Whistling on Berner Street

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

I am in no doubt that BSman, Stride, Schwartz and Pipeman were the only ones involved, with the possible exception of Parcelman who may have been concealed in the darkness of the yard.

Cheers, George

In that case (inclusive of #302), BS man called 'Lipski!' to the second man, who was at the Nelson corner, lighting and/or smoking a pipe. Whatever for? The second man then calls out a warning to BS man, and lunges toward Schwartz with a knife, who then flees. What was the nature of the warning? According to Abberline, Schwartz stopped to gawk at the incident at the gates. BS man must have already been aware of his presence.

It would seem that Schwartz is not only attempting to tie the men together, but also as the call of Lipski appears to be directed at a gentile, it's meaning in context must be a reference to murder, if we assume the second man was not a Mr Lipski. So either it means that BS is signaling to Pipeman that he is about to murder the woman - apparently caring not a wit that 'the intruder' Schwartz will also hear and possibly understand this - or that a murder is already known to have a occurred.

The second explanation would obviously mean sayonara for Schwartz, but if we assume his claim that Stride had been standing in the gateway, then how is it that the two men are together when they have arrived at the scene independently...?

As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her.

How could this be an accomplice to the second man, who comes out of the doorway of the (closed) Nelson? It doesn't make much sense. However, note that Schwartz appeared not to have seen the tipsy man until he turns into Berner street, suggesting the man had not necessarily come from another location - he was essentially loitering on Berner street. If the second man was doing likewise, then what are they up to? Perhaps they were patrolling the streets, for the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee.

[GBinOz]

Hi Andrew,

I am in no doubt that BSman, Stride, Schwartz and Pipeman were the only ones involved, with the possible exception of Parcelman who may have been concealed in the darkness of the yard.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

I was also confused by this apparent contradiction but it sorts itself out if it is considered that Schwartz's perspective changes after he crosses the street, at which stage Pipeman (and BS) is on the opposite side of the street to Schwartz, i.e. just outside the Nelson.

Cheers, George

Hi George. This is from a report by Abberline:

I beg to report that since a jew named Lipski was hanged for the murder of a jewess in 1887 the name has very frequently been used by persons as mere ejaculation by way of endeavouring to insult the jew to whom it has been addressed, and as Schwartz has a strong jewish appearance I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.
I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say.
There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe.
Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away.
A house to house inquiry was made in Berner Street with a view to ascertain whether any person was seen acting suspiciously or any noise heard on the night in question but without result.
Inquiries have also been made in the neighbourhood but no person named Lipski could be found.

Note that Schwartz "stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman". Apparently this was no walk-by observation. Schwartz stopped to observe. Evidently he didn't bother to offer the woman any assistance, so one wonders what his purpose was in stopping to get good look. Other than the man and woman, and Schwartz himself, "There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe." What side of the road was that - the club side, or the school side? I would suggest as way of cutting through the ambiguity, that if the man had been on the club/pub side, then it would have been fairly obvious who the call of Lipski had been directed at. Yet if Pipeman is on the school side, near where Schwartz had crossed over to, then who is the man who appears to come out of the Nelson?

This 'third man' theory is probably going to go nowhere, but consider this. In Swanson's report, the second man is described thus:

Second man age 35 ht. 5 ft 11in. comp. fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown, dress dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand.

However, in the Star we get this:

The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red.

So other than the obvious change of pipe to knife, there is less detail in the description, and the brown moustache becomes red. Is this the same man? Compare the respective descriptions of the first man:

... he thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down: age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

He described THE MAN WITH THE WOMAN as about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built, and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat.

Quite similar. So how many men were really on the street at the time, that Schwartz was aware of?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

When I constructed my timeline I postulated that FM's clock was running 10 minutes fast. This was predicated on the footsteps she heard having been those of Smith on his round. In my current conjecture I would have the usual starting point of Smith observing Stride and Parcelman between 12:30 and 12:35 Police time, Stride crossing to the yard and being murdered by Goldstein, who then leaves the yard and is heard by FM and observed by Mrs Artisan at around 12:45. In this scenario the Schwartz incident, if it is to be believed, would have occurred a little before 12:45. There is a lot of speculation that can be indulged in from here. Was Goldstein actually Parcelman, with the parcel being his black bag, or was he attending the club that night and got into a heated dispute with Stride?

I agree that he could have strengthened his alibi by just staying at the coffee shop, but maybe he thought he would establish an additional alibi at home. FM said he looked into the yard as he passed on his way home, perhaps to check if his crime had been discovered?

I have no real investment in this fanciful speculation as a theory. I was following on from the discussion regarding most theories being largely speculation. I am sure that someone on these forums has at some time presented a theory that is absolutely correct, but will never know that they got it right.

Cheers, George

Thanks George.

Yes, I agree if the footsteps aren't PC Smith's then that would adjust the time lines for some events. I was just going around in circles trying to consider the implications of where in the sequence the murder would occur (before or after his coffee house visit).

As you say, it's a speculative idea, but I still wanted to get it straight in my head what it was being speculated and I overthought myself into confusion! Happens all the time

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

So, in this story, do you mean that the murder occurred well before Goldstein is spotted by FM heading south? It sounds like you mean he goes to the coffee house after having murdered Stride in order to establish an alibi (so the northward journey is presented as him leaving the murder scene). Otherwise, if he's not already killed her, then establishing an alibi would be unnecessary as there's nothing to cover up. But, once he's got to the coffee house, wouldn't it make more sense to stay there? And upon leaving, to avoid going back to the scene of the murder since he's already got away from it?

And I take it you're suggesting FM doesn't see his original northward journey as that's Mrs. Artisan, so that journey must have occurred before FM comes out on her step. Since PC Smith sees Stride, it can't be before he patrolled Berner Street.

That only leaves the time between PC Smith's patrol and FM coming out on to her step for the murder to occur and for Goldstein to leave north, when he's spotted by Mrs. Artisan, and FM mistakes his footsteps for PC Smith's, whose footsteps she actually did not hear. Which allows for the gap between PC Smith's patrol and FM coming out to be as long as required.

But if Goldstein has been seen by Mrs. Artisan, on her doorstep, which he would have to be aware of (he's going to be on alert, having just killed Stride after all), then we're back at him having all the more reason to establish a good strong alibi and just stay at the coffee house, and when he leaves, to head home along any street but Berner? Doesn't his returning along Berner Street sort of work against the idea that he's already killed her?

Or do you mean he wants to establish the alibi first because he's spotted Stride and is planning on coming back to kill her?

But Mrs. Artisan doesn't see Stride, despite seeing Goldstein heading up the street, so that doesn't seem to work either as far as I can tell as it doesn't look like Goldstein would have seen Stride in order to decide he needs to establish an alibi?

Sorry, just trying to work out what you're envisioning here as I can't quite make out when the murder itself is supposed to happen.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

When I constructed my timeline I postulated that FM's clock was running 10 minutes fast. This was predicated on the footsteps she heard having been those of Smith on his round. In my current conjecture I would have the usual starting point of Smith observing Stride and Parcelman between 12:30 and 12:35 Police time, Stride crossing to the yard and being murdered by Goldstein, who then leaves the yard and is heard by FM and observed by Mrs Artisan at around 12:45. In this scenario the Schwartz incident, if it is to be believed, would have occurred a little before 12:45. There is a lot of speculation that can be indulged in from here. Was Goldstein actually Parcelman, with the parcel being his black bag, or was he attending the club that night and got into a heated dispute with Stride?

I agree that he could have strengthened his alibi by just staying at the coffee shop, but maybe he thought he would establish an additional alibi at home. FM said he looked into the yard as he passed on his way home, perhaps to check if his crime had been discovered?

I have no real investment in this fanciful speculation as a theory. I was following on from the discussion regarding most theories being largely speculation. I am sure that someone on these forums has at some time presented a theory that is absolutely correct, but will never know that they got it right.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

As we agreed earlier, all most all of our theories are speculation, so just suppose for a moment that Leon was the killer, and that he was seen headed north by Mrs Artisan, and the footsteps heard by Mortimer were Leon's rather than Smith's. The police enquire at the Spectacle Cafe are are told "he rushed in, said he couldn't stay as he had to get back to his club but he had left something here". He is then seen returning south down Berner St by Mortimer. All the police have is proof that he was at the Spectacle Cafe as he said. Even if they ascertained that he had come from the club, as Mrs Artisan suggested, it doesn't amount to anything that could be pursued to a prosecution.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

So, in this story, do you mean that the murder occurred well before Goldstein is spotted by FM heading south? It sounds like you mean he goes to the coffee house after having murdered Stride in order to establish an alibi (so the northward journey is presented as him leaving the murder scene). Otherwise, if he's not already killed her, then establishing an alibi would be unnecessary as there's nothing to cover up. But, once he's got to the coffee house, wouldn't it make more sense to stay there? And upon leaving, to avoid going back to the scene of the murder since he's already got away from it?

And I take it you're suggesting FM doesn't see his original northward journey as that's Mrs. Artisan, so that journey must have occurred before FM comes out on her step. Since PC Smith sees Stride, it can't be before he patrolled Berner Street.

That only leaves the time between PC Smith's patrol and FM coming out on to her step for the murder to occur and for Goldstein to leave north, when he's spotted by Mrs. Artisan, and FM mistakes his footsteps for PC Smith's, whose footsteps she actually did not hear. Which allows for the gap between PC Smith's patrol and FM coming out to be as long as required.

But if Goldstein has been seen by Mrs. Artisan, on her doorstep, which he would have to be aware of (he's going to be on alert, having just killed Stride after all), then we're back at him having all the more reason to establish a good strong alibi and just stay at the coffee house, and when he leaves, to head home along any street but Berner? Doesn't his returning along Berner Street sort of work against the idea that he's already killed her?

Or do you mean he wants to establish the alibi first because he's spotted Stride and is planning on coming back to kill her?

But Mrs. Artisan doesn't see Stride, despite seeing Goldstein heading up the street, so that doesn't seem to work either as far as I can tell as it doesn't look like Goldstein would have seen Stride in order to decide he needs to establish an alibi?

Sorry, just trying to work out what you're envisioning here as I can't quite make out when the murder itself is supposed to happen.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Andrew,

I was also confused by this apparent contradiction but it sorts itself out if it is considered that Schwartz's perspective changes after he crosses the street, at which stage Pipeman (and BS) is on the opposite side of the street to Schwartz, i.e. just outside the Nelson.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

As we agreed earlier, all most all of our theories are speculation, so just suppose for a moment that Leon was the killer, and that he was seen headed north by Mrs Artisan, and the footsteps heard by Mortimer were Leon's rather than Smith's. The police enquire at the Spectacle Cafe are are told "he rushed in, said he couldn't stay as he had to get back to his club but he had left something here". He is then seen returning south down Berner St by Mortimer. All the police have is proof that he was at the Spectacle Cafe as he said. Even if they ascertained that he had come from the club, as Mrs Artisan suggested, it doesn't amount to anything that could be pursued to a prosecution.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi NBFN,

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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Interesting Maps and Timeline here:

https://jfiles00.tripod.com/explore/maps/bernerstreet/berner.htm#description

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

Cheers, George

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

[GBinOz]

Interesting Maps and Timeline here:

https://jfiles00.tripod.com/explore/maps/bernerstreet/berner.htm#description

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

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi George,

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

[GBinOz]

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