Whistling on Berner Street

[GBinOz]

I’m not saying that George always assumes the sinister but it certainly occurs. Look at the Lechmere thread. The case against Lechmere is built on the assumption of a gap of time and ‘neglecting’ to mention that Lechmere said ‘about 3.30’ instead of ‘3.30’ helps the cause.

Hi Herlock,

I don't subscribe to that notion. As we have seen in Berner street, much can be explained by clock differences.

"I wish that I could share your optimism about the future of English test cricket George."

What? BLASPHEMY!! As with most things, the pendulum will eventually swing in the other direction. Home turf and a big spoonful of confidence could make a difference.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Morning Herlock,

There is a pattern here, of the knitting fog variety.

Most people since 1888 have interpreted Mrs Funny Fanny's use of 'previously' to mean that when she was previously out on her doorstep, she saw 'a' man with a bag - Goldstein - just the once.
I agree.

Yet here we have George imagining that everyone used the English language correctly and we must stick rigidly to interpreting their words as if they have done so. At least one poster insists that Fanny's 'previously' can only be interpreted to mean two sightings of the same man. We have had other posters patiently explaining to George how one person can refer to passing 'up' the street, while another can refer to passing in the same direction 'down' that street. But George is having none of it. For him, everything is unambiguous and not open to different possible interpretations.
The meaning of the words "up" and "down" are at the most basic level of language, particularly when their meaning is qualified by additional narrative. This is a basic principle that needs to be grasped before attempting to move on to more "nuanced" language.

We can forget Mitre Square. According to three of our regular commentators, Berner Street was awash with double events of its own, and I suspect they are suffering from double vision.
Don't know what you are talking about, do you? Please elaborate on the deluge of Berner St "double events" - or was that more creative "interpretation"?

Where any two versions of the same witness story are not word for word consistent, the males become liars and/or ripper suspects, while Fanny becomes two women, or sees the same man coming as well as going.
Is this a cryptic interpretation? When the interviews from two women are similar, but not the same, word meanings must be massaged and additional comments dismissed to make them the same source.

The double trouble doesn't stop there. We also have the alarm being raised twice, by different combinations of men, some fifteen minutes apart, and two of the club members both answer to the name Isaacs.
Ahh, traditional ignoring of evidence in order to cling to rusted on beliefs. Two witnesses said they heard a police whistle before the police were located. What is your explanation?

I'm only surprised someone hasn't suggested Pipeman had to be two men: the bystander lighting his pipe and the killer's accomplice, brandishing a knife.
Ahh, sarcasm...nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

But Schwartz's story - so good it was told twice, to Abberline and then by the Star [George will note there is indeed a difference here between 'to' and 'by'] - should be the clue to what is wrong with all this double think. It takes no heed of the sound advice not to believe everything you read in the newspapers.
If you had read what George actually said, it was that he took the police story over the Star account except only for the clue as to where Schwartz was when Pipeman made a move towards him.

In order to accuse a witness of inventing or changing their story, you must first establish that the story as reported in the newspaper was a faithful and accurate reproduction and interpretation of that person's own words by the journalist concerned. I've got news for George: not everyone is able or willing to use or interpret the English language correctly, and that applies with knobs on to those in the business of selling newspapers.
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.

The 'Hungarian' gave the police a hovercraft full of eels until, under Abberline's questioning, he admitted it may have been half empty.

Given the Star treatment, the story was tarted up or got lost in translation and became a hovercraft with a bomb on board. With no English, Schwartz was entirely at the mercy of the skills and integrity of all those involved in interpreting and printing his account. He had no way of checking it for himself before the public devoured it and reached their own conclusions.
I agree.

Easy to see why the police may have doubted the truth of that story, while giving the benefit of the doubt to the version Schwartz gave directly to Abberline.
I don't doubt that the truth is contained entirely in the Aberline version.

Love,

Caz
X

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agreed, Herlock.

Another bone of contention is the insistence in certain quarters that Louis D must have lied about when he found Stride dead.

Because Louis said that the clock showed the time to be exactly 1am when he passed it, but gave an approximate time of around 1am for his arrival in the yard followed by the grim discovery, this is seen as evidence of dishonesty! If he couldn't physically have seen the clock in question, he couldn't have guessed what the time was as he passed it and when he actually found Stride, in order to push the discovery time forward by ten minutes. And the police would have had questions for him too if the clock was simply not visible to passing traffic.

PC Lamb is also used to support this sheer nonsense, when there is no evidence that he estimated the time from having looked at the clock, and could just as easily have assumed it was just before the hour because the fixed point officer had not yet been relieved.

We are constantly told that police times must take priority, which is ironic when we consider that the police themselves accepted Louis's discovery time, which was supported by Fanny Mortimer, who heard his pony and cart arriving shortly before she went back outside to witness the ensuing hue and cry.

Love,

Caz
X

Jeff showed us a timeline using reasonable margins for error and there are no issues. It’s the way we look at things in my opinion Caz. I think that we should look with caution others prefer to specifically look for a questionable word here and there or a different way of interpreting a sentence. Reading between the lines whilst ignoring the actual lines. And I think that this is the root of the issues on these threads with some posters. They actively want to find a cover up or just something ‘new’ whether it’s true or reasonable. At the end of the day we know roughly what occurred in Berner Street. There’s nothing more to learn accept increasingly more far-fetched theories. We just don’t know who killed Liz. But there’s no reliable evidence to dislodge the story that we’re all aware of.

[caz]

Agreed, Herlock.

Another bone of contention is the insistence in certain quarters that Louis D must have lied about when he found Stride dead.

Because Louis said that the clock showed the time to be exactly 1am when he passed it, but gave an approximate time of around 1am for his arrival in the yard followed by the grim discovery, this is seen as evidence of dishonesty! If he couldn't physically have seen the clock in question, he couldn't have guessed what the time was as he passed it and when he actually found Stride, in order to push the discovery time forward by ten minutes. And the police would have had questions for him too if the clock was simply not visible to passing traffic.

PC Lamb is also used to support this sheer nonsense, when there is no evidence that he estimated the time from having looked at the clock, and could just as easily have assumed it was just before the hour because the fixed point officer had not yet been relieved.

We are constantly told that police times must take priority, which is ironic when we consider that the police themselves accepted Louis's discovery time, which was supported by Fanny Mortimer, who heard his pony and cart arriving shortly before she went back outside to witness the ensuing hue and cry.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Morning Herlock,

There is a pattern here, of the knitting fog variety.

Most people since 1888 have interpreted Mrs Funny Fanny's use of 'previously' to mean that when she was previously out on her doorstep, she saw 'a' man with a bag - Goldstein - just the once.

Yet here we have George imagining that everyone used the English language correctly and we must stick rigidly to interpreting their words as if they have done so. At least one poster insists that Fanny's 'previously' can only be interpreted to mean two sightings of the same man. We have had other posters patiently explaining to George how one person can refer to passing 'up' the street, while another can refer to passing in the same direction 'down' that street. But George is having none of it. For him, everything is unambiguous and not open to different possible interpretations.

We can forget Mitre Square. According to three of our regular commentators, Berner Street was awash with double events of its own, and I suspect they are suffering from double vision.

Where any two versions of the same witness story are not word for word consistent, the males become liars and/or ripper suspects, while Fanny becomes two women, or sees the same man coming as well as going.

The double trouble doesn't stop there. We also have the alarm being raised twice, by different combinations of men, some fifteen minutes apart, and two of the club members both answer to the name Isaacs.

I'm only surprised someone hasn't suggested Pipeman had to be two men: the bystander lighting his pipe and the killer's accomplice, brandishing a knife.

But Schwartz's story - so good it was told twice, to Abberline and then by the Star [George will note there is indeed a difference here between 'to' and 'by'] - should be the clue to what is wrong with all this double think. It takes no heed of the sound advice not to believe everything you read in the newspapers.

In order to accuse a witness of inventing or changing their story, you must first establish that the story as reported in the newspaper was a faithful and accurate reproduction and interpretation of that person's own words by the journalist concerned. I've got news for George: not everyone is able or willing to use or interpret the English language correctly, and that applies with knobs on to those in the business of selling newspapers.

The 'Hungarian' gave the police a hovercraft full of eels until, under Abberline's questioning, he admitted it may have been half empty.

Given the Star treatment, the story was tarted up or got lost in translation and became a hovercraft with a bomb on board. With no English, Schwartz was entirely at the mercy of the skills and integrity of all those involved in interpreting and printing his account. He had no way of checking it for himself before the public devoured it and reached their own conclusions.

Easy to see why the police may have doubted the truth of that story, while giving the benefit of the doubt to the version Schwartz gave directly to Abberline.

Love,

Caz
X

There’s always a temptation to ‘fill in the gaps’ Caz and there are so many gaps and unknowns. We have the Press to consider, we have to consider the poor levels of education (carelessness of speech), we have to consider that the Police would have heard a fuller, more detailed version of Fanny’s story and then looked into it. Even today we constantly hear people using the word ‘literally’ incorrectly. We just can’t make assumptions. On such an important issue can we really believe that Fanny neglected to inform the police that she’d seen the mystery man twice near the crime scene? It just doesn’t add up. The obvious and reasonable conclusion is that she saw him once. There’s a difference between exploring every avenue (which is right and proper) and constantly assuming the sinister. I’m not saying that George always assumes the sinister but it certainly occurs. Look at the Lechmere thread. The case against Lechmere is built on the assumption of a gap of time and ‘neglecting’ to mention that Lechmere said ‘about 3.30’ instead of ‘3.30’ helps the cause. We should remember the saying “never assume because it can make as ASS out of U and ME.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock my friend, you are over looking the obvious. The reporter was told the nature of the woman's husband's profession.

What can I say about the Ashes. At 0 for 68 I thought England was going to make a game of it. That collapse was as hard to watch as it must have been for the team to endure. Hopefully there will be a more competitive team in 2023 in England.

Cheers, George

An ‘Artisan’ isn’t a job though George. If you asked someone their job they wouldn’t say ‘Artisan’ as it just means ‘skilled worker.’ The Police were just commenting that the woman gave the appearance of being slightly better off.

I wish that I could share your optimism about the future of English test cricket George. To be honest I’m gloomy about the future of test cricket as a whole as I think that these days players and administrators see it as an annoyance to be endured in the gaps between lucrative short format tournaments. First we had T20. Now we have the hundred ball competitions. I’m fully expecting someone to suggest 5 over matches next.

[caz]

Maybe he did it twice Caz?

Morning Herlock,

There is a pattern here, of the knitting fog variety.

Most people since 1888 have interpreted Mrs Funny Fanny's use of 'previously' to mean that when she was previously out on her doorstep, she saw 'a' man with a bag - Goldstein - just the once.

Yet here we have George imagining that everyone used the English language correctly and we must stick rigidly to interpreting their words as if they have done so. At least one poster insists that Fanny's 'previously' can only be interpreted to mean two sightings of the same man. We have had other posters patiently explaining to George how one person can refer to passing 'up' the street, while another can refer to passing in the same direction 'down' that street. But George is having none of it. For him, everything is unambiguous and not open to different possible interpretations.

We can forget Mitre Square. According to three of our regular commentators, Berner Street was awash with double events of its own, and I suspect they are suffering from double vision.

Where any two versions of the same witness story are not word for word consistent, the males become liars and/or ripper suspects, while Fanny becomes two women, or sees the same man coming as well as going.

The double trouble doesn't stop there. We also have the alarm being raised twice, by different combinations of men, some fifteen minutes apart, and two of the club members both answer to the name Isaacs.

I'm only surprised someone hasn't suggested Pipeman had to be two men: the bystander lighting his pipe and the killer's accomplice, brandishing a knife.

But Schwartz's story - so good it was told twice, to Abberline and then by the Star [George will note there is indeed a difference here between 'to' and 'by'] - should be the clue to what is wrong with all this double think. It takes no heed of the sound advice not to believe everything you read in the newspapers.

In order to accuse a witness of inventing or changing their story, you must first establish that the story as reported in the newspaper was a faithful and accurate reproduction and interpretation of that person's own words by the journalist concerned. I've got news for George: not everyone is able or willing to use or interpret the English language correctly, and that applies with knobs on to those in the business of selling newspapers.

The 'Hungarian' gave the police a hovercraft full of eels until, under Abberline's questioning, he admitted it may have been half empty.

Given the Star treatment, the story was tarted up or got lost in translation and became a hovercraft with a bomb on board. With no English, Schwartz was entirely at the mercy of the skills and integrity of all those involved in interpreting and printing his account. He had no way of checking it for himself before the public devoured it and reached their own conclusions.

Easy to see why the police may have doubted the truth of that story, while giving the benefit of the doubt to the version Schwartz gave directly to Abberline.

Love,

Caz
X

[GBinOz]

I am a little at a loss to see the problem here that requires interpretations of language or insistence on mistakes by journalists. Goldstein went to considerable lengths to establish that the was at the Spectacle Cafe. There appears to be no problem in accepting that he was seen returning home from that direction, but outrage at another report that he was seen headed in the direction of the Cafe. He had to get there some how, some time, so why not via the same route that he used to get home?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Artisan….can someone tell me what an artisan’s wife looks like? Is there an artisans wife’s uniform? Or a badge that they wear?

Herlock my friend, you are over looking the obvious. The reporter was told the nature of the woman's husband's profession.

What can I say about the Ashes. At 0 for 68 I thought England was going to make a game of it. That collapse was as hard to watch as it must have been for the team to endure. Hopefully there will be a more competitive team in 2023 in England.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

I didn't mean to touch a nerve, George. But have you heard of the word 'nuance'?
You didn't touch a nerve Caz. Are you familiar with the terms "Cognitive Dissonance" and Cognitive Bias"? Are you really trying to say that the difference in meaning between up and down is just a matter of nuance (noun - a subtle difference in or shade of meaning, expression, or sound.)?

It's difficult to interpret with 100% certainty anything said by someone who lived so long ago, without knowing how that person used and interpreted the English language.
Why interpret. What is wrong with reading the English language in the form for which it was and is intended? You are speculating that what was said was not what was meant in order to validate your own particular bias.

When pretty much everything can be read in two or more ways, there is still a limit to how far the language should be stretched to accommodate a particular conclusion. It probably only matters if and when one's preferred conclusion becomes entrenched and is then used to argue for a preferred bigger picture regarding the murder itself.
I am not the one stretching the language by altering word meanings to accommodate an entrenched opinion.

In short, if anyone's preferred solution involves Goldstein behaving suspiciously, they should not be relying on their own subjective interpretation of ambiguous witness statements to make their case, or the argument will be a circular one.
There is nothing subjective (adjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions) or interpretive about the correct use of the English language. Nor are the witness statements ambiguous. The word "down" is qualified by the descriptions "from Commercial Road" and "then went around the corner by the board School". The word "up" is qualified by the statement that 'he might have been coming from the socialist club".

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I don't have a "preferred solution". I look at the evidence available and consider possibilities.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nor indeed the way that the reporter wrote down his notes, Herlock.

Love,

Caz
X

Maybe he did it twice Caz?

[caz]

What is your preferred solution regarding the following...?

Swanson: Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other.

It sort of seems to me that they were. The next day, Schwartz is telling the Star that one man shouted a warning to the man assaulting the woman. Schwartz also fled the scene, apparently with one man in pursuit. So the two men (or was it three?), do at least seem to know each other, and may have even been accomplices. Yet on the other hand, this scenario just does not sit well. Frankly, it is just not Jack the Ripperish enough for my liking, and therefore I've concluded that while Schwartz might have perceived the two men as having been together, I just know he was wrong about that.

My hunch is that Schwartz couldn't say whether the two men were together or known to each other - because he had no English and he had never seen either man before.

The Star wanted a story - and a witness who couldn't say what he had witnessed was not a story. So a couple of suggestions and leading questions were needed to turn it into something worth publishing, and that's why the police police and the press tell stories.

[caz]

It’s a difference of one word and we can’t even be anything like sure that this wasn’t down to the way that the Reporter wrote up his notes. So how can we read into it? Especially when we consider the situation. The police believed that this was a ripper murder. They were under enormous pressure and so every lead or scrap of info was vital. The man with the bag was of very obvious interest to them. So can we really imagine that Fanny Mortimer, who obviously wasn’t exactly a reluctant witness, wouldn’t have specifically mentioned to the police that she’d seen this suspicious looking bag carrying man twice passing the scene of the crime? How can you think this and all on the strength of one word in a report which would have been written up from notes taken at the scene? Obviously I can’t stop you seeing the sinister in absolutely everything because you have form for it so I’m happy to leave it to others to draw their own conclusions. You might find someone who agrees with you but I suspect that will be a very small minority no doubt comprised of people so sentimentally attached to some kind of orthodoxy that they just can’t bring themselves to question it.

Nor indeed the way that the reporter wrote down his notes, Herlock.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It is quite a claim to suggest that Abberline determined that Schwartz didn't know what was going on, especially as you haven't quoted any supporting evidence. Unless Schwartz made up or was told his story, what we do know is:

* Schwartz was there at the scene
* Abberline was not at the scene, and other than Schwartz, knew no one who was

We also know:

* Schwartz gave a statement
* Abberline took that statement

Given the above, how could Abberline determine that Schwartz didn't know what was going on?

Abberline determined from Schwartz that he didn't know what was going on! Schwartz admitted under close questioning that he couldn't say who had been addressed as Lipski. That's all you need to know. If Schwartz was lying through his teeth about any part of this incident, he would have had every reason to work out what he was going to say and then stick to it. And what he said initially had the effect of putting two Jewish men close to the murder scene, and involved in an assault on the murdered woman. Abberline doubted this interpretation, so it's possible that Schwartz never meant to give that impression and regretted doing so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why the quiz?

From Fanny’s front door Commercial Road was to the left running across the end of Berner Street. The board school was across the road and to the right at the corner of Fairclough and the IWMEC was, I think, a couple of doors to the right.

I can’t claim to know for certain what we don’t have evidence for but we have no record anywhere of her seeing Goldstein twice. So all that you have is 2 different words used in the Press. Now in your world that might be sufficient to hang a theory on but it’s not in mine.