Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whistling on Berner Street

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

  • Originally posted by caz View Post

    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.
    So presumably the Star made all this up ...

    ... but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

    If the (second) second man shouted in the direction of the man with the woman, a non-English speaker would have no way of knowing:

    * who the shouting was intended for
    * what the shouting consisted of

    Schwartz implied to the Star reporter, that he knew both the recipient and the purpose of the message. That is gigantic red flag.

    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.
    I see. So can you tell me why the Star editorial introduced the readers to the incident, in the following manner ...?

    ... the story of a man who is said to have seen the Berner-street tragedy, and declares that one man butchered and another man watched, is, we think, a priori incredible.

    It is plainly obvious that the Star was highly skeptical of Schwartz. Are you really claiming the Star had to manipulate Schwartz, because Schwartz had temporarily expressed some doubt about who 'Lipski' was aimed at, and this doubt would spoil their 'scoop'? The word 'Lipski' does not even appear in the Star.
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

      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
      As you would know, George, my Goldstein thread is peppered with angry and resentful comments. Obviously this issue hits a raw nerve with many members. Like yourself, I'm at a loss to explain it.
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post

        Given the Star treatment, the story was tarted up or got lost in translation and became a hovercraft with a bomb on board.
        Is that right? So why no mention of ...?

        * a woman being thrown to the ground, and her subsequent gentle screams
        * the word 'Lipski' and the context in which it was used
        * a man apparently pursuing the fleeing 'Hungarian'


        Apart from the knife, which the Star tells us was a confirmed claim, and is totally compatible with Anderson's later reference to the 'supposed accomplice', there is no 'tarting up' at all.

        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.
        The poor dear, and I don't suppose his interpreter was of much help in that regard.

        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.
        The Star tells us that Leman street had stopped making arrests based on 'the story'. If that refers to the Star article only, then you are effectively claiming that the police initially believed this article, and made arrests based on it, but quickly changed their mind about it. But on what basis would they have done so? Conflicting statements of the men arrested, perhaps? But how did they know who to believe?
        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Yes, Abberline might of course have given Schwartz a nudge in one direction because that’s just what Fred needed at that time. A false lead. Good idea.

          ”Stood and gawked….” More imagination triumphing over facts. Schwartz never claimed to have stopped. He viewed the entire incident on the move.
          You're right, but what would you expect from a colossal bull****ter like myself?

          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.

          As for Fred misleading himself, well, he does say that it was Schwartz with the strong Jewish appearance, and so implicitly Pipeman did not have the same general appearance (Caz's claims to the contrary, notwithstanding). So Fred's logic says that 'Lipski' was directed at Schwartz. Yet what does Swanson's report say ...?

          The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski'...

          So Schwartz had the opposite opinion. It was Abberline's choice not believe Schwartz, who was there, and replace Israel's perception with his own interpretation. Yet Fred's logic does make some sense - why would the 1st man call Lipski to the gentile 2nd man? Is his warning him about the intruding Jew? That would mean the men were somehow connected. Failing that, it was in some sense a reference to murder, and possibly a 'murdering Jew'.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

            You're right, but what would you expect from a colossal bull****ter like myself?

            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.

            As for Fred misleading himself, well, he does say that it was Schwartz with the strong Jewish appearance, and so implicitly Pipeman did not have the same general appearance (Caz's claims to the contrary, notwithstanding). So Fred's logic says that 'Lipski' was directed at Schwartz. Yet what does Swanson's report say ...?

            The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski'...

            So Schwartz had the opposite opinion. It was Abberline's choice not believe Schwartz, who was there, and replace Israel's perception with his own interpretation. Yet Fred's logic does make some sense - why would the 1st man call Lipski to the gentile 2nd man? Is his warning him about the intruding Jew? That would mean the men were somehow connected. Failing that, it was in some sense a reference to murder, and possibly a 'murdering Jew'.
            An assumption by Abberline perhaps and not a point that he would have considered particularly important. No mention of him stopping in The Star interview of course.

            . When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved. 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. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb
            Im not going to waste time in yet again nitpicking over who might have said what to whom and how it was worded. There’s no mystery here just tedious fantasising. I’m utterly bored with Berner Street. We know what happened. End of story as far as I’m concerned. I’ll leave you to your ongoing effort to knit a theory out of fog.

            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 caz View Post
              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!


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

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

              Comment


              • Here we go again.

                All the times must be exactly correct 2 very obviously incorrect witnesses become multiple witnesses. Manipulation City here we come again

                It’s all over. Jeff has gone through the timeline using a reasonable + or - and there are no issues to the overall picture. Sorted.

                The ‘plot’ has the feeblest imaginable motive, the plan is one that the Marx brothers would have been embarrassed to have owned up to and the execution of that plan would have made a half decent Goon Show script.

                Add all that to the fact there’s probably only one other person on planet Earth who might give your theory the time of day then we can safely say that your castle built on sand has crumbled, collapsed and sunk below the surface beyond all hope of rescue.

                Time to put it to bed. You’ve possibly managed to convince 1 person in 20 odd years so take that as at least a kind of ‘result’ and move on. You’ll feel much better for it.
                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 Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  It’s all over. Jeff has gone through the timeline using a reasonable + or - and there are no issues to the overall picture. Sorted.
                  The irony is that Jeff was working on "doctor time" and I was working on "police time" but when Jeff correlated the two timelines he assessed them as being substantially the same if clock corrections were taken into account. My timeline also allowed for "Club time" and Michael's theories also fitted with another clock correction. It is the same in Buck's Row. A great deal of discussion about minute accurate times and gaps that can all be explained by clock corrections. Baxter and the police were surely aware of the limitations in the keeping of time for the era, and this explains why times were seldom questioned.

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

                    Not popular here either it would seem.

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

                      Not popular here either it would seem.

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

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

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

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

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

                        Hi Caz,

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

                        Cheers, George
                        Hi George,

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

                        And how, pray tell, does one achieve said establishment after all this time? I've got news for Caz: most official records have been lost and much of what we have to discuss comes from contradictory press reports. We don't need fanciful word interpretations to add to the confusion.
                        But that's the point. The press reports are contradictory and often ambiguous, so they are inherently open to interpretation. And boy, do some take full advantage of this to push their own version and timeline of events! My 'double event' post was not just aimed at you, George, but to two other regulars - NBFN and Michael Richards - who appear to be seeing double at certain points of the story. The irony is that each of you interprets the events differently, so you don't all see double at the same time, or over the same parts of the story. If that doesn't worry you, perhaps it should. That's the pattern that smacks of speculative interpretations based on journalistic licence and liberties taken back in 1888.

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

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

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

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

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

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        Last edited by caz; 01-21-2022, 12:20 PM.
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                          Hi Herlock,

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

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

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

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X

                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

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

                            I can certainly understand that lacking that information one might tend to give Louis the benefit of the doubt, but as it is, he clearly cannot be when so many people stated otherwise. And they almost match each others times and details precisely. We dont have to extend his any benefits when he is quite obviously provably wrong. The real question, since he didnt mention the scenarios that all these other men did...is why? Did he forget? Hard to imagine, since he was interviewed on the spot shortly after Lamb arrives. Error? Maybe youd still like to extend that benefit to him yourself, I personally see only intentional misrepresentation as most probable based on the cumulative facts and directly contradicting witness accounts.
                            And you have forgotten that the police, who were on the ground and had a fifth local murder to investigate [Smith, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and now Stride], had none of the issues you have with Louis's timing, and concluded that he discovered Stride dead within seconds of seeing a clock showing the time was 1am.

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


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

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

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

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                An assumption by Abberline perhaps and not a point that he would have considered particularly important.
                                That's interesting, because in response to my claim that Schwartz stopped to watch the incident, you stated ...

                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                More imagination triumphing over facts. Schwartz never claimed to have stopped. He viewed the entire incident on the move.
                                So now that it turns out that it's I who has the facts, and you that has the imagination, you're trying to make out that it's not an important point, and that Abberline was probably just making an assumption - a false one. Did he make any other false assumptions, that you and other people in possession of the 'facts', are aware of?

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

                                No mention of him stopping in The Star interview of course.
                                Ah, so you believe the Star 'interview' when it suits. I thought all good Schwartzists know not to believe everything they read in the papers? Or do they really just believe in cherry-picking newspaper reports, to support their biased views?

                                Im not going to waste time in yet again nitpicking over who might have said what to whom and how it was worded. There’s no mystery here just tedious fantasising. I’m utterly bored with Berner Street. We know what happened. End of story as far as I’m concerned. I’ll leave you to your ongoing effort to knit a theory out of fog.
                                So why don't you tell us what happened, from start to finish? Please include details of the murder.
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X