Whistling on Berner Street

[MrBarnett]

Hi Dusty,

Here's another version:

https://www.casebook.org/official_do...er-street.html

Cheers, George

Here’s another one, from 28th June, 1887.

I believe the man said to have been the club caretaker was Israel Goldstein. He was living at 40, Berner Street until at least 1901.

William Mortimer was a railway carman and had been ‘laid up [ill] some time’.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

There does appear to be a possible link with the name "Mr Lewis".

Two links.

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.

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.

What friend in the club is going to refer to Diemschitz as Mr Lewis? It seems a good bet to me that the source for this IT report, was Mrs A, and as most people believe her to be Fanny Mortimer, they will have to consider it a serious possibility that Fanny told the reporter that 'Lewis' seemed to arrive home at about 12:45. This would be more evidence that the Schwartz incident was manufactured.

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.

How many minutes 'correction' do you apply to Fanny's times, to keep Schwartz in the game?

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/

Whereas I think the big fallacy seen around here in recent times, has occurred in the production of timelines. Margins of error in quoted times, should be not be regarded as providing scope for creativity. As in, "I can move her forward 10 minutes, and him back about the same, because the respective times quoted have a margin of error of +/- 10 minutes". These margins of error are being used to 'prove' whatever the timeline creator wants to prove, and so they end being little more than exercises in confirmation bias.

Perhaps this is what Herlock has been suggesting to you?

Cheers, George

Herlock would have heard Caz argue for years - that Schwartz is to be believed because he dithered on who 'Lipski' was called to - and never once complained. Yet when I pointed out (amongst other things) that Abberline only said that Schwartz had the strong Jewish appearance, and therefore Schwartz's claim that it was called to the second man rather than him, was more than a bit strange, this is how he responded ...

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

Herlock is a joke.

[drstrange169]

>>I took that as meaning you were associating Mortimer's non-calling to the inquest ...<<

Mortimer's story appeared in the the papers on the day the inquest started.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Herlock is a joke.

Coming from the man who once claimed that Mrs Richardson was running a brothel from the cellar of number 29 Hanbury Street I hardly think that your comment needs taking seriously.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Herlock would have heard Caz argue for years - that Schwartz is to be believed because he dithered on who 'Lipski' was called to - and never once complained. Yet when I pointed out (amongst other things) that Abberline only said that Schwartz had the strong Jewish appearance, and therefore Schwartz's claim that it was called to the second man rather than him, was more than a bit strange, this is how he responded

Any witness can be accused 134 years later of lying when it’s suits an agenda. All that it requires is for imagination to triumph over reason . Then all that you have when I or anyone else disagrees or provides a possible non-sinister explanation is the tired old “ you’re just defending the orthodoxy.” As if I or anyone else has some kind of sentimental attachment to events in Berner Street. It’s laughable. When someone is proposing a ‘theory’ or a suspect then the likelihood is that they themselves are the ones getting carried away by seeing everything through a distorting lens.

One of your previous posts is an illustration of this. The only 2 posters that are reluctant to accept a reasonable margin for error in regard to the timings are yourself and Michael. ‘Coincidentally’ the 2 posters inclined toward conspiracy/cover up.

If you want to believe that Israel Schwartz invented his story then that’s obviously up to you. Why wouldn’t a man lie and place himself alone at the scene of a brutal murder with no one there to confirm that he wasn’t involved? Why wouldn’t he invent 2 non-existent characters? Despite the fact that the Police would have interviewed him at length and very obviously took his story seriously.

And what do you base this on? Your theory that if something wasn’t witnessed it couldn’t have happened. No one saw him therefore he wasn’t there. Despite that fact that we can’t tie FM down to any specific time that she was on her doorstep you still hang on to the desperate claim that this incident of a few seconds duration must have been seen had it occurred. Plus a couple of slight difference in a version of his story in The Star. Ignoring that the 2 versions were given via 2 different interpreters (who’s command of the language we can’t be sure of) Could Schwartz have lied? Well we can’t dismiss the possibility that he added the part about the knife either after considering that he’d scarpered without offering the woman any help or after this was pointed out to him.

You’ve provided nothing to prove any kind of cover-up or plot in Berner Street and you haven’t even stated what you think happened? Are you simply supporting Michael’s ‘theory?’ Or do you have one even less believable? The creation of ‘plots’ and ‘cover-up’s’ is the easiest thing in the world especially in a case this old but providing real evidence is another thing and it’s also the easiest thing in the world to resort to the old “well you would say that wouldn’t you?”

Perhaps the ‘little boy’ Kozebrodski did it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
What friend in the club is going to refer to Diemschitz as Mr Lewis? It seems a good bet to me that the source for this IT report, was Mrs A, and as most people believe her to be Fanny Mortimer, they will have to consider it a serious possibility that Fanny told the reporter that 'Lewis' seemed to arrive home at about 12:45. This would be more evidence that the Schwartz incident was manufactured

Or that Fanny Mortimer was an unreliable witness.

[GBinOz]

Two links.

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.

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.

What friend in the club is going to refer to Diemschitz as Mr Lewis? It seems a good bet to me that the source for this IT report, was Mrs A, and as most people believe her to be Fanny Mortimer, they will have to consider it a serious possibility that Fanny told the reporter that 'Lewis' seemed to arrive home at about 12:45. This would be more evidence that the Schwartz incident was manufactured.

How many minutes 'correction' do you apply to Fanny's times, to keep Schwartz in the game?

Hi Andrew,

It seems to me that the different arrival times is more evidence that Mrs Artisan and FM are not the same person.

You can apply what ever clock correction you like if you back it up with an explanation. There is no doubt that clocks in this period could easily be ten minutes out, whether you like it or not. I tried to fit my timeline to disagree with as few a times as possible and I corrected FM's times to her report of footsteps actually being PC Smith, but maybe they weren't his footfalls. Maybe they were those of the ripper, or Leon on his way to the Spectacle just before he was spotted by Mrs Artisan further up the street. When I quoted clock times I gave the disclaimer that they were approximate and quoted some sync corrections to show that most of the times could fall into place. But we have yet to see your timeline published for peer inspection and comment.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Here’s another one, from 28th June, 1887.

I believe the man said to have been the club caretaker was Israel Goldstein. He was living at 40, Berner Street until at least 1901.

William Mortimer was a railway carman and had been ‘laid up [ill] some time’.

I've seen you mention this man a few times over the last several months. You seem to have a particular interest in him, but I'm not sure what it is. Care to enlighten me?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Or that Fanny Mortimer was an unreliable witness.

So I guess Fanny was told that Louis arrived at 1am, but 'unreliably' told the reporter that it was a quarter to one. This just happened to be the time given by Schwartz, and even though Fanny apparently heard the plod of Smith's footsteps from inside, and the commotion at the murder scene, she managed to 'unreliably' miss all the shouting and screaming reported by the good solid citizen. Then to top it all off, she 'unreliably' told the man from the Evening News that she's seen a man with a black bag, appearing to have just walked out of the yard, when clearly he was walking in the opposite direction, and on the opposite side of the road!

Bloody unreliable woman, was Fanny Mortimer. You good Progressive types should keep getting stuck into her. Don't forget, a man's reputation is on the line!

[Herlock Sholmes]

So I guess Fanny was told that Louis arrived at 1am, but 'unreliably' told the reporter that it was a quarter to one. This just happened to be the time given by Schwartz,

or that it was an error of reporting?

and even though Fanny apparently heard the plod of Smith's footsteps from inside, and the commotion at the murder scene, she managed to 'unreliably' miss all the shouting and screaming reported by the good solid citizen.

which tends to indicate that the commotion at the club was significantly louder than the Schwartz incident? It’s worth noting that he’d said that the woman had screamed but not very loudly. Now is that a statement that most people would use? Or is it the result of the interpretation of the words of a man who spoke no English? ‘Screamed’ indicates volume but ‘not very loudly’ doesn’t fit. So I’d suggest that the most reasonable explanation would be that an English person wouldn’t have used the word ‘screamed.’ Therefore she made 3 ‘sounds’ but they weren’t loud.

Then to top it all off, she 'unreliably' told the man from the Evening News that she's seen a man with a black bag, appearing to have just walked out of the yard, when clearly he was walking in the opposite direction, and on the opposite side of the road!

Typical exaggeration. She said that he ‘might’ have come from the club. Obviously you chose to ignore the non-sinister, but entirely reasonable suggestions that either, she meant that he might have been a club member (so from the club) and the reporter misinterpreted, or b) that he’d just passed her doorstep when she came out and so saw he near or just past the club. Leading her to suggest that he might have just left it. Whatever side of the road he might or might not have been on makes no difference. As she simply suggested the possibility that he might have come from the club.

Bloody unreliable woman, was Fanny Mortimer. You good Progressive types should keep getting stuck into her. Don't forget, a man's reputation is on the line!

Because you are intent to prove a cover up you desperately need Fanny to have been on her doorstep at exactly the time that Schwartz had claimed to have seen the incident but to achieve that you ignore the inconvenient.

1. We can’t be certain that Schwartz time was exact. This adds another dimension to the unknowns.
2. Fanny herself gave differing versions of what she did that night.
3. Was Fanny correct that Smith passed at 12.45 or was Smith correct with 12.30-12.35.
4. The fact that the incident itself can have taken a very short space of time.
5. ‘Screamed but not very loudly,’ isn’t a phrase that someone with a good grasp of English would use. So it appears that all that Schwartz meant was that she made 3 sounds which weren’t loud.
6. Neither Fanny nor anyone else heard the alleged earlier return by Diemschitz and so, a) why isn’t this significant? And b) why would Diemschitz have lied when he’d have been risking any number of people claiming to have seen or even heard his early arrival.

So we ignore all of the inconvenient above so that we can state as a fact that Fanny must have been on her doorstep from 12.45 on and that she must have seen the Schwartz incident had it occurred.

Basically, who would be so colossally dumb as to have invented such an incident when he couldn’t have known who was around or watching from windows ready to prove him a liar to the Police? It just makes no sense except to you and Michael.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

It seems to me that the different arrival times is more evidence that Mrs Artisan and FM are not the same person.

You can apply what ever clock correction you like if you back it up with an explanation. There is no doubt that clocks in this period could easily be ten minutes out, whether you like it or not. I tried to fit my timeline to disagree with as few a times as possible and I corrected FM's times to her report of footsteps actually being PC Smith, but maybe they weren't his footfalls. Maybe they were those of the ripper, or Leon on his way to the Spectacle just before he was spotted by Mrs Artisan further up the street. When I quoted clock times I gave the disclaimer that they were approximate and quoted some sync corrections to show that most of the times could fall into place. But we have yet to see your timeline published for peer inspection and comment.

Cheers, George

Then let's put the words in her mouth, and compare and contrast to Fanny.

Mrs A: He seems to have returned home about a quarter to 1...

FM: I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed when I heard a commotion outside and immediately ran out... It was just after one o'clock when I went out...

So there's about 15 minutes for Goldstein to make it to Spectacle Alley and back, returning along Berner street at the time in Swanson's report - about 1am. Presumably, this is not what you mean. Alternatively, we could pull Fanny's timing well forward, making way for Mr Schwartz & co., in the process. In that case, Mrs A and Mrs M, merge into one, and Mr G does not have the opportunity to get to the coffee house and back. Obviously that is not what you mean, either.

Fanny said...

I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart.

One has to consider that the reference to a quarter to one, is not what Mrs A/M observed or claimed to have observed, but rather what she was told. Considering the complaints we see in the papers about how long it took to find police, this starts to look very interesting. When did Louis really get home?

Another point of consideration, is the timing of the interviews. The Interview with a Neighbour occurred during the day ...

Making the best of my way through the dense mass of people wedged in the narrow space of Duke-street, Houndsditch, I strolled along to Berner-street.

I found the street literally packed with people of both sexes, all ages, and nearly all classes. Clubmen from the West-end rubbed shoulders with the grimy denizens of St. George's-in-the-East: daintily dressed ladies, whom a wondering curiosity had drawn to the spot, elbowed their way amid knots of their less favoured sisters, whose dirty and ragged apparel betokened the misery of their daily surroundings. Policemen were there in great numbers, jealously guarding the approach to the yard in which the murdered women was found. I may mention that the same thing (the number of police on duty) struck me in passing Mitre-square, reminding one irresistibly of the old adage about locking the stable door after the steed has been stolen.

"It's a pity some of you fine chappies wasn't about 'ere larst night," said a morose individual who had been ordered to move on. "You'd a-done a deal more good than shovin' innercent folks hoff the pavement this arternoon." Then, in a jeering tone, "When do you expect you'll ketch the murderer, sonny?"

"Ketch the murderer?" laughed another dilapidated onlooker. "Not till they puts a 'bobby' to sit upon hevery doorstep in Vitechapel. And then 'alf on 'em will be asleep."

These taunts, and the manner in which they were received by the crowd, show how utterly the poor creatures in that neighbourhood have lost confidence in police protection. I shall never forget the aspect of that street, yesterday afternoon. The intense excitement, the vast swaying throng of eager, and, for the most part, terrified faces, the murmur of the hundreds of voices, the frantic struggles to get as near as possible to the scene of the sickening tragedy, all made it utterly impossible for one to realize that it was the afternoon of a Christian sabbath in the capital of the most civilized and religious country in the world.

INTERVIEW WITH A NEIGHBOUR.

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.

...

"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."

...

The Irish Times also mentions 'Lewis' and 'drapery goods', as you know. But consider the time of day this information seems to have been collected ...

Lewis, who is now found to have been on the spot rather than Koster,...

How and when did they discover that?

In the course of an interview with a witness shortly after 6 o'clock this morning Abraham Heshberg, a young fellow, living at 20 Berner street, said- "I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to 1 o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter in the gateway. Two or three people had collected, and when I got there I saw a short dark young woman lying on the ground, with a gash between 4 and 5 inches long in her throat. I should think she was 25 to 28 years of age. Her head was towards the north wall, against which she was lying. She had a black dress on, with a bunch of flowers pinned on the breast. In her hand there was a little piece of paper containing five or six cachous. The body was not found by Koster, but by a man whose name I do not know, a man who goes out with a pony and barrow, and lives up the archway where he was going, I believe, to put up his barrow on coming home from market.

Did the IT interview Mrs A, early in the morning, followed by the EN doing the same later in the day, by sheer chance?

As for my timeline, I'm still trying to work out what happened, and timelines really only make sense when at least the broad details of major events are agreed on. Obviously I do not agree on some of the broad details of the major events.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. So there's about 15 minutes for Goldstein to make it to Spectacle Alley and back, returning along Berner street at the time in Swanson's report - about 1am

But as we clearly know that Goldstein was only seen by Fanny once then there’s no need to fly down this particular rabbit-hole.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
One has to consider that the reference to a quarter to one, is not what Mrs A/M observed or claimed to have observed, but rather what she was told. Considering the complaints we see in the papers about how long it took to find police, this starts to look very interesting. When did Louis really get home?

1.00

[Herlock Sholmes]

. "I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to 1 o'clock, I should think

Cleary guessing and clearly wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Lewis, who is now found to have been on the spot rather than Koster

Whoever Koster was he’s irrelevant to what happened. File him with Fairy Fay. Diemschitz found the body at 1.00 (with an allowance for clock error) He lied about nothing. He covered up nothing.