Whistling on Berner Street

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

We don't disagree on FM seeing Goldstein only once. I am not persuaded that there was not a second witness. Setting aside up, down, through etc, there is still evidence that someone saw him in the street coming from the direction of the club. I don't think we can just discard that evidence.

I have seen England come back and win from a situation such as this, but in that case they did not have their bowling attack incomprehensibly weakened by selectors. Not much chance of snow but the east coast of Australia is being lashed by torrential rain. I never like to see a test match resolved by weather. Bring on the battle.

Cheers, George

I don’t see it to be honest George. But we agree on the cricket. It’s always unfortunate if a team that deserves to win gets robbed by the weather. I’d guess that it happens far less often in Oz though. With our weather some of our cricketers have webbed feet.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It's absolutely obvious that there was a second witness who saw him headed in the opposite direction. The alternative is to distort the language or completely ignor the evidence. What reasons can be found for just dismissing the possibility there couldn't be a second witness?

Cheers, George

If it's absolutely obvious there was a second witness, why did you say in response to Wickerman's post #210...?

I am having difficulty in refuting any of the points you have made.

Has the situation changed, George?

I dare say there are wider issues to consider, if Mortimer had indeed seen Goldstein twice. Firstly, it would mean that the following is probably fairly close to the truth.

FM: I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out...

Where would that leave Israel Schwartz? It seems that the fortunes of Goldstein and Schwartz, rise and fall together.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Again, you’re reading way to much into the use of language. Especially when we can’t even be certain that the reporter wrote down what she said to the letter. None of this even remotely points to her seeing him twice. If you’re being that pedantic with language then why not ask the obvious question - why didn’t she just say that she’d seen him twice? She seemed keen to be helpful to the police so how could she not have been aware how interested they would have been to know that the same man had walked past that spot twice on the same evening? It’s absolutely obvious that she saw Goldstein once. This is blind alley number 2,412 I’m afraid.

I suppose there are two possible reasons:

one: As I argued in #227, she did indeed imply she had seen him twice. She just didn't put it in the simple "I saw him twice" terms, that you require.
two: She liked to create a mystery where none exists.

It's interesting that whenever I look closely at the words Fanny used, nothing I say is ever refuted. It's just dismissed as being pedantic. Pathetic.

[GBinOz]

How are we distorting language George? ‘Up’ or ‘down’ can be used interchangeably in conversation. There’s also a report that says ‘passing through.’ So that’s 3 ‘versions.’ I may be mistaken but haven’t I seen a ‘passing along’ somewhere? So we have a difference of one word. Against that we have absolutely no mention anywhere of FM seeing Goldstein twice. We’ll probably just have to agree to disagree on this one George but to me it’s obvious that Fanny saw Goldstein once and that we should be wary of reading too much into the vagaries of language.

Looks like we’re showing at least a bit of fight at The Gabba. We are too reliant on Root though. Any danger of snow over there so that we can salvage a draw.

Hi Herlock,

We don't disagree on FM seeing Goldstein only once. I am not persuaded that there was not a second witness. Setting aside up, down, through etc, there is still evidence that someone saw him in the street coming from the direction of the club. I don't think we can just discard that evidence.

I have seen England come back and win from a situation such as this, but in that case they did not have their bowling attack incomprehensibly weakened by selectors. Not much chance of snow but the east coast of Australia is being lashed by torrential rain. I never like to see a test match resolved by weather. Bring on the battle.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi George.

I think we have to allow for the fact there were two reporters talking to Mrs Mortimer, and neither of them used her words verbatim. One of them may have, but not both. It was not at all unusual for the reporter to mix verbatim responses with paraphrase, whether quotes were used or not.
"Up" the street can be the same as "Down" the street.

"Up" could mean in the direction towards the nearest main road, going up to Commercial Rd., but it could also mean in the same direction as the house numbers increase, they go up towards Fairclough, the opposite direction.

Likewise, "Down" the street could mean towards Commercial Rd., as the house numbers decrease (going down), or it could mean coming away from Commercial Rd. down to Fairclough.
Mortimer likely used one expression whereas one of the reporters in his account used the other.
I don't think it's a key factor as it is easily explainable.

Hi Jon,

I agree partially. As I posted to Frank, while the terms up and down the street are open to some interpretation, it is more difficult to explain a person coming from the direction of the club. I also partially agree with Herlock, in that if FM had seen him twice she would have said so. I am not as yet persuaded that there wasn't a second witness, and if she observed Goldstein coming from the direction of the club then surely he has to be a person of interest.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Just a quick visit.

As with almost anything out here, we can't flat out dismiss the possibility, but I do see one decent reason to put little stock into the notion that there was another witness who saw Leon Goldstein passing through Berner Street in a northern direction in the last, say, 10 minutes before Stride's body was discovered. And that is what Swanson wrote in his report:
"About 1 a.m. 30th. Leon Goldstein of 22 Christian Street, Commercial Road, called at Leman Street and stated that he was the man that passed down Berner Street with a black bag at that hour, that the bag contained empty cigarette boxes and that he had left a coffe house in Spectale Alley a short time before."

Threre's no mention of Goldstein passing through Berner Street in the direction of Commercial Road "at that hour".

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Nice to see you back.

There was a marginal note in Swanson's report:- "Who saw this man go down Berner St. or did he come forward to clear himself in case any questions should be asked." I read this as questioning whether Goldstein was establishing an alibi. Google shows a round trip to Spectacle Alley as 12 minutes, plus say 3 minutes to establish a presence, gives a time around 12:45 heading up Berner St, and "might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club". I should think that when he reported to Leman St it would be expected that he would have omitted the northern journey as that would have put him in the realm of person of interest.

While the terms up and down the street are open to some interpretation, it is more difficult to explain a person coming from the direction of the club.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

Hi Al,

I'm with you on the intepretation of "previously", but how do we get around one sighting of Goldstein going down Berner St from Commercial Road and turning at the Board School, and another of him heading up Berner St, possibly from the Club? There can be no doubt about the direction of the first sighting. Where can she have been standing for the second description to make these the same sighting? I would have thought that if FM had made both sightings she would have referred to that in one of her interviews? That, and the fact that FM's husband was not an artisan, makes me suspect a second woman, but I would welcome any alternative explanations.

Cheers, George

Hi George.

I think we have to allow for the fact there were two reporters talking to Mrs Mortimer, and neither of them used her words verbatim. One of them may have, but not both. It was not at all unusual for the reporter to mix verbatim responses with paraphrase, whether quotes were used or not.
"Up" the street can be the same as "Down" the street.

"Up" could mean in the direction towards the nearest main road, going up to Commercial Rd., but it could also mean in the same direction as the house numbers increase, they go up towards Fairclough, the opposite direction.

Likewise, "Down" the street could mean towards Commercial Rd., as the house numbers decrease (going down), or it could mean coming away from Commercial Rd. down to Fairclough.
Mortimer likely used one expression whereas one of the reporters in his account used the other.
I don't think it's a key factor as it is easily explainable.

[FrankO]

It's absolutely obvious that there was a second witness who saw him headed in the opposite direction. The alternative is to distort the language or completely ignor the evidence. What reasons can be found for just dismissing the possibility there couldn't be a second witness?

Hi George,

Just a quick visit.

As with almost anything out here, we can't flat out dismiss the possibility, but I do see one decent reason to put little stock into the notion that there was another witness who saw Leon Goldstein passing through Berner Street in a northern direction in the last, say, 10 minutes before Stride's body was discovered. And that is what Swanson wrote in his report:
"About 1 a.m. 30th. Leon Goldstein of 22 Christian Street, Commercial Road, called at Leman Street and stated that he was the man that passed down Berner Street with a black bag at that hour, that the bag contained empty cigarette boxes and that he had left a coffe house in Spectale Alley a short time before."

Threre's no mention of Goldstein passing through Berner Street in the direction of Commercial Road "at that hour".

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's absolutely obvious that there was a second witness who saw him headed in the opposite direction. The alternative is to distort the language or completely ignor the evidence. What reasons can be found for just dismissing the possibility there couldn't be a second witness?

Cheers, George

How are we distorting language George? ‘Up’ or ‘down’ can be used interchangeably in conversation. There’s also a report that says ‘passing through.’ So that’s 3 ‘versions.’ I may be mistaken but haven’t I seen a ‘passing along’ somewhere? So we have a difference of one word. Against that we have absolutely no mention anywhere of FM seeing Goldstein twice. We’ll probably just have to agree to disagree on this one George but to me it’s obvious that Fanny saw Goldstein once and that we should be wary of reading too much into the vagaries of language.

Looks like we’re showing at least a bit of fight at The Gabba. We are too reliant on Root though. Any danger of snow over there so that we can salvage a draw.

[GBinOz]

If you’re being that pedantic with language then why not ask the obvious question - why didn’t she just say that she’d seen him twice?
I agree.
It’s absolutely obvious that she saw Goldstein once.
I agree

It's absolutely obvious that there was a second witness who saw him headed in the opposite direction. The alternative is to distort the language or completely ignor the evidence. What reasons can be found for just dismissing the possibility there couldn't be a second witness?

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

The reason this explanation fails, is that it does not fully contend with what Fanny is quoted as saying. The word 'previously' could mean that black bag man was the only man she saw before returning inside, but only if she had said...

... the only man whom I had seen previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

That is not what she said, which was ...

... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

The words '[a] man whom I had seen pass through the street', defines a category - a category of men she had seen. If black bag man had been the only man she had seen, and she had only seen him once, then it would be pointless of her to have defined this category, and she need only have said ...

... the only man whom I had seen previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road.

So clearly she is trying to tell us something. The standard explanation also errs in assuming that black bag man was the only man she had seen. When Smith passed through Berner street, he saw at least two people. Eagle probably saw people on his return to the club. James Brown saw a couple at the board school corner when he intersected the street. What are the chances that over a considerably longer period, Fanny only saw one man? She even says...

... there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club.

So there were very few people on the street, and not zero people. The assumption that black bag man was the only man she witnessed at her doorstep, is a heroic one.



How did you manage to turn a statement into a question, and then refer to it as a statement?

He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

This statement is completely consistent with the direction of travel noted ...

That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.

It is not confused at all.

Again, you’re reading way to much into the use of language. Especially when we can’t even be certain that the reporter wrote down what she said to the letter. None of this even remotely points to her seeing him twice. If you’re being that pedantic with language then why not ask the obvious question - why didn’t she just say that she’d seen him twice? She seemed keen to be helpful to the police so how could she not have been aware how interested they would have been to know that the same man had walked past that spot twice on the same evening? It’s absolutely obvious that she saw Goldstein once. This is blind alley number 2,412 I’m afraid.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Fanny clearly means “previous to my going onto the doorstep just after 1.00 the only man that I’d seen was….”

Regards the FM statement, I feel she's using the "heard a commotion" as the reference point, the statement revolves around that moment, it being the critical piece of information and the point at which she becomes involved.

She's saying that she was on her doorstep at some point prior to "the commotion" but had gone back inside before again coming out upon hearing said commotion.

I take the "previously" to mean previous to "the commotion", as in FM is saying the only person she noticed in her time on the doorstep was the man with the bag, and this was before 1. I don't read it as she saw the same man twice. I also think FM and Mrs Artisan are the same.

The reason this explanation fails, is that it does not fully contend with what Fanny is quoted as saying. The word 'previously' could mean that black bag man was the only man she saw before returning inside, but only if she had said...

... the only man whom I had seen previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

That is not what she said, which was ...

... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

The words '[a] man whom I had seen pass through the street', defines a category - a category of men she had seen. If black bag man had been the only man she had seen, and she had only seen him once, then it would be pointless of her to have defined this category, and she need only have said ...

... the only man whom I had seen previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road.

So clearly she is trying to tell us something. The standard explanation also errs in assuming that black bag man was the only man she had seen. When Smith passed through Berner street, he saw at least two people. Eagle probably saw people on his return to the club. James Brown saw a couple at the board school corner when he intersected the street. What are the chances that over a considerably longer period, Fanny only saw one man? She even says...

... there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club.

So there were very few people on the street, and not zero people. The assumption that black bag man was the only man she witnessed at her doorstep, is a heroic one.

Might 'ha he been coming from the Socialist Club? That's an odd statement itself and leaves more questions than answers.

How did you manage to turn a statement into a question, and then refer to it as a statement?

He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

This statement is completely consistent with the direction of travel noted ...

That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.

It is not confused at all.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Al,

I'm with you on the intepretation of "previously", but how do we get around one sighting of Goldstein going down Berner St from Commercial Road and turning at the Board School, and another of him heading up Berner St, possibly from the Club? There can be no doubt about the direction of the first sighting. Where can she have been standing for the second description to make these the same sighting? I would have thought that if FM had made both sightings she would have referred to that in one of her interviews? That, and the fact that FM's husband was not an artisan, makes me suspect a second woman, but I would welcome any alternative explanations.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Can't say I've got any great alternative explanations, I honestly think it's just a confused account of FM. However, working from the point of view that it was an independent sighting, we know FM saw bag man before turning in for the night, which was before "the commotion", be that 12:50 or 1AM. This was him heading down the street, so presumably Mrs Artisans sighting is before any of this so would it be too early to be connected?

That's the thing with having such sparse sources, we can't answer these questions. Presumably, the police didn't take Leon's story on trust alone, but any and all record of the ground level investigation is long gone. But we do know from other sources that the police did investigate hundreds of leads.

It's much like the rest of the events that night. How did Mrs Artisan see LG, but not FM, Stride, the club members coming and going, PC Smith, Schwartz? At least we can identify FM and put her in place. Mrs Artisan is suitably vague, ideal for speculation but nothing conclusive. It's an interesting account, which can be rationalised to a point if it's an account of FM. As a separate witness, it's the realm of speculation from which no solid theories can be forged.

Always worth a musing though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I'm well acquainted with "the bucket woman". My favourite was Onslow's reply to Daisy threatening to take up with a toy boy - "Will you get someone that's a bit handy about the place, I'm tired of living in squalor". Even if we accept your proposal, we still have two interviews with the man with the black bag going in opposite directions. He was seen returning from the Spectacle Cafe, why couldn't he have been seen going there as well. We can't just say he was only seen once and dismiss the other interview.

I feel sorry for Burns getting that ball as the first in the series. But Australia acheived the ideal formula - bowl line and length and hold all your catches. In my younger days I had a boss who used to say "what one fool can do, so can another". Tomorrow is a new day. Perhaps the gentlemen from Blighty can turn the tables on the colonial ruffians? I'd like to see a game made of it and it not be decided by the weather.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

The problem for me is that we have these reports second hand from reporters who were making notes or using shorthand then writing up the story later. So when a reporter sits down to write up his story he puts ‘up’ instead of ‘down’ or ‘down’ instead of ‘up.’ I’m just too wary of reading too much into these minor examples of wording. She was saying that the only person that she’d seen previous to the commotion at the club was Goldstein (unnamed of course) She says nothing about seeing him twice yet this would have been a significant issue. I honestly see nothing that dissuades me of the fac that she saw him only once.

I fully expect a 5-0 job George. We have some talented players but no backbone. When it gets tough, as it always will against he Aussies, our batsmen crumble.

[GBinOz]

“A well-to-do artisan.”

Can we really imagine anyone ‘well-to-do’ electing to live in Berner Street George. I reckon Fanny might have just indulged in a bit of Hyacinth Bouquet type exaggeration.

Just in case Hyacinth never reached Oz…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_Up_Appearances

Hi Herlock,

I'm well acquainted with "the bucket woman". My favourite was Onslow's reply to Daisy threatening to take up with a toy boy - "Will you get someone that's a bit handy about the place, I'm tired of living in squalor". Even if we accept your proposal, we still have two interviews with the man with the black bag going in opposite directions. He was seen returning from the Spectacle Cafe, why couldn't he have been seen going there as well. We can't just say he was only seen once and dismiss the other interview.

I feel sorry for Burns getting that ball as the first in the series. But Australia acheived the ideal formula - bowl line and length and hold all your catches. In my younger days I had a boss who used to say "what one fool can do, so can another". Tomorrow is a new day. Perhaps the gentlemen from Blighty can turn the tables on the colonial ruffians? I'd like to see a game made of it and it not be decided by the weather.

Cheers, George