Whistling on Berner Street

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Herlock,

There were three columns in the Evening News 1 Oct, two attributable to Mortimer, via name or residence location, and one to an Artisan's wife. In your quest to remain true to traditional thinking you have manufacture a fanciful tale based purely on conjecture and then asked me to accept that this pure speculation which totally contradicts what was written is the obvious conclusion. Fallacious conjecture A = obviously correct speculation B. No offence, but I'm not buying it. Why can't it be accepted as written, other that it disrupts some cognitive bias?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

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

Hi Caz,

I suppose it could seem to be loaded. I was commented on the tendency for posters to comment "if the times were wrong or conflicting, why didn't the police or the coroner raise questions". That was the reason why they didn't.

I think it would be reasonable to suggest that the majority of discussion on these forums is repetitive conjecture and speculation based on contradictory press reports, proposed accurate-to the-minute timings and the interminable minute (size) examination of every word and phrase for alternative meanings, sinister plots and bias justifications. Nevertheless, we endeavour to persevere, who knows why.

Interspersed amongst the above are a few facts. It is a fact that in the Evening New 1 Oct 1888 there were three separate accounts of interviews with witnesses. Two were directly attributed to Mortimer. The third was not, and contained different detail. It is also fact that two witnesses reported hearing a police whistle before the police were located. What are the alternatives for dealing with these facts?
. Just ignoring the offending facts?
. Out of hand dismissal without supporting justification?
. Massage of language to achieve the desired result?
. Fanciful conjecture evolving into bias satisfying speculation?
. Proposing alternatives that may reasonably explain the circumstances of the factual statements.

In the facts at hand, the first can be addressed by a second witness (Mrs Artisan), and nobody gets hurt. Unless Leon was "beamed" to the Spectacle he had to get there somehow and it is more likely than not that he used the same route going and returning. The possibility that he was observed by more than one door stoop snoop shouldn't raise an eyebrow. Does it matter if the police questioned him (marginal notes suggest that possibility)? There was no proof that he did anything but walk to a cafe and then return home.

The second fact can be addressed by a little research, which showed that the WVC were issued with police whistles leading to the reasonable conclusion that it is likely that it was one of their members that blew the initial alarm whistle. No drama, no contortions, no consequences, just a reasonable straight forward solution.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

There were three columns in the Evening News 1 Oct, two attributable to Mortimer, via name or residence location, and one to an Artisan's wife. In your quest to remain true to traditional thinking you have manufacture a fanciful tale based purely on conjecture and then asked me to accept that this pure speculation which totally contradicts what was written is the obvious conclusion. Fallacious conjecture A = obviously correct speculation B. No offence, but I'm not buying it. Why can't it be accepted as written, other that it disrupts some cognitive bias?

Cheers, George

So why did the Reporter that supposedly spoke to this other woman not get her name? It seems a bit strange that he’d take the time to interview her and yet had to resort to describing her appearance? It just sounds a bit strange to me George. Like he’d got his story from a fellow Reporter but, for whatever reason, didn’t get the name?

Some three doors from the gateway where the body of the first victim was discovered, I saw a clean, respectable-looking woman chatting with one or two neighbours. She was apparently the wife of a well-to-do artisan, and formed a strong contrast to many of those around her. I got into conversation with her and found that she was one of the first on the spot

So he estimates that she lived 3 doors from the club. Mortimer actually lived 2 doors from the club and yet she never mentions her next door neighbour being on the doorstep at the same time that she was on hers?

" I suppose you did not notice a man and woman pass down the street while you were at the door?"

"No, sir. I think I should have noticed them if they had. Particularly if they'd been strangers, at that time o' night

So she’d also spent sometime on her doorstep but neither she or Mortimer are aware of each other’s presence even though they were neighbours and must have known each other well?

I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway. Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife

So she, like Mortimer, got to the scene immediately after the crime and before a larger crowd had gathered or any police had arrived?

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

She was also on her doorstep at whatever time Goldstein passed by.

Mrs Artisan apparently said…

. "I was just about going to bed, sir

And Mortimer said….

I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed

This one’s just a question but hasn’t the quote below been quoted as coming from Mortimer by name in other newspapers or did it just refer to this quote with the assumption that they were one and the same person? I don’t know.

'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her

……..

It’s nothing to do with bias George. You have 2 women both just about to go to bed, living 2 and 3 doors from the Club, both spent time on their doorstep and saw Goldstein but little else of interest (so they’re basically giving the same story) both arrived at the club immediately after the first cry went up and before a crowd gathered. Neither mention seeing each other despite the fact that they had been standing on adjacent doorsteps at the same time and would undoubtedly have known each other well. And we have to ask why our reporter didn’t ask the name of the woman he was interviewing.

Surely we have to conclude that Mortimer and Mrs Artisan were one and the same George?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Here's some food for thought ...

Mrs. Artisan: Mr. Lewis, who travels in cheap drapery things a bit now and again, had just drove into the yard when his horse shied at something that was lying in the corner. He thought 'twas a bundle of some kind till he got down from his cart and struck a light. Then he saw what it was and gave the alarm.

Note, she refers to Diemschitz as 'Mr. Lewis'.

Irish Times: Lewis, who is now found to have been on the spot rather than Koster, is the steward at the Socialist Club at No. 40, and in addition he travels in some drapery goods, the purchase of which, according to his friends necessitated his attending last night's market. He seems to have returned home about a quarter to 1, and to have proceeded up the entry which, though not narrow, is a very dark one, for the purpose of putting up his pony and trap. While proceeding along the wall of No. 40, which is to the north of the entry, he stumbled against something which he presently discovered to be the body of a woman, and at first feared was that of his wife. On entering his door however, he found Mrs Lewis waiting for him, and explaining that a woman was lying outside, he asked a man who was in the house to come outside with him.

Was Mrs. A the info source for this report? Did she know Diemschitz and not Koster, was the man 'on the spot'?

Mrs. A: "I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police. I ran to the door, and before I could open it I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.' I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway. Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife."

Who was this somebody who informed her of the murder?

Irish Times: About five minutes to one o'clock this morning a youth about twenty years of age named Joseph Koster was accosted by a little boy who came running up to him as he was passing on the opposite side of 40 Berner street, used by the International Socialist Club, and told him that a woman was lying in the gateway next to the club, with her throat cut. Koster immediately ran across the road and saw a woman lying on her side in the gateway leading into Dutfield's stabling and van premises. The gate which is a large wooden one, was partly opened, and the woman lying partly in the opening and on the street. He immediately roused the neighbours, and by the aid of a candle it was seen that the woman's throat was cut open very nearly from one ear to the other, and her hips were drawn up as if she had suffered sharp pain.

Arguably, it was Joseph Koster. So then who is this 'little boy'? I think that is a mistake in the report, and The Times got it right ...

Conflicting statements are made as to the way in which the body was found, but according to one account a lad first made the discovery and gave information to a man named Costa, who proceeded to the spot, where almost immediately afterwards a constable arrived.

Arguably, the young lad was Isaac Kozebrodsky, and the 'constable' was a WVC patrolman.

Note that the first IT quote refers to 'Lewis' returning home at "about a quarter to 1". That is same time given by Israel Schwartz, who claimed to see a man walking in front of him, once he turned into Berner street. What was Koster doing when alerted to the murder ...?

... he was passing on the opposite side of 40 Berner street ...

Arguably, Joseph Koster had broad shoulders.

According to Schwartz in the Star ...

... 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.

Arguably, this was heard and partially understood by Isaac Kozebrodsky, who had very imperfect English. When did he claim to be first aware of the murder?

IK: About 20 minutes to 1 this morning Mr Diemshitz called me out into the yard.

Arguably, what happened on Berner street that night, is quite different to what nearly everyone supposes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Mrs. A: "I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police. I ran to the door, and before I could open it I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.' I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway. Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife."

Who was this somebody who informed her of the murder?

Eagle as he ran past her house to get a Constable?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Arguably, this was heard and partially understood by Isaac Kozebrodsky, who had very imperfect English. When did he claim to be first aware of the murder?

IK: About 20 minutes to 1 this morning Mr Diemshitz called me out into the yard

But we know that Kozebrodski wasn’t with the body at 12.40.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Arguably, the young lad was Isaac Kozebrodsky

Was he a dwarf? How could Kezebridski be described as ‘a little boy?’

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here's some food for thought ...

Mrs. Artisan: Mr. Lewis, who travels in cheap drapery things a bit now and again, had just drove into the yard when his horse shied at something that was lying in the corner. He thought 'twas a bundle of some kind till he got down from his cart and struck a light. Then he saw what it was and gave the alarm.

Note, she refers to Diemschitz as 'Mr. Lewis'.

Irish Times: Lewis, who is now found to have been on the spot rather than Koster, is the steward at the Socialist Club at No. 40, and in addition he travels in some drapery goods, the purchase of which, according to his friends necessitated his attending last night's market. He seems to have returned home about a quarter to 1, and to have proceeded up the entry which, though not narrow, is a very dark one, for the purpose of putting up his pony and trap. While proceeding along the wall of No. 40, which is to the north of the entry, he stumbled against something which he presently discovered to be the body of a woman, and at first feared was that of his wife. On entering his door however, he found Mrs Lewis waiting for him, and explaining that a woman was lying outside, he asked a man who was in the house to come outside with him.

Was Mrs. A the info source for this report? Did she know Diemschitz and not Koster, was the man 'on the spot'?

Mrs. A: "I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police. I ran to the door, and before I could open it I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.' I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway. Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife."

Who was this somebody who informed her of the murder?

Irish Times: About five minutes to one o'clock this morning a youth about twenty years of age named Joseph Koster was accosted by a little boy who came running up to him as he was passing on the opposite side of 40 Berner street, used by the International Socialist Club, and told him that a woman was lying in the gateway next to the club, with her throat cut. Koster immediately ran across the road and saw a woman lying on her side in the gateway leading into Dutfield's stabling and van premises. The gate which is a large wooden one, was partly opened, and the woman lying partly in the opening and on the street. He immediately roused the neighbours, and by the aid of a candle it was seen that the woman's throat was cut open very nearly from one ear to the other, and her hips were drawn up as if she had suffered sharp pain.

Arguably, it was Joseph Koster. So then who is this 'little boy'? I think that is a mistake in the report, and The Times got it right ...

Conflicting statements are made as to the way in which the body was found, but according to one account a lad first made the discovery and gave information to a man named Costa, who proceeded to the spot, where almost immediately afterwards a constable arrived.

Arguably, the young lad was Isaac Kozebrodsky, and the 'constable' was a WVC patrolman.

Note that the first IT quote refers to 'Lewis' returning home at "about a quarter to 1". That is same time given by Israel Schwartz, who claimed to see a man walking in front of him, once he turned into Berner street. What was Koster doing when alerted to the murder ...?

... he was passing on the opposite side of 40 Berner street ...

Arguably, Joseph Koster had broad shoulders.

According to Schwartz in the Star ...

... 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.

Arguably, this was heard and partially understood by Isaac Kozebrodsky, who had very imperfect English. When did he claim to be first aware of the murder?

IK: About 20 minutes to 1 this morning Mr Diemshitz called me out into the yard.

Arguably, what happened on Berner street that night, is quite different to what nearly everyone supposes.

Just garbled versions of versions told by people keen to be involved.

We know what happened.

[GBinOz]

So he estimates that she lived 3 doors from the club. Mortimer actually lived 2 doors from the club and yet she never mentions her next door neighbour being on the doorstep at the same time that she was on hers?

So she’d also spent sometime on her doorstep but neither she or Mortimer are aware of each other’s presence even though they were neighbours and must have known each other well?
It’s nothing to do with bias George. You have 2 women both just about to go to bed, living 2 and 3 doors from the Club, both spent time on their doorstep and saw Goldstein but little else of interest (so they’re basically giving the same story) both arrived at the club immediately after the first cry went up and before a crowd gathered. Neither mention seeing each other despite the fact that they had been standing on adjacent doorsteps at the same time and would undoubtedly have known each other well. And we have to ask why our reporter didn’t ask the name of the woman he was interviewing.

Surely we have to conclude that Mortimer and Mrs Artisan were one and the same George?

Hi Herlock,

Here we have exactly what I was talking about - an entire theory based on a fallacy. If you read the actual wording it states that Mrs Artisan was in a group of women chatting some three doors from the gateway. It does not say that she lived there.

"I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.' "

The curious thing about this is that the Coram knife had a 10 inch blade, but that was not found until the following evening. Seems a little specific for any witness or bystander to be announcing within minutes of the discovery of the body. It might be noted that neither of the two interviews with Mortimer contain this reference, and only one of them quoted her name.

I'm really not seeing the problem with a second woman being interviewed. There are sufficient differences in their statements, and Mortimer would have mentioned seeing Leon twice - I do not read the word "previously" in the same context as Andrew although I can see how he could have that interpretation.

There is an article here:
https://jfiles00.tripod.com/explore/...t/berner_t.htm (click on here for descriptive tour)
which has the following talking about the section of Berner St nearest Commercial Road:
"For the neighborhood is composed of many small brick dwellings, and is "thickly populated by artisans," such as "tailors, shoe-makers, cigarette makers, and others - mostly Poles and Germans - who do their work at home."

What is there that prevails against a woman from this area being interviewed? A reason that begins "it is not possible that a second woman was interviewed because...".

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Here we have exactly what I was talking about - an entire theory based on a fallacy. If you read the actual wording it states that Mrs Artisan was in a group of women chatting some three doors from the gateway. It does not say that she lived there.

"I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.' "

The curious thing about this is that the Coram knife had a 10 inch blade, but that was not found until the following evening. Seems a little specific for any witness or bystander to be announcing within minutes of the discovery of the body. It might be noted that neither of the two interviews with Mortimer contain this reference, and only one of them quoted her name.

I'm really not seeing the problem with a second woman being interviewed. There are sufficient differences in their statements, and Mortimer would have mentioned seeing Leon twice - I do not read the word "previously" in the same context as Andrew although I can see how he could have that interpretation.

There is an article here:
https://jfiles00.tripod.com/explore/...t/berner_t.htm (click on here for descriptive tour)
which has the following talking about the section of Berner St nearest Commercial Road:
"For the neighborhood is composed of many small brick dwellings, and is "thickly populated by artisans," such as "tailors, shoe-makers, cigarette makers, and others - mostly Poles and Germans - who do their work at home."

What is there that prevails against a woman from this area being interviewed? A reason that begins "it is not possible that a second woman was interviewed because...".

Cheers, George

Firstly, of course I accept that I misread the quote so it of course can’t be stated that she lived next door to Mortimer. This wasn’t an attempt to prove a ‘theory’ by dishonesty George, it was simply an error on my part.

Of course it’s not impossible that this was a different woman. If it was then we have 2 women who both spent some time on their doorsteps that evening and saw nothing. They were both alerted to events at the club just as they were about to go to bed and both got to the club before a crowd began to gather. I still think that it’s more likely that this woman was Fanny. Why didn’t the reporter get her name?

Even if this was a second women what does she add to the case?

[drstrange169]

>>"it is not possible that a second woman was interviewed because...".<<

When it comes to ripperology nothing is "not possible".

The above sentence reads like something written on a wall, but I hope people get my drift.

First thing to note is that the mystery woman is described as,

"... a clean, respectable-looking woman chatting with one or two neighbours. She was apparently the wife of a well-to-do artisan, and formed a strong contrast to many of those around her."

Was her husband "a well-to-do artisan" or was this merely an assumption on the writer's part because of the "strong contrast to many of those around her"?

The writer of this piece, which appears on page two of the paper, is clearly different from the interviewer of Mortimer on page three. There is also a lot of poetic licence in the first writer's piece.

If these are in fact two different women why is only one of them ever referred to subsequently?

The police report says Goldstein was

"the man that passed down Berner St. with a black bag at that hour"

The Evening News the next day wrote,

"It is a remarkable fact that the only man Mrs. Mortimer observed in Berner street, early on Sunday morning, carried a shiny black bag."

If they knew they had two witnesses, why give credence to only one?

Either both were Mortimer, with one report being more sensational than the other or, if separate, the first story was dismissed by both the police and the paper itself.

[GBinOz]

Firstly, of course I accept that I misread the quote so it of course can’t be stated that she lived next door to Mortimer. This wasn’t an attempt to prove a ‘theory’ by dishonesty George, it was simply an error on my part.
I never thought it was anything but an error.

Of course it’s not impossible that this was a different woman. If it was then we have 2 women who both spent some time on their doorsteps that evening and saw nothing. They were both alerted to events at the club just as they were about to go to bed and both got to the club before a crowd began to gather. I still think that it’s more likely that this woman was Fanny. Why didn’t the reporter get her name?
I don't know why he didn't get her name. I would have been nice if he had quoted all the names of the gossip group, but he didn't. We already had a second woman doing some door stoop snooping - Letchford's sister. Maybe she was one of the group? And don't forget Marshall. Of course two people's description of the same event are going to have similarities. But there are also differences. In her interview Mortimer refers to the man who discovered the body, not by name, but as the manager and caretaker of the club. Why didn't she give his name? Mrs Artisan refers to him as Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club and "Mr. Lewis, who travels in cheap drapery things a bit now and again".

Even if this was a second women what does she add to the case?
She places Leon in the area at the time of the murder rather than at the coffee shop. We don't know the extent of the police investigation into his movements, but Leon must have been concerned to have pre-emptively reported to the police. In the end the police had no more evidence than that he went to a coffee house and then returned home.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

>>"it is not possible that a second woman was interviewed because...".<<

When it comes to ripperology nothing is "not possible".

The above sentence reads like something written on a wall, but I hope people get my drift.
I get your drift. I guess I was becoming frustrated with answers such as the obdurate " she only saw him once" or the lingual gymnastics of "up can mean down you know".

First thing to note is that the mystery woman is described as,

"... a clean, respectable-looking woman chatting with one or two neighbours. She was apparently the wife of a well-to-do artisan, and formed a strong contrast to many of those around her."

Was her husband "a well-to-do artisan" or was this merely an assumption on the writer's part because of the "strong contrast to many of those around her"?

The writer of this piece, which appears on page two of the paper, is clearly different from the interviewer of Mortimer on page three. There is also a lot of poetic licence in the first writer's piece.

If these are in fact two different women why is only one of them ever referred to subsequently?

The police report says Goldstein was

"the man that passed down Berner St. with a black bag at that hour"

The Evening News the next day wrote,

"It is a remarkable fact that the only man Mrs. Mortimer observed in Berner street, early on Sunday morning, carried a shiny black bag."
LOOK FOR A MAN WITH A BLACK BAG!
Below will be found "A Plausible Suggestion," signed "Medicus." The writer apparently had no knowledge at the time he despatched his letter of the statement made by a young man named Albert Baskert, of 13 Newnham street, Whitechapel, and therefore the coincidence is, to say the least, peculiar.

"Medicus" says that if the murderer wore a pair of dissecting gloves and an ordinary glazed mackintosh, his work could be accomplished, and the gloves and mackintosh wrapped up in a brief bag, and the man would immediately appear a respectable clerk returning late from the City.

It is a remarkable fact that the only man Mrs. Mortimer observed in Berner street, early on Sunday morning, carried a shiny black bag.

I read this as a part of the Medicus statement rather than a comment by the paper.

If they knew they had two witnesses, why give credence to only one?

Either both were Mortimer, with one report being more sensational than the other or, if separate, the first story was dismissed by both the police and the paper itself.

Hi Dusty,

It appears the police or the coroner dismissed Mortimer as well when she wasn't called to the inquest.

You make some good points but I do not find myself persuaded.

Cheers, George

[drstrange169]

Hello George,

I can't think any reason Baxter would call Mortimer to the inquest.

Baxters job was to find out who the deceased person was and how, when and where they died and to provide the details needed for their death to be registered. Mortimer had nothing to offer on any of those criteria that other witnesses weren't more qualified to give..

The only unique information she could have offered, Goldstein, had already been dismissed. There is no surprise she wasn't called.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Eagle as he ran past her house to get a Constable?

No, I don't think that's a particularly good suggestion. Eagle doesn't seem to have said anything about yelling through neighbours closed doors, as he made his way up Berner street calling for police. Why do you suppose he would have done that, regardless of not mentioning it to the coroner? The Irish Times snippet I quoted, offers a much more plausible candidate ...

Koster immediately ran across the road and saw a woman lying on her side in the gateway leading into Dutfield's stabling and van premises. ... He immediately roused the neighbours, and by the aid of a candle it was seen that the woman's throat was cut open very nearly from one ear to the other...

Why did you discount the possibility of it being Koster, without even mentioning his name?

It could be argued that Koster was not the man who made the reference to "ten inches of cold steel", as a completely literal interpretation of the IT article suggests that Koster roused the neighbours, and then observed the victim's wound by candlelight. Perhaps that means he did not go door-to-door to do his 'rousing', but stayed at the gateway. That in turn suggests that the rousing consisted of blowing a whistle, which suggests that Joseph Koster was on WVC patrol, and thus was on or at least close to Berner street, at the time of the murder. When Israel Schwartz turned into Berner street, he sees a man walking ahead of him, who he had not seen while he walked on Commercial Road. Just maybe ...