Dutfield's stabling and van premises. The gate which is a large wooden one, was partly opened, and the woman lying partly in the opening and on the street. He immediately roused the neighbours, and by the aid of a candle it was seen that the woman's throat was cut open very nearly from one ear to the other, and her hips were drawn up as if she had suffered sharp pain.

Arguably, it was Joseph Koster. So then who is this 'little boy'? I think that is a mistake in the report, and The Times got it right ...

Conflicting statements are made as to the way in which the body was found, but according to one account a lad first made the discovery and gave information to a man named Costa, who proceeded to the spot, where almost immediately afterwards a constable arrived.

Arguably, the young lad was Isaac Kozebrodsky, and the 'constable' was a WVC patrolman.

Note that the first IT quote refers to 'Lewis' returning home at "about a quarter to 1". That is same time given by Israel Schwartz, who claimed to see a man walking in front of him, once he turned into Berner street. What was Koster doing when alerted to the murder ...?

... he was passing on the opposite side of 40 Berner street ...

Arguably, Joseph Koster had broad shoulders.

According to Schwartz in the Star ...

... a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

Arguably, this was heard and partially understood by Isaac Kozebrodsky, who had very imperfect English. When did he claim to be first aware of the murder?

IK: About 20 minutes to 1 this morning Mr Diemshitz called me out into the yard.

Arguably, what happened on Berner street that night, is quite different to what nearly everyone supposes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

There were three columns in the Evening News 1 Oct, two attributable to Mortimer, via name or residence location, and one to an Artisan's wife. In your quest to remain true to traditional thinking you have manufacture a fanciful tale based purely on conjecture and then asked me to accept that this pure speculation which totally contradicts what was written is the obvious conclusion. Fallacious conjecture A = obviously correct speculation B. No offence, but I'm not buying it. Why can't it be accepted as written, other that it disrupts some cognitive bias?

Cheers, George

So why did the Reporter that supposedly spoke to this other woman not get her name? It seems a bit strange that he’d take the time to interview her and yet had to resort to describing her appearance? It just sounds a bit strange to me George. Like he’d got his story from a fellow Reporter but, for whatever reason, didn’t get the name?

Some three doors from the gateway where the body of the first victim was discovered, I saw a clean, respectable-looking woman chatting with one or two neighbours. She was apparently the wife of a well-to-do artisan, and formed a strong contrast to many of those around her. I got into conversation with her and found that she was one of the first on the spot

So he estimates that she lived 3 doors from the club. Mortimer actually lived 2 doors from the club and yet she never mentions her next door neighbour being on the doorstep at the same time that she was on hers?

" I suppose you did not notice a man and woman pass down the street while you were at the door?"

"No, sir. I think I should have noticed them if they had. Particularly if they'd been strangers, at that time o' night

So she’d also spent sometime on her doorstep but neither she or Mortimer are aware of each other’s presence even though they were neighbours and must have known each other well?

I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway. Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife

So she, like Mortimer, got to the scene immediately after the crime and before a larger crowd had gathered or any police had arrived?

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

She was also on her doorstep at whatever time Goldstein passed by.

Mrs Artisan apparently said…

. "I was just about going to bed, sir

And Mortimer said….

I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed

This one’s just a question but hasn’t the quote below been quoted as coming from Mortimer by name in other newspapers or did it just refer to this quote with the assumption that they were one and the same person? I don’t know.

'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her

……..

It’s nothing to do with bias George. You have 2 women both just about to go to bed, living 2 and 3 doors from the Club, both spent time on their doorstep and saw Goldstein but little else of interest (so they’re basically giving the same story) both arrived at the club immediately after the first cry went up and before a crowd gathered. Neither mention seeing each other despite the fact that they had been standing on adjacent doorsteps at the same time and would undoubtedly have known each other well. And we have to ask why our reporter didn’t ask the name of the woman he was interviewing.

Surely we have to conclude that Mortimer and Mrs Artisan were one and the same George?

[GBinOz]

Hmmm, that's a bit of a loaded statement, George. Everyone alive in London in 1888 was aware of those limitations, so Baxter and the police would have had experience with fashioning their questions and enquiries accordingly, in order to reach the most probable timeline of events. They wouldn't simply have thrown up their hands, unable to do anything but take all conflicting witness times at face value, waiting for smart phones to be invented.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I suppose it could seem to be loaded. I was commented on the tendency for posters to comment "if the times were wrong or conflicting, why didn't the police or the coroner raise questions". That was the reason why they didn't.

I think it would be reasonable to suggest that the majority of discussion on these forums is repetitive conjecture and speculation based on contradictory press reports, proposed accurate-to the-minute timings and the interminable minute (size) examination of every word and phrase for alternative meanings, sinister plots and bias justifications. Nevertheless, we endeavour to persevere, who knows why.

Interspersed amongst the above are a few facts. It is a fact that in the Evening New 1 Oct 1888 there were three separate accounts of interviews with witnesses. Two were directly attributed to Mortimer. The third was not, and contained different detail. It is also fact that two witnesses reported hearing a police whistle before the police were located. What are the alternatives for dealing with these facts?
. Just ignoring the offending facts?
. Out of hand dismissal without supporting justification?
. Massage of language to achieve the desired result?
. Fanciful conjecture evolving into bias satisfying speculation?
. Proposing alternatives that may reasonably explain the circumstances of the factual statements.

In the facts at hand, the first can be addressed by a second witness (Mrs Artisan), and nobody gets hurt. Unless Leon was "beamed" to the Spectacle he had to get there somehow and it is more likely than not that he used the same route going and returning. The possibility that he was observed by more than one door stoop snoop shouldn't raise an eyebrow. Does it matter if the police questioned him (marginal notes suggest that possibility)? There was no proof that he did anything but walk to a cafe and then return home.

The second fact can be addressed by a little research, which showed that the WVC were issued with police whistles leading to the reasonable conclusion that it is likely that it was one of their members that blew the initial alarm whistle. No drama, no contortions, no consequences, just a reasonable straight forward solution.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

In the case of Goldstein we have Mortimer, via a Reporter, using the words ‘up’ and ‘down.’ So firstly and most importantly we should note that two words that she didn’t use were ‘twice’ or ‘again.’ So no actual talk of seeing him twice. And whenever Goldstein is mentioned anywhere in text at the time no one mentions her saying or hinting that she’d seen him twice. This alone is strong evidence that she saw him once.

Then we have to consider the importance of solving the case. How any potential leads or suspects would be followed up and how significant it would have been, at least initially, if Fanny had seen this mysterious ‘bag man’ twice in the same night passing the crime scene. But again, still only one pass by Goldstein is mentioned.

How much, and with with what level of confidence, can we infer something from 2 words used in the same place in a sentence? And not only that but 2 words that we cannot be sure actually came from Fanny herself? Reporters weren’t giving verbatim reports as you know. They would take notes and then write them up. Isn’t it also possible that Fanny said ‘up’ to one Reporter and ‘down’ to another?

So surely you can see that by taking what was actually stated (and I mean content and meaning rather than variations in wording) and then factoring in that these weren’t the exact words that Fanny spoke to Reporters then the conclusion is obvious. It points to either Fanny’s loose terminology or more likely a Reporters error.

This is what I mean when I say that we can easily start building something potentially huge on something small and flimsy. George I could be wrong of course but I think that if you asked every Ripperologist or researcher about this I’d expect an overwhelming majority would say that Goldstein passed once.

Hi Herlock,

There were three columns in the Evening News 1 Oct, two attributable to Mortimer, via name or residence location, and one to an Artisan's wife. In your quest to remain true to traditional thinking you have manufacture a fanciful tale based purely on conjecture and then asked me to accept that this pure speculation which totally contradicts what was written is the obvious conclusion. Fallacious conjecture A = obviously correct speculation B. No offence, but I'm not buying it. Why can't it be accepted as written, other that it disrupts some cognitive bias?

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

An assumption by Abberline perhaps and not a point that he would have considered particularly important.

That's interesting, because in response to my claim that Schwartz stopped to watch the incident, you stated ...

More imagination triumphing over facts. Schwartz never claimed to have stopped. He viewed the entire incident on the move.

So now that it turns out that it's I who has the facts, and you that has the imagination, you're trying to make out that it's not an important point, and that Abberline was probably just making an assumption - a false one. Did he make any other false assumptions, that you and other people in possession of the 'facts', are aware of?

You might be totally bored with Berner street, but for everyone else, the issue of Schwartz stopping to watch the incident is actually quite important. The idea that he could stand watching this incident at close range, without provoking or inviting a response from either or both the man and woman, is highly unrealistic. Only when Schwartz crosses the road does the man call out a single word. How odd. Was Schwartz invisible to the man and woman?

No mention of him stopping in The Star interview of course.

Ah, so you believe the Star 'interview' when it suits. I thought all good Schwartzists know not to believe everything they read in the papers? Or do they really just believe in cherry-picking newspaper reports, to support their biased views?

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.

So why don't you tell us what happened, from start to finish? Please include details of the murder.

[caz]

The irony is that Jeff was working on "doctor time" and I was working on "police time" but when Jeff correlated the two timelines he assessed them as being substantially the same if clock corrections were taken into account. My timeline also allowed for "Club time" and Michael's theories also fitted with another clock correction. It is the same in Buck's Row. A great deal of discussion about minute accurate times and gaps that can all be explained by clock corrections. Baxter and the police were surely aware of the limitations in the keeping of time for the era, and this explains why times were seldom questioned.

Cheers, George

Hmmm, that's a bit of a loaded statement, George. Everyone alive in London in 1888 was aware of those limitations, so Baxter and the police would have had experience with fashioning their questions and enquiries accordingly, in order to reach the most probable timeline of events. They wouldn't simply have thrown up their hands, unable to do anything but take all conflicting witness times at face value, waiting for smart phones to be invented.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I see now why you are having issues with this point, you must have forgotten that Lamb was there before 1am after seeing Eagle before 1am and Fanny was at her door at 1am. You must also have forgotten that multiple witnesses said they were by the dying woman in Louis's company before 1am.

I can certainly understand that lacking that information one might tend to give Louis the benefit of the doubt, but as it is, he clearly cannot be when so many people stated otherwise. And they almost match each others times and details precisely. We dont have to extend his any benefits when he is quite obviously provably wrong. The real question, since he didnt mention the scenarios that all these other men did...is why? Did he forget? Hard to imagine, since he was interviewed on the spot shortly after Lamb arrives. Error? Maybe youd still like to extend that benefit to him yourself, I personally see only intentional misrepresentation as most probable based on the cumulative facts and directly contradicting witness accounts.

And you have forgotten that the police, who were on the ground and had a fifth local murder to investigate [Smith, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and now Stride], had none of the issues you have with Louis's timing, and concluded that he discovered Stride dead within seconds of seeing a clock showing the time was 1am.

I will continue to give Louis 'the benefit of the doubt' [whose doubt??] because I give the police the benefit of the doubt, and don't see them all as the utter cretins you evidently do. Why should I give that same benefit to any poster with a fish to fry, that smells so rotten my cat wouldn't go near it?

[caz]

Hi Herlock,

As Jeff said, his timeline and mine were substantially the same once clock corrections were applied.

I think that the bold text above could be applied to this situation. Interpretations being used, not to promote a cover up or something new, but to massage basic language in an interview because it doesn't conform to traditional thinking. If Goldstein was observed walking up Berner St, so what?
Does this make him a suspect? Since we don't know who killed Stride and he was known to be in the area we should examine the possibility. There are many Ripper suspects that can't be placed in the area of a murder but are staunchly promoted by their adherents. I agree that some use fanciful interpretations of words to create unfounded sinister alternatives, but, from my perspective, those tactics are being used here to deny the content of a basically harmless interview on the basis that it could be used for a theory of which they do not approve. Was Goldstein the murderer? Maybe, but I don't think so. Neither do I think it was Eagle or Diemshitz or Lave or Spooner or even Schwartz all of whom have been cast in the role by various investigators. Kosminski for this murder only - possibly.
What little evidence we have consists of contradictory press reports. Then we have Trevor contending that we can't trust police testimony (and Greg House's theory - Everybody lies). If we then resort to taking liberties with the English language on the basis of crystal-balling that what said wasn't really what was meant, then all we will end up with is gobbledegook.

Cheers, George

It's not a matter of 'approval', George. As you rightly said, what little evidence we have consists of contradictory press reports. But some people take this as a green light to speculate and entertain theories where the police in 1888 did not and had no need to, because they were on the ground, and not gathering their evidence from press reports. Their enquiries would have given them evidence now lost to us, and it seems contrary to me to wilfully ignore what we know they concluded at the time from their own enquiries, to argue for alternative conclusions, based only on sources we also know to have been unreliable.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Why is it so important to you that Mortimer was the only door stoop snoop that night...apart from Letchford's sister and Marshall. Why do you feel threatened by the possibility that a reporter may have interviewed a second woman. Do you have any evidence to show that Goldstein used another route to the Spectacle Cafe that contradicts the sighting in Berner Street? You are free to disagree with speculations that are predicated on the second sighting, but that does not entitle you to distort the meaning of language to discredit, without evidence, a journalist's report for no apparent reason other than that is does not support your bias.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

It's not remotely important to me, and I never ever feel 'threatened' by the written word, or people's preferred interpretations of it, but I'm as entitled to my own interpretations as the next person, and I strongly suspect from the nature of other contradictory press reports on the murders in general that in this case only Fanny reported seeing Goldstein pass along Berner Street, and she only saw him the once. The police would almost certainly have questioned the man about his movements and checked his answers against any witness claiming to have seen 'the man with the bag'. I trust the police to have done their job, more than I would trust the papers to print a single story with 100% accuracy.

And how, pray tell, does one achieve said establishment after all this time? I've got news for Caz: most official records have been lost and much of what we have to discuss comes from contradictory press reports. We don't need fanciful word interpretations to add to the confusion.

But that's the point. The press reports are contradictory and often ambiguous, so they are inherently open to interpretation. And boy, do some take full advantage of this to push their own version and timeline of events! My 'double event' post was not just aimed at you, George, but to two other regulars - NBFN and Michael Richards - who appear to be seeing double at certain points of the story. The irony is that each of you interprets the events differently, so you don't all see double at the same time, or over the same parts of the story. If that doesn't worry you, perhaps it should. That's the pattern that smacks of speculative interpretations based on journalistic licence and liberties taken back in 1888.

So we are offered two women seeing Goldstein, one claiming he went up the road, the other down. Or we are sold one woman seeing Goldstein twice.

We are criticised if we favour just one woman seeing Goldstein and seeing him only once, and the newspapers simply confusing the issue.

We are offered two sets of men trying to alert the police to the murder, 10 minutes apart, or even 20 minutes apart, depending on who is interpreting the events and whether or not they have their own story to sell us in 2022.

As a result, we even have to swallow Isaacs being two different men and Louis D being a two-faced liar.

Call me biased, but I would trust the police to have done their job, and rightly concluded that Louis D arrived when he said he did, and that Goldstein was not involved, before trusting any commentator in 2022 to know different, based on the same newspaper stories from 1888 that the police had access to.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes on the "Evidence of Innocence" thread, Post 5255:
Ahh, you’re trying the old “using the English language correctly” tactic Jeff. This appears to be “not the done thing” when it comes to interpreting words related to Bucks Row.

Not popular here either it would seem.

Cheers, George

In the case of Goldstein we have Mortimer, via a Reporter, using the words ‘up’ and ‘down.’ So firstly and most importantly we should note that two words that she didn’t use were ‘twice’ or ‘again.’ So no actual talk of seeing him twice. And whenever Goldstein is mentioned anywhere in text at the time no one mentions her saying or hinting that she’d seen him twice. This alone is strong evidence that she saw him once.

Then we have to consider the importance of solving the case. How any potential leads or suspects would be followed up and how significant it would have been, at least initially, if Fanny had seen this mysterious ‘bag man’ twice in the same night passing the crime scene. But again, still only one pass by Goldstein is mentioned.

How much, and with with what level of confidence, can we infer something from 2 words used in the same place in a sentence? And not only that but 2 words that we cannot be sure actually came from Fanny herself? Reporters weren’t giving verbatim reports as you know. They would take notes and then write them up. Isn’t it also possible that Fanny said ‘up’ to one Reporter and ‘down’ to another?

So surely you can see that by taking what was actually stated (and I mean content and meaning rather than variations in wording) and then factoring in that these weren’t the exact words that Fanny spoke to Reporters then the conclusion is obvious. It points to either Fanny’s loose terminology or more likely a Reporters error.

This is what I mean when I say that we can easily start building something potentially huge on something small and flimsy. George I could be wrong of course but I think that if you asked every Ripperologist or researcher about this I’d expect an overwhelming majority would say that Goldstein passed once.

[GBinOz]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes on the "Evidence of Innocence" thread, Post 5255:
Ahh, you’re trying the old “using the English language correctly” tactic Jeff. This appears to be “not the done thing” when it comes to interpreting words related to Bucks Row.

Not popular here either it would seem.

Cheers, George