Whistling on Berner Street

[Scott Nelson]

Speculation serves its purposes in that it can demonstrate how infinite the possibilities become when one ventures into the unknown. There are no constraints, and the story can become whatever we imagine. But "here there be monsters" applies, because it is very easy to think that the story one comes up is the one true path through the darkness. The less evidence we have, the greater the number of possible explanations, and as a result, the lower the probability for any given explanation.

Sounds like something straight out of Friedrich Nietzsche, Jeff.

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

Speculation serves its purposes in that it can demonstrate how infinite the possibilities become when one ventures into the unknown. There are no constraints, and the story can become whatever we imagine. But "here there be monsters" applies, because it is very easy to think that the story one comes up is the one true path through the darkness. The less evidence we have, the greater the number of possible explanations, and as a result, the lower the probability for any given explanation.

- Jeff

That's exactly my point, Jeff. The possibilities to fill a gap are plenty, there's no way of knowing anything and, therefore, getting us any further is not going to happen. In that sense speculation serves no purpose and is useless. It's swimming underwater in the dark. Or just playing around.

Knowing, however, for a fact that witnesses, besides getting a confession, were about the only tool the police had to solve a crime, in my view, it serves even less of a purpose to now question whether the police would have checked out their statements on at least some basic level, certainly if things could be easily checked and when there is some evidence that they did check and none that they didn't.

So, questions like "what was the relationship between the Spectacle Alley coffee house, and the cigarette boxes?", "Why did Goldstein apparently need 'persuading', to go to the police?", "Do you suppose Goldstein attended the meeting?", “Did anyone see the contents of the bag, on the night?”, “Apparently Lave did see people in the yard. Who were those people?”, “What did the bag contain (if anything), when he was seen moments after leaving Dutfield's Yard? Had he left the boxes at home? If not, why go there?”, “At about the time of the murder? What time was that and according to who?”, “Was he going back to Spectacle Alley though, or was heading in the direction of Aldgate with other business to attend to?”, “Where was Stride at time X?” - however interesting it would be to know the answers – are quite useless.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for the philosophy. Now let's get back to the evidence.

What did William Marshall say about the couple when they left the spot at which he had observed them?

They went away down the street, towards Ellen-street. They would not then pass No. 40 (the club).

How did the young woman who walked with her sweetheart, describe her journey?

DN: From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. ... I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street."


What did Abraham Herschburg say about his short trip to the yard?

DN: Abraham Heshburg, a young fellow, living at 28, Berner-street, said: Yes; I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter.

Down the stairs of the club.

What did Lamb say about his path along Berner street?

Two men came running towards me. I went towards them and heard them say, "Come on! There has been another murder." I said, "Where?" As they got to the corner of Berner-street they pointed down the street. Seeing people moving about some distance down Berner-street, I ran down that street followed by Constable 426 H.

What did Smith say?

S: I do not remember passing any one on my way down Berner street.

S: Dr. Blackwell's assistant came just as I was going away.
C: Did you go up Berner-street into Commercial-road?
S: No I turned up Fairclough-street.

C: Was she on the pavement?
S: Yes, a few yards up Berner-street on the opposite side to where she was found.

How did the coroner interpret 'a few yards up Berner-street', in his summing up?

At 12:30 p.m. the constable on the beat (William Smith) saw the deceased in Berner-street standing on the pavement a few yards from Commercial-street...

How did Fanny Mortimer describe the man with a black bag, when she saw him coming from Commercial Road?

... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School.

How did Fanny describe the man who appeared to have come from the club?

I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.

The evidence is unambiguous. To go up Berner street means to go toward Commercial Road. To go down that street means to go toward Ellen street.



Given how many times someone has asserted the Goldstein was investigated and cleared, I'm not surprised you have a false memory.

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.

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi George,

I'm not sure one should go so far as to say the evidence is against her seeing Goldstein only once. Rather, one possible interpretation of the two news reports can been seen that way. However, as Wickerman pointed out, the directional information contained in "up" and "down" is not exactly unambiguous. Personally, I think I use them interchangeably, and if I were telling the same story twice I could very easily see me using up the street on one occasion and down the street on another.

To add to Wickerman's two usages (up meaning towards the major area, which would be Commerical, or up meaning as the house numbers go, which means towards Fairclough), the terms can also be used relative to the observer; a person is coming "up" the road if they walking towards them, but once they pass and are heading away, they are going down the road. Doesn't matter which end of the street, just whether they are coming towards or heading away. So, if FM is telling her story on two occasions, and she's seen Goldstein traverse the entire street, for part of his journey he is coming up the road then he passed her, and is going down the road. The previously also reads to me as others have suggested, rather than indicating a second time of sighting she's indicating her previous time on the step at that point.

So the interpretation of two sightings, while it can be made, is based upon having found an ambiguity between two different tellings, in neither of which does she actually explicitly say she saw him on two occasions, rather that's an alternative interpretation of how the reporter presented he story (which, of course, then makes us have to be cautious about whose words are we interpreting here?)

Thanks for the philosophy. Now let's get back to the evidence.

What did William Marshall say about the couple when they left the spot at which he had observed them?

They went away down the street, towards Ellen-street. They would not then pass No. 40 (the club).

How did the young woman who walked with her sweetheart, describe her journey?

DN: From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. ... I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street."

What did Abraham Herschburg say about his short trip to the yard?

DN: Abraham Heshburg, a young fellow, living at 28, Berner-street, said: Yes; I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter.

What did Lamb say about his path along Berner street?

Two men came running towards me. I went towards them and heard them say, "Come on! There has been another murder." I said, "Where?" As they got to the corner of Berner-street they pointed down the street. Seeing people moving about some distance down Berner-street, I ran down that street followed by Constable 426 H.

What did Smith say?

S: I do not remember passing any one on my way down Berner street.

S: Dr. Blackwell's assistant came just as I was going away.
C: Did you go up Berner-street into Commercial-road?
S: No I turned up Fairclough-street.

C: Was she on the pavement?
S: Yes, a few yards up Berner-street on the opposite side to where she was found.

How did the coroner interpret 'a few yards up Berner-street', in his summing up?

At 12:30 p.m. the constable on the beat (William Smith) saw the deceased in Berner-street standing on the pavement a few yards from Commercial-street...

How did Fanny Mortimer describe the man with a black bag, when she saw him coming from Commercial Road?

... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School.

How did Fanny describe the man who appeared to have come from the club?

I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.

The evidence is unambiguous. To go up Berner street means to go toward Commercial Road. To go down that street means to go toward Ellen street.

I have a vague memory of a police report indicating they did check on Goldstein's story and it checked out, but often those vague memories turn out to be false. If anyone knows of a report where the police do state they verified his whereabouts (at the teahouse, or whatever it was), that would be great to know.

Given how many times someone has asserted the Goldstein was investigated and cleared, I'm not surprised you have a false memory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'll believe it when I see it, Michael.

Me too Frank.

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

Thanks for that. I think that any ‘mystery’ as to why he didn’t come forward straight away comes to an end then.

I'll believe it when I see it, Michael.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for butting in with your post above. Yours is exactly the kind of reply I would have given, if I would have felt like doing so. But I don't, since the answers seem so obvious to me, the little that we do have is called into question for no good reason and, therefore, the speculation is so useless.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Speculation serves its purposes in that it can demonstrate how infinite the possibilities become when one ventures into the unknown. There are no constraints, and the story can become whatever we imagine. But "here there be monsters" applies, because it is very easy to think that the story one comes up is the one true path through the darkness. The less evidence we have, the greater the number of possible explanations, and as a result, the lower the probability for any given explanation.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Michael,

I wouldn't be surprised if he came forward as a result of the possible connection made by various newspapers between the suspiciously acting man with the black bag allegedly seen by Albert Baskert (Bachert) and the man with the black bag seen by Mrs. Mortimer. And that didn't happen until the 2nd of October.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Thanks for that. I think that any ‘mystery’ as to why he didn’t come forward straight away comes to an end then.

[FrankO]

On the issue of why Goldstein didn’t come forward sooner I forgot to mention the very obvious point, when did he first read in a newspaper that he’d been seen walking along Berner Street? He might not have come forward until later because he didn’t think that he’d been seen and could therefore get away with not becoming involved. So if he didn’t know he’d been seen, until reading a later newspaper or when someone mentioned to him the story of the man with the bag, then he couldn’t have walked passed Fanny on her doorstep (or he’d have known that he’d been seen).

Hi Michael,

I wouldn't be surprised if he came forward as a result of the possible connection made by various newspapers between the suspiciously acting man with the black bag allegedly seen by Albert Baskert (Bachert) and the man with the black bag seen by Mrs. Mortimer. And that didn't happen until the 2nd of October.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’d also suggest that the fact that Fanny saw him look up at the club proves that he hadn’t come from the club. As the front doors were locked at 12.30 he’d have had to have left via the gates and so pretty much as soon as he’d stepped onto the pavement to turn right he’d have been past the club. She didn’t say that he looked back over his shoulder to look at the club but that he looked up in the process of passing it.

Combine this with the fact that Goldstein gave an easily checkable alibi we can safely dismiss the suggestion that he might have come from the club.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the issue of why Goldstein didn’t come forward sooner I forgot to mention the very obvious point, when did he first read in a newspaper that he’d been seen walking along Berner Street? He might not have come forward until later because he didn’t think that he’d been seen and could therefore get away with not becoming involved. So if he didn’t know he’d been seen, until reading a later newspaper or when someone mentioned to him the story of the man with the bag, then he couldn’t have walked passed Fanny on her doorstep (or he’d have known that he’d been seen). Pointing to what I’d previously suggested - that she’d gone onto her doorstep just after he’d passed and by the time that she saw him he was passing the club (leading her to suggest that he might have been coming from the club.)

And so if she had only that second gone onto her doorstep when Goldstein passed then what time did Goldstein actually pass? It looks like there are 3 possibles?

a) some time between 12.30 and 12.35 - if we go with FM going onto her door just after Smith passed (using Smith’s estimated times)

b) around 12.45 - if we go on FM’s estimated time that she first went onto her doorstep.

c) sometime after 12.45 if she came onto her doorstep twice between Smith’s passing and the commotion at the yard.

Of course it’s possible that Goldstein knew that he’d been seen and just didn’t bother coming forward until being persuaded to after telling someone that black bag man in the newspaper was him. But…..as a member of the club he’d have been regularly in Berner Street making the chance of the woman that had seen him (FM) seeing him again and perhaps telling the police that she’d seen him entering the club.

Therefore I’d suggest the possibility that Goldstein had already passed FM when she went onto her doorstep and was adjacent to the club when she saw him and this is why she suggested that he ‘might’ have come from the club.

[FrankO]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for butting in with your post above. Yours is exactly the kind of reply I would have given, if I would have felt like doing so. But I don't, since the answers seem so obvious to me, the little that we do have is called into question for no good reason and, therefore, the speculation is so useless.

Cheers,
Frank

[JeffHamm]

Hi NBFN,

I know this was directed at Frank, but thought I would throw in a few ideas as well.

Frank,
I don't understand how Goldstein putting his name to the man with the black bag, clears that man/him of any suspicion. Was the man with a black bag under suspicion before Goldstein went to the police, but not after his name was known? How does that work?

I don't think just putting a name to him clears him of suspicion, as you say, that doesn't make sense. That lack of sensibility suggests, therefore, it's not the obtainment of his name per se that has removed suspicion but something else. That something else is the fact he went to the police, affording them the opportunity to follow up on one of the leads they had (the spotting of a suspicious acting person who was seen in the area). We no longer have the detailed notes of what the police did when they followed up on individual's like this. There are a few times in summary reports, or letters to HO, etc when someone gets mentioned as having been brought to the police attention and that the police looked into things and the person was cleared and allowed to go on their way. But we don't know what they did because we just have a summary of their conclusion, not how they came to it.

Now, of course, there are always examples where mistakes are made, where someone could have been "looked into" but not thoroughly enough, and so on. But we have no way of knowing if that is the case here. There are, I think, some reasonable and easy to think of actions the police could have taken though. The most obvious being to go to Spectacle Alley and verify he was there and the times he was there. If he was selling his cigarette cases, they could have verified that as well. Did they? Sadly that's not recorded, but what we do know is their conclusion, which is he was not considered involved.

So today, the clearing of his suspicions is not because we have a name for him, nor would that be the reason the police at the time cleared him. They're loss of interest in him would be due to their investigation of the lead connected to him. Getting his name would have been seen as obtaining important information connected to that lead, information which is neither suspicious nor non-suspicious. If their investigation made him of more interest having his name would be highly useful, but not necessary, as they could still be increasing their interest even if he remained nameless (which would, of course, increase the importance of identifying who this character was).

According to Swanson's report, Goldstein's bag carried empty cigarette boxes. To me, this is evidence that Goldstein was never properly investigated. The police had no way of verifying the contents of the bag on the night, so Swanson is essentially saying that Goldstein was taken on trust. Also, what was the relationship between the Spectacle Alley coffee house, and the cigarette boxes? The report does not say.

Well again, we don't know he wasn't properly investigated, that's an assumption which is unfounded. We know nothing about what they did. As per above, though, if I simply make a different, equally unfounded assumption, I could say that the police must have verified that Goldstein was at the coffee house, selling cigarette cases, over the time the murder occurred, eliminating him from their investigation. Summary reports, which is all we have, do not include the details of how conclusions were reached, but simply tell us what those conclusions were. Comments on whether or not those conclusions were based upon a proper investigation are speculations, and one speculation is as good as another. We are left not knowing the answers with regards to details, but we do know the conclusions. And, we must be weary of thinking we know more than the police of the time. Even if we believe their investigation might not have been as complete as we would like, it still means they had more information than we do - we have none, they had something.

Wess's reference to the statement being regarded as entirely satisfactory, is more evidence that Goldstein was taken on trust. Did it not occur to the duty inspector to ask Goldstein why he hadn't managed to come forward until late Tuesday evening? What do you suppose caused the delay? Why did Goldstein apparently need 'persuading', to go to the police? Surely he would have been keen to clear himself of any suspicion.

No, I don't think that means he was taken entirely on trust. Rather, it implies his statement was considered verified somehow.

As for not coming forward, that's common even today. I'm sure you've watched programs on cold cases, and the current team talks to some witness who ends up saying "I've been waiting to tell my story for x years, but the police never came to talk to me!" These are people who know they have important information, but they never go to the police, they just wait for the police to show up, and will wait for years. People are generally reluctant to get involved, and that was no different in 1888 than it is today. It is not a grounds for suspicion, it is human nature.

The Lloyds Weekly report also follows the strange logic; the man with a black bag was suspicious because he was anonymous, more so than his actual behavior. Once the man had a name, that suspicion was removed. If Lave had been seen on the street, eating from a bag of grapes, would he have been regarded as suspicious, until he told the police it was him?

Again, as you initially point out, putting a name to someone doesn't make sense as the reason for removal of suspicion, so no, in your hypothetical example, telling the police it was him eating grapes would not change his level of suspicion.

About 100 people attended the meeting that night. Leon Goldstein was a club member. Do you suppose he attended the meeting? It would seem a little strange if he hadn't, unless he'd been at a market like Diemschitz, or had gone out for the day, like Schwartz. The meeting didn't finish until nearly midnight, so if Goldstein did attend, he must have walked up Berner street at some point after midnight.

There's no mention of him having attended, I had forgot that it was established he was a club member though, but that could explain his looking at the club. He may have been checking to see if things were still going on, and deciding if he wanted to "pop in". If so, he seems to have decided not to. That could suggest he wasn't there earlier and was checking to see if the meeting was still going on, heard the "after hours singing", and concluded he missed it and went home. But yes, if that's wrong, and he had attended earlier and had to leave to go to S.A., he would have walked up Berner Street to get there. But as that would have been a long time before the murder, it wouldn't correspond to F.M. time on her door step, and it would be an undefendable stretch to suggest that time frame is what she's referring to as "previously", leading us again to the conclusion she only saw him the one time.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

About 100 people attended the meeting that night. Leon Goldstein was a club member. Do you suppose he attended the meeting? It would seem a little strange if he hadn't, unless he'd been at a market like Diemschitz, or had gone out for the day, like Schwartz. The meeting didn't finish until nearly midnight, so if Goldstein did attend, he must have walked up Berner street at some point after midnight.

It wouldn’t have been in the slightest bit strange. Many people are members of many clubs but they don’t always attend every meeting for a whole variety of reasons. I was a member of The Cloak & Dagger Club but only attended one meeting. It’s called normal life and not even of the remotest significance or interest.

Goldstein didn’t attend the meeting because he was in Spectacle Alley at the time. We know this because he said so. We know that he walked past the club sometime before 12.00 again because he said so. We don’t know why he didn’t go to the police until the Tuesday but maybe he just didn’t want to get involved? Maybe he was one of the thousands who were mistrustful of the police? Maybe he had to leave town for some reason? Maybe he just wasn’t vey public spirited and couldn’t have cared less about the investigation? Filling the gaps with suspicion is pointless.

We don’t know that the police followed up his story but we don’t know that he didn’t either. If you want to believe that they just took what he said on trust that’s fine but there’s no evidence that this was the case. It’s possible that they did follow this up but either way, the police who were there didn’t find anything suspicious about him. Because there wasn’t anything.

There’s nothing suspicious about Goldstein. He wasn’t involved in events that evening except that he walked past the club. Attempting to build up suspicion around him (like with Schwartz, like with Diemschutz, like with Letchford, like with Spooner) serves no purpose.