Whistling on Berner Street

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

You're missing of the point is quite predictable. Firstly, all times qualified by the word 'about', are approximates. Secondly, do we even know the approximate time Kozebrodsky was first by the body?

12:40 GMT is not the issue here. Instead, what I'm alluding to is that there are several pieces of evidence that point to Koz being alerted to the murder, and his involvement in its immediate aftermath, that are not part of the 'official' story. The following is quite fascinating, if literally true.

IK in the EN: "I came into the club about which you are asking me at half-past twelve o'clock. Shortly after I came in Diemschitz asked me to come out into the yard, as he saw there was something unusual had taken place there."

Shortly after? So where was IK shortly before that? Not at the club, it would seem, but close to it.

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

Already explained in #364. Either you haven't read that post carefully, or you've chosen to ignore what I said about this.

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

We know what happened.

That is your opinion, but it seems to me that any evidence that appears to contradict the 'accepted story', is highly likely to offend you, and use of said evidence in a theory, is highly likely to cause you to be outraged.

If we know what happened, then put your money where your mouth is, and tell us who blew the early whistle.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

George,
I can't bear to admit that Leon had to get there somehow. It's just too painful!
You're right though - Goldstein probably used the same route, going and returning. Israel Schwartz was probably the same. It's a shame that Goldstein was seen twice, and Schwartz not at all, especially considering that Goldstein was said to have walked by hurriedly, and Schwartz said he stopped to look at the altercation at the gates, before running off to the railway arch. Perhaps even more so considering that Schwartz may have meant the arch closest to 22 Christian street - meaning they would have taken pretty much the same route, and not far apart in time.

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

There is a very good YouTube channel called Fascinating Horror, with an intro to JtR video, which mentions the WVC and its patrolmen equipped with whistles and sticks. It hardly seems that this is obscure knowledge, yet it took a while for it to be mentioned here. Perhaps those who were so sure that the 'early' police whistle, must have been blown by a policeman, had fallen for the trap - the trap of plausibility.

[caz]

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.

This suggests that the police were satisfied that Goldstein told them the truth about his movements and could be eliminated from their enquiries. Mortimer stated that he was the only person she had seen on Berner Street, so she had witnessed precisely nothing in connection with the murder.

Love,

Caz
X

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

A fascinating coincidence, that would seem to have one of the following explanations:

* a lucky guess
* the knife was left behind, and it's size was estimated correctly
* those were the words of the murderer

There is no specific evidence that the knife was left behind, of course. If Joseph Koster was the man who spoke those words, then he surely just made a 'lucky' guess. Having said that, are you aware of the first name of the Batty Street Lodger?

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

Is it possible the Mortimers' had more wealth than might be supposed by the husbands occupation? If Fanny had borders in the otherwise spare room(s), Mr & Mrs Mortimer would have effectively been 'double income no kids'. In that case, she may have been able to dress better than the wives of most carmen.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're missing of the point is quite predictable. Firstly, all times qualified by the word 'about', are approximates. Secondly, do we even know the approximate time Kozebrodsky was first by the body?

12:40 GMT is not the issue here. Instead, what I'm alluding to is that there are several pieces of evidence that point to Koz being alerted to the murder, and his involvement in its immediate aftermath, that are not part of the 'official' story. The following is quite fascinating, if literally true.

IK in the EN: "I came into the club about which you are asking me at half-past twelve o'clock. Shortly after I came in Diemschitz asked me to come out into the yard, as he saw there was something unusual had taken place there."

Shortly after? So where was IK shortly before that? Not at the club, it would seem, but close to it.



Already explained in #364. Either you haven't read that post carefully, or you've chosen to ignore what I said about this.



That is your opinion, but it seems to me that any evidence that appears to contradict the 'accepted story', is highly likely to offend you, and use of said evidence in a theory, is highly likely to cause you to be outraged.

If we know what happened, then put your money where your mouth is, and tell us who blew the early whistle.

I don’t know the answer to the whistle question and I can’t say that it bothers me. I’ve spent too long on here listening to fantasies.

Schwartz saw a conflict at the gates of the club at around 12.45. Variations between the 2 ‘versions’ can be put down to factors like different interpreters, Press error/exaggeration etc. The fact that no one saw him is irrelevant. The ‘events’ tally up using a reasonable, sensible margin for error. Stride was killed by an unknown man who might or might not have been BS Man who in turn might or might not have been the ripper. Diemschutz found the body at 1.00 (allowing for clock error of course)

Thats what happened. There’s no need to read every single newspaper in existence in order to manipulate a mystery. The idea of a plot is laughable. Could Schwartz have lied about being there? Very little is impossible but it’s extremely unlikely. Your attempt at ‘discovering’ a mystery is a deliberate and wilful effort to invent one from nothing purely so that you can say that you’ve discovered something new.

[GBinOz]

Is it possible the Mortimers' had more wealth than might be supposed by the husbands occupation? If Fanny had borders in the otherwise spare room(s), Mr & Mrs Mortimer would have effectively been 'double income no kids'. In that case, she may have been able to dress better than the wives of most carmen.

Hi Andrew,

Name:William Mortimer
Estimated Birth Year:abt 1840
Date of Registration:Jan-Feb-Mar 1889
Age at Death:49
Registration district:St George in The East
Inferred County:London
Volume:1c
Page:251

1891 Census:
36 Berner Street, St George in the East
Head: F Mortimer (Widow) aged 50 born "Don't know" England - Mangle woman
Children:
M (Female) aged 14
C (Male) aged 13
E (Male) aged 11
Rose aged 10
John aged 8
All born in St George East

Mortimer's husband died within months of Stride's Murder, so he may have been sleeping in the front room because he was too ill to get upstairs, or because there were lodgers upstairs, or both. They certainly weren't empty nesters. Would woman caring for a sick husband and five kids be in a position to exhibit a wealthy appearance?

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don’t know the answer to the whistle question and I can’t say that it bothers me. I’ve spent too long on here listening to fantasies.

No, you don't know. Your constantly repeated claim that "we know what happened", is a hollow one.

Schwartz saw a conflict at the gates of the club at around 12.45. Variations between the 2 ‘versions’ can be put down to factors like different interpreters, Press error/exaggeration etc. The fact that no one saw him is irrelevant. The ‘events’ tally up using a reasonable, sensible margin for error. Stride was killed by an unknown man who might or might not have been BS Man who in turn might or might not have been the ripper. Diemschutz found the body at 1.00 (allowing for clock error of course)

Thats what happened. There’s no need to read every single newspaper in existence in order to manipulate a mystery. The idea of a plot is laughable. Could Schwartz have lied about being there? Very little is impossible but it’s extremely unlikely. Your attempt at ‘discovering’ a mystery is a deliberate and wilful effort to invent one from nothing purely so that you can say that you’ve discovered something new.

It is quite telling that you accuse me of reading the papers to work out what happened. That is, of being aware of the evidence and attempting to form a theory around it. Then there is your bizarre and repeated claim that by doing so, I'm attempting to create a mystery. This is exactly backwards. We actually start with a mystery, and go from there. The identity of the WM is a mystery, which some people are interested in solving, or at least narrowing down the field of candidates. Perhaps you are opposed to this, on the basis that you actually prefer the mystery to remain, permanently.

As for laughable ideas, that is exactly what I think about Israel Schwartz's story. No one witnessed it because it never happened, and Schwartz was likely a fake witness.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

Name:William Mortimer
Estimated Birth Year:abt 1840
Date of Registration:Jan-Feb-Mar 1889
Age at Death:49
Registration district:St George in The East
Inferred County:London
Volume:1c
Page:251

1891 Census:
36 Berner Street, St George in the East
Head: F Mortimer (Widow) aged 50 born "Don't know" England - Mangle woman
Children:
M (Female) aged 14
C (Male) aged 13
E (Male) aged 11
Rose aged 10
John aged 8
All born in St George East

Mortimer's husband died within months of Stride's Murder, so he may have been sleeping in the front room because he was too ill to get upstairs, or because there were lodgers upstairs, or both. They certainly weren't empty nesters. Would woman caring for a sick husband and five kids be in a position to exhibit a wealthy appearance?

Cheers, George

You're right George - the kids weren't old enough to have left home. It does seem a mystery that Fanny was described in the manner she was. If it was her, of course.

Do you agree with my suggestion in #364, that the source for that Irish Times snippet, was Mrs. Artisan? If yes (or even if no), what do you make of this bit ...?

He seems to have returned home about a quarter to 1...

Did Mrs A give the IT reporter that information? Is that what she was told? If yes, perhaps Fanny locked up at closer to 12:50 than 1am, with Diemschitz arriving just prior. That would make sense of Fanny having said that she heard Smith pass just before 12:45, and her saying she went to the yard just after 1am - she was about 5 to 10 minutes 'ahead of time'. That would seem to place Fanny at he door at 12:45. She sees Goldstein. She does not see Schwartz or anyone else from Schwartz's tale. Were they actually there to be seen?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

How could the police have dismissed the information about Goldstein, prior to the commencement of the inquest? The identity of black bag man, wasn't known until late Tuesday evening, by which time the inquest had completed its second day.

[drstrange169]

There must have been some kind of temporal time loop in Berner Street,

According to the 1881 census

[drstrange169]

>>How could the police have dismissed the information about Goldstein, prior to the commencement of the inquest? <<

Who said anything about prior to the commencement of the inquest?

[GBinOz]

There must have been some kind of temporal time loop in Berner Street,

According to the 1881 census

Hi Dusty,

Here's another version:

https://www.casebook.org/official_documents/census/berner-street.html

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

You're right George - the kids weren't old enough to have left home. It does seem a mystery that Fanny was described in the manner she was. If it was her, of course.

Do you agree with my suggestion in #364, that the source for that Irish Times snippet, was Mrs. Artisan? If yes (or even if no), what do you make of this bit ...?

He seems to have returned home about a quarter to 1...

Did Mrs A give the IT reporter that information? Is that what she was told? If yes, perhaps Fanny locked up at closer to 12:50 than 1am, with Diemschitz arriving just prior. That would make sense of Fanny having said that she heard Smith pass just before 12:45, and her saying she went to the yard just after 1am - she was about 5 to 10 minutes 'ahead of time'. That would seem to place Fanny at he door at 12:45. She sees Goldstein. She does not see Schwartz or anyone else from Schwartz's tale. Were they actually there to be seen?

Hi Andrew,

There does appear to be a possible link with the name "Mr Lewis". When it comes to the time, your last paragraph is similar to my timeline with clock corrections taken into account. I had the Schwartz incident, which would have lasted only minutes, just after FM went inside.

Andrew, while it is fun to take small clues and language interpretations and extrapolate them into theories, one must always be careful not to fall for the Venutian Dinosaur Fallacy : https://bigthink.com/articles/the-ve...osaur-fallacy/
Perhaps this is what Herlock has been suggesting to you?

Cheers, George

[drstrange169]

>>Here's another version<<


Yes, I remember that one.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

>>How could the police have dismissed the information about Goldstein, prior to the commencement of the inquest? <<

Who said anything about prior to the commencement of the inquest?

You said ...

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

I took that as meaning you were associating Mortimer's non-calling to the inquest, with a supposed dismissal of her information on Goldstein. I think others would have read it the same way.

In what sense was her Goldstein information, dismissed?