Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whistling on Berner Street

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

  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    Hi Jeff,

    I think the actual notation on the old maps was "Beyond this place there be dragons". A supposition without the burden of proof.

    Frank is right. We can delve, deliberate, contemplate, postulate, present irrefutable logic and have it receive unfounded denials, and speculate all we like, but it all comes to nothing. "Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it". Most of the records are also lost, so we are attempting a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing. You have to wonder why we keep doing it???

    Cheers, George
    Hi George,

    Yes, there be dragons, not monsters. But I entirely agree with Frank, just in case that's not coming across. Speculation is just that, idea spinning, it's not solution finding. You don't have to counter speculation with fact, or proof, just a counter-speculation, for that's all it's worth. By simply demonstrating that another line of speculation leads to a different conclusion, to mis-use that word, proves the original is nothing more than vapours.

    For it to be taken seriously, it must lead to a new line of investigation that gets researched, and which in tern produces new pieces of the puzzle that fit into existing pieces and not one spirals into an every increasingly denser fog by requiring even more speculations to make otherwise meaningless pieces fit.

    Otherwise, it simply demarks the boundary of our knowledge, and to venture into it one must accept their is nothing to guide them, and the wilderness is vast.

    - Jeff

    Comment


    • Hear, hear!
      "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
      Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        Desperate, desperate stuff. People will say a ‘I walked down the street’ or ‘I walked up’ the street’ interchangeably. In fact I’d suggest that people would say ‘I walked down the street’ far more often.
        I'd suggest that on this issue, you have your head buried firmly in the sand.

        Mortimer saw Goldstein once. It’s transparently obvious but again you resort to latching on to one word to try and make a point. As I said…desperate stuff.
        As Fanny Mortimer said...

        He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.
        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          I agree that we can’t make assumptions. We can’t assume without evidence that the Police checked Goldstein’s story. Just as we can’t assume that they didn’t. But do we have to assume that the Victorian Police were so incompetent that they dispensed with the most basic of checks on an issue so important? Goldstein was clearly a person of interest in a criminal investigation which made all other investigations at that time seem insignificant, so is it a stretch of the imagination to suggest the possibility or even the likelihood that they took the very simple expedient of strolling round to the coffee shop to check that he was telling the truth?
          So how would this very simple expedient work in practice, as opposed to 'theory'?

          Would the police have asked the coffee shop's management if Leon Goldstein had been there that night? Who's Leon Goldstein?

          Would they have asked about the man with a black bag? Which one?

          Would they have asked about the contents of the bag? Same again, nor do we go snooping on customers!

          You need to stretch your imagination into thinking more about the details.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

            So how would this very simple expedient work in practice, as opposed to 'theory'?

            Would the police have asked the coffee shop's management if Leon Goldstein had been there that night? Who's Leon Goldstein?

            Would they have asked about the man with a black bag? Which one?

            Would they have asked about the contents of the bag? Same again, nor do we go snooping on customers!

            You need to stretch your imagination into thinking more about the details.
            And you need to desist from throwing up ludicrous obfuscations.

            Is that the way the Police think? “Sorry Sarge but what’s the point on asking at the café? They might not know him.”

            You ask first before dismissing a possible source of info. How do you know that he wasn’t a coffee shop regular? How do you know that he didn’t have friends there or that he knew the staff well? How do you know that one or more of them didn’t know how he earned a living?

            You ask the questions. It’s simple stuff.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

              I'd suggest that on this issue, you have your head buried firmly in the sand.

              And I’d say that you’ve spent way too much time on conspiracy theory websites.

              As Fanny Mortimer said...

              He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.
              The simple explanation (and I know that you hate simple explanations) is that FM went onto her doorstep a second or 2 after Goldstein passed. She looked to her right and saw him adjacent to the club and heading toward Fairclough Street. And as he looked toward the club she sees him. Leaving her thinking it possible that he’d come from the club.

              An alternative explanation is that his Jewish appearance might have led her to believe that he might have been a club member.

              She saw him once, passing the Club. That should be the end of it. But it won’t because according to you there just can’t be a single, solitary aspect of this case that doesn’t involve lying or covering up or plots or conspiracies. It’s infantile.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                So how would this very simple expedient work in practice, as opposed to 'theory'?

                Would the police have asked the coffee shop's management if Leon Goldstein had been there that night? Who's Leon Goldstein?
                Was Leon here? Where else would he be? Of course he was here. He comes in all the time. Great chap, but if you ask me his tendency to tell the same stories all the time is a bit of a bore.




                Would they have asked about the man with a black bag? Which one?
                Yes, he had his work bag with him. Always does. He does good trade here sometimes, and as long as he doesn't pester people I don't mind.


                Would they have asked about the contents of the bag? Same again, nor do we go snooping on customers!
                He sells cigarette boxes. They're actually not too bad. I've got one here. In fact, I would be surprised if you didn't find a few customers who have them as well. As I say, he's here all the time and often sells a few during the evening. I think he might have sold a couple that night as well.

                You need to stretch your imagination into thinking more about the details.
                Indeed, a little imagination and wow, one can clear good old Leon just as quickly as you want to convict him. It's all story telling at this point, and it is trivially easy to clear him if you want, and it's trivially easy to have the answers be along the line of "he rushed in, said he couldn't stay as he had to get back to his club but he had left something here. When he put it in his bag, I noticed he had a knife in there. 'For protection', he said, but he looked stern so I didn't ask further. I don't really like him, he's a bit queer and most of my regulars avoid him."

                See, another story, with a different plot and totally different characters. If you don't like either of those, I've got others.

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                  Was Leon here? Where else would he be? Of course he was here. He comes in all the time. Great chap, but if you ask me his tendency to tell the same stories all the time is a bit of a bore.


                  Yes, he had his work bag with him. Always does. He does good trade here sometimes, and as long as he doesn't pester people I don't mind.


                  He sells cigarette boxes. They're actually not too bad. I've got one here. In fact, I would be surprised if you didn't find a few customers who have them as well. As I say, he's here all the time and often sells a few during the evening. I think he might have sold a couple that night as well.


                  Indeed, a little imagination and wow, one can clear good old Leon just as quickly as you want to convict him. It's all story telling at this point, and it is trivially easy to clear him if you want, and it's trivially easy to have the answers be along the line of "he rushed in, said he couldn't stay as he had to get back to his club but he had left something here. When he put it in his bag, I noticed he had a knife in there. 'For protection', he said, but he looked stern so I didn't ask further. I don't really like him, he's a bit queer and most of my regulars avoid him."

                  See, another story, with a different plot and totally different characters. If you don't like either of those, I've got others.

                  - Jeff
                  Couldn’t have put it better Jeff
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes

                  “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                    It's all story telling at this point, and it is trivially easy to clear him if you want, and it's trivially easy to have the answers be along the line of "he rushed in, said he couldn't stay as he had to get back to his club but he had left something here. When he put it in his bag, I noticed he had a knife in there. 'For protection', he said, but he looked stern so I didn't ask further. I don't really like him, he's a bit queer and most of my regulars avoid him."

                    - Jeff
                    Hi Jeff,

                    This particular story would fit the "trying to establish an alibi" theory. Google says it's about a 12 minute round trip, and he was seen "hurrying" down Berner St, so a lesser time could be considered. I'm at a loss as to why Mrs Artisan cannot be accepted as a different person from FM. On that night there were at least three door stoop snoopers, FM, Letchford's sister and Marshall, so why not a fourth?

                    Herlock, commiserations on the loss of the Ashes. I thought your selectors finally got the bowling line-up right, but your batsman crumbled. The Australian method of line and length at the top of the off stump, and holding catches seems to finally being realised by your team. Time to bring in a few younger batsmen? They couldn't do any worse, and remember what Smith, Labuschagne and Travis Head did with their opportunities.

                    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.”

                    “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                    Comment


                    • Hi George,

                      Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      Hi Jeff,

                      This particular story would fit the "trying to establish an alibi" theory. Google says it's about a 12 minute round trip, and he was seen "hurrying" down Berner St, so a lesser time could be considered. I'm at a loss as to why Mrs Artisan cannot be accepted as a different person from FM. On that night there were at least three door stoop snoopers, FM, Letchford's sister and Marshall, so why not a fourth?

                      Herlock, commiserations on the loss of the Ashes. I thought your selectors finally got the bowling line-up right, but your batsman crumbled. The Australian method of line and length at the top of the off stump, and holding catches seems to finally being realised by your team. Time to bring in a few younger batsmen? They couldn't do any worse, and remember what Smith, Labuschagne and Travis Head did with their opportunities.

                      Cheers, George
                      Sure, as that version of my collection of Goldstein stories is one of the appears guilty chapters. My point, though, was to demonstrate that there are all sorts of possible ways in which things could have gone had the police gone to the coffee house to verify Goldstein's account of himself. NBFN originally presented a story where the police get no usable information, which of course is indeed one possible way things could have gone. However, he presented that story as an argument for suggesting there was no point in the police going to check out Goldstein's account of himself. In other words, he presented it as if there were no other possible ways things could have gone. I was just demonstrating that, as NBFN said, by using a bit of imagination it could have gone very differently indeed, both in the direction where he ends up being cleared entirely, or in the direction where they might have found evidence that makes him a very important suspect.

                      The police didn't have the forensic tools we have today, and investigations involved a lot of questioning people, and verifying someone's statement generally would involve questioning other people, and seeing if the various statements correspond. So, while we don't have the detailed notes on how they followed up on Goldstein's account of himself, we do know the police had no interest in him. Given there were few options for them to resort to beyond going to the coffee house and asking questions, then it is hardly a stretch to suggest they must have done that (how else could they make a decision? The police of 1888 were not so naïve as to just take someone at their word after all). And given they do not hold him in any suspicion, I think that would suggest that must have been able to satisfy themselves that Goldstein gave a correct account of himself, which cleared him of suspicion (so something more like my "he's a well known customer" type story than the latter "stern knife carrying scoundrel" as portrayed in the latter version).

                      Regardless, it wasn't about whether or not Mrs. Artisan is or is not FM, though like most things, it could have implications on that point too. But those implications would require us knowing the details of what the police found, which we don't have, even if we can make some bets on the general gist of the content.

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • Interesting Maps and Timeline here:

                        https://jfiles00.tripod.com/explore/...tm#description

                        https://jfiles00.tripod.com/explore/...es/stridee.htm

                        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.”

                        “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                          Indeed, a little imagination and wow, one can clear good old Leon just as quickly as you want to convict him. It's all story telling at this point, and it is trivially easy to clear him if you want, and it's trivially easy to have the answers be along the line of "he rushed in, said he couldn't stay as he had to get back to his club but he had left something here. When he put it in his bag, I noticed he had a knife in there. 'For protection', he said, but he looked stern so I didn't ask further. I don't really like him, he's a bit queer and most of my regulars avoid him."
                          The thing is, you need two stories to fully clear Goldstein. One for the coffee house, and another for the club.

                          See, another story, with a different plot and totally different characters. If you don't like either of those, I've got others.
                          Walter Dew had a club story, and that is the one I prefer. It's not difficult to see why very few others prefer it.
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                            Hi Jeff,

                            This particular story would fit the "trying to establish an alibi" theory. Google says it's about a 12 minute round trip, and he was seen "hurrying" down Berner St, so a lesser time could be considered. I'm at a loss as to why Mrs Artisan cannot be accepted as a different person from FM. On that night there were at least three door stoop snoopers, FM, Letchford's sister and Marshall, so why not a fourth?
                            Why not a forth and place even more pressure on Israel Schwartz's story? Other than that, why did Walter Dew suppose that the man seen walking up Berner street, was seen by Mrs Mortimer and not another woman? The Evening News does not name the woman interviewed, nor does it give the basic description given by Dew (dressed in black, aged about 30), nor does it provide any description of the man's manner (he seemingly avoided eye contact). So from where did Dew get this information?

                            Presumably that could be dismissed as another unknowable and therefore useless question. The point of it though, is not to prompt for information, but to suggest that Dew had more to go on than we now have. That is another good reason to suppose that Mortimer saw Goldstein, twice.
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                              The animation places Schwartz's second man at the public house corner, and thus on the same side of the street as the altercating man and woman. So who was the man on opposite side of the street? Someone else, apparently. Did all three men appear to know each other?

                              What should we think about witnesses who dramatically change their story? In the case of Schwartz, it seems he went a step further, and left a crucial witness out of his account, each time he told it.
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • Hi NBFN,

                                Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                                The thing is, you need two stories to fully clear Goldstein. One for the coffee house, and another for the club.
                                No, the "innocent story" I gave would just say and he left around 12:45 ish" (or whatever time works for you), it would be part of the same story.

                                The point, though, was not to engage in creative writing per se, but to demonstrate that your previous suggestion that the police would not go ask at the coffee house about Goldstein because you presented a story where they found no information in your story was just that, a story where they found nothing useful. I presented two alternative stories, one where they find evidence that exonerates him and one where he becomes a figure of suspicion. Without going, how do they know which of those three types of stories they would be part of? As such, there is every reason for the police to go and find out.

                                Now, we don't know what they found specifically. We do, however, know that Goldstein did not become a figure of suspicion, so I'm pretty sure my guilty version is not close to the mark. We know they appear to dismiss him, which to me suggests they found something more than "nothing at all", as per your original post. It probably wasn't as I presented in my story, I just made it up after all, but they appear to have lost interest in him pretty quickly. It would be nice if we had the details, but we don't. What we have, though, is the actions of the police, which they would base upon information they had that we do not. And their decisions appear to reflect those of people who know he's not involved (or at least who have reason to believe he was not involved).

                                Walter Dew had a club story, and that is the one I prefer. It's not difficult to see why very few others prefer it.
                                I've forgotten what Dew's story was actually, but stories are just stories, so unless you can tie that story to other evidence of its validity, there's no reason to prefer one over the other, other than for it's entertainment value - but that's a different purpose.

                                - Jeff

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X