Whistling on Berner Street

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I have a theory about the 'important statement' report, which presumably refers to Fanny Mortimer.

A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

Presuming that the body did not lie in the yard when the policeman passed-and it could hardly, it is thought, have escaped his notice-and presuming also that the assassin and his victim did not enter the yard while the woman stood at the door, it follows that they must have entered it within a minute or two before the arrival of the pony trap. If this be a correct surmise, it is easy to understand that the criminal may have been interrupted at his work. Diemschitz says he thinks it quite possible that after he had entered the yard the assassin may have fled out of it, having lurked in the gloom until a favourable moment arrived.

I've always thought it strange that for a supposedly important statement, the statement maker is neither named nor quoted. This report appeared in a few papers, including the Evening News of Oct 1. Why did the EN deem it appropriate to publish three reports on Mortimer, in a single edition? The other two reports quote Mortimer, so why couldn't they quote her a third time? I've speculated that the reason for this anomaly is that the source of the statement referred to, is actually the police. That might explain why no quotes or names were given - the police did not provide those details, but merely gave a summary of the statement. The problem with that theory is; why would the police provide summary details of a witness statement, to the press? What's in it for them? Furthermore, we are told that the woman lived two doors from the club - so it seems fairly obvious who is being referred to. Thus the report provides no real anonymity for Fanny.

So who else might have taken the statement the report refers to? Consider this section from the EN's Oct 4 report on Matthew Packer...

We proceed to five hereunder the story of the two detectives, Messrs. Grand and J.H. Batchelor, of 283 Strand: When they began their quest, almost from the first place at which they sought evidence from No. 44 Berner street, the second house from the spot at which the body was found. This is the residence of a man named Mathew Packer, who carries on a small business as a greengrocer and fruiterer. His shop is an insignificant place, with a half window in front, and most of his dealings are carried on through the lower part of the window case, in which his fruit is exposed for sale. Mathew Packer had valuable information to give, and after two or three interviews on the subject, made and signed a statement in writing, the substance of which is as follows:

So supposedly Packer signed a statement taken by Grand and Batchelor. Could the same have been true of Fanny Mortimer? If that seems a little far-fetched, who else might have spoken to Fanny, who had a connection with the vigilance committee?

The Morning Advertiser of Oct 3, provided details of a committee meeting...

Last night a special meeting of the Vigilance Committee, of which Mr. Lusk is chairman, took place at the committee-rooms, 74, Mile-end-road, to discuss the refusal of the Home Secretary to issue offers of a reward for the conviction of the man wanted, and to receive the expected replies from her Majesty the Queen and the Home Secretary to the petitions presented to them.

During that meeting, this occurred...

An intimation at this stage reached the meeting that some private detectives wished to be engaged in the case on behalf of the Vigilance Committee, but Mr. Reeves and Mr. Aarons announced that they had already three detectives at work, and a band of twenty young gentlemen had gathered for the purpose of patrolling one section of the haunted district, with the view of assisting the police in bringing the offender to justice. The services of these gentlemen were therefore declined.

So the committee had three detectives - not just Grand and Batchelor. Highly speculative to be sure, but could this third detective have been the important statement taker? There is no other reference to this third detective, as far as I know, and I think that includes this...

Michael Kidney: I told the inspector on duty at the police-station that I could give information provided he would let me have a young, strange detective to act on it, and he would not give me one.

Although there is still the question as to who was the source of the information that Kidney claimed to have, but held back from the coroner.

[JeffHamm]

Hi George,

Just wondering, have you posted your police-based timeline in full somewhere? I see bits mentioned in various posts but I've not seen a full presentation of what you've worked out so far, but I easily may have missed it. I would be interested to see what you've come up with so far, and the parameters you're using to build it. I'm sure we'll be using different criterion for some of our decisions, which isn't a problem because there's choices to be made, and different researchers choose different options. To make a comparison between the timelines we would want to consider those differences in choices as well (such as you're standardizing to PC Smith, and I'm standardizing to Dr. Blackwell is one such choice difference). Also, for some witnesses we have multiple news stories, where their story is told a bit differently each time, so we may be drawing upon different statements at times.

But, if despite all that, we still come to roughly similar timelines, only fixed to different standard clocks, it would improve our confidence in the robustness of the process. And, it would help point to any bits that require increased caution. For example, if you worked in Brown as per above, and he passes near the end of Fanny's vigil but before she goes in, and I have him passing shortly after she's gone inside, that would indicate we can't be sure exactly which was the case, but it appears those two events occur pretty close in time. That sort of comparison can help sharpen up our understanding of the events as well.

Anyway, glad to see others working on the same problem.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Goldstein, don't know? Well as Fanny seems to have locked up prior to Schwartz, and Fanny sees Goldstein, then presumably Goldstein passed a few minutes before 12:45 (Police time). The only question coming out of that is; when did Brown visit the chandlers shop? There doesn't seem to be quite enough time between Schwartz and Diemschitz, so that too must have occurred at similar time to Goldstein's passing. Presumably these two just missed seeing each other, although it would be fun to fantasize what might have happened if their paths home had almost crossed...

12.45 a.m. 30th. Leon Goldstein of 22 Christian Street, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got nearly as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he passed a woman, who was standing at her doorstep. He looked around over his shoulder at the club, and then on crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a man with a woman. He heard the woman say to the man, "Not tonight, maybe some other night", but just as he stepped from the kerb, a second man came out of the doorway of the chandlers shop across the road, and then Goldstein walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as his home near the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far. Upon being taken to the mortuary Goldstein identified the body as that of the woman he had seen.

Jut a bit fun, George. I don't mean to create a mystery where none exists.

I agree, Goldstein's passage can be placed during whatever time interval you have for Fanny Mortimer being on her doorstep.

James Brown says he arrived home and about 15 minutes later heard the first search party, so his return journey can be estimated from that. If you are using the estimated durations as stated, then back up 15 minutes from the time you think the first search happened, but if you are correcting for the tendency to overestimate intervals, you back up 12m 33s. You should be able to approximate his journey from that.

Given it appears Goldstein and Brown didn't see each other, if by your calculations you have Brown's journey during Fanny's vigil, then you could at least rule out some portion of her time on the doorstep and narrow the window that accommodates Goldstein. It's like building a puzzle, sometimes you know a piece goes "here", in section you've not built into yet, so the best you can do is just place it roughly. Others you can snap into place. We're never going to get the "exact right times", nor would we know if we did, but we can get something that is a good approximation, with known ranges of error. To be honest, with what little we have to work with, I'm pretty amazed we can do as much as we can.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Schwartz about 12:46 - 12:47, Goldstein, don't know, Diemshitz about 12:52, all on Police time.

Goldstein, don't know? Well as Fanny seems to have locked up prior to Schwartz, and Fanny sees Goldstein, then presumably Goldstein passed a few minutes before 12:45 (Police time). The only question coming out of that is; when did Brown visit the chandlers shop? There doesn't seem to be quite enough time between Schwartz and Diemschitz, so that too must have occurred at similar time to Goldstein's passing. Presumably these two just missed seeing each other, although it would be fun to fantasize what might have happened if their paths home had almost crossed...

12.45 a.m. 30th. Leon Goldstein of 22 Christian Street, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got nearly as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he passed a woman, who was standing at her doorstep. He looked around over his shoulder at the club, and then on crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a man with a woman. He heard the woman say to the man, "Not tonight, maybe some other night", but just as he stepped from the kerb, a second man came out of the doorway of the chandlers shop across the road, and then Goldstein walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as his home near the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far. Upon being taken to the mortuary Goldstein identified the body as that of the woman he had seen.

Jut a bit fun, George. I don't mean to create a mystery where none exists.

[JeffHamm]

Hi George,

Schwartz about 12:46 - 12:47, Goldstein, don't know, Diemshitz about 12:52, all on Police time.

It looks like we've come to very similar conclusions, only you're standardizing to police time and I'm standardizing to Dr. Blackwell - we're just adjusting the times to different clocks, but we both, presumably would conclude that Police Time and Dr. Blackwell's time are out of sync by some amount. I'm suggesting in the vicinity of 6 minutes, and I'm presuming you're somewhere around that too, give or take a few minutes. Both our recreations are, of course, trying to estimate that value, so I wouldn't expect us to have come to the exact same value, but I would hope we're not miles apart. If we're not, then we're coming to the same basic conclusion independently, and no doubt using some slightly different methods. That would be a good test of the robustness of recreating timelines with the information we have. Nice.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Okay, so let's go back to the 12:52 you mentioned in #179. That's about 15 minutes after Smith, which is probably close enough to be plausible. So given that time, can you give me an approximate time for the relevant events for Schwartz, Goldstein, and Diemschitz?

Schwartz about 12:46 - 12:47, Goldstein, don't know, Diemshitz about 12:52, all on Police time.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

I was adjusting FMs time to Police time because I have a common event for Smith and FM - the sound of his boots passing. I don't have any common event for Marshall, Brown etc, so we're back to clock syncs. With all due respect, you do seem to have a propensity to look for mysteries in places that no one else suspects.

Cheers, George

Okay, so let's go back to the 12:52 you mentioned in #179. That's about 15 minutes after Smith, which is probably close enough to be plausible. So given that time, can you give me an approximate time for the relevant events for Schwartz, Goldstein, and Diemschitz?

[GBinOz]

It does, but then what are we to make of Marshall, Brown, and club people, who all supposed the commotion began at close to 1am? If they were correct, then we would expect Mortimer to not agree with them - she was seemingly 10 minutes ahead of time. Yet she does agree with them, so in effect you're saying that Mortimer's clock was ahead of time by almost the same amount as these other witnesses were out, either subjectively or in reference to their own timepieces.

Marshall: I went in about 12 o'clock and heard nothing more until I heard "Murder" being called in the street. It had then just gone 1 o'clock.

Alternatively, the 10 minute report is wrong, or Mortimer badly underestimated the time she spent at her door, or she told the statement taking person, something different to what she told the press, not unlike Packer.

That is not what the press reports indicate. The total ambiguity of who went for police, where and when, suggests to me that some other issue is being 'worked around' - something happened after the discovery, that they don't want us to know about. That something doesn't need to be sinister, but I think there is a reason we never get the full story.

Hi Andrew,

I was adjusting FMs time to Police time because I have a common event for Smith and FM - the sound of his boots passing. I don't have any common event for Marshall, Brown etc, so we're back to clock syncs. With all due respect, you do seem to have a propensity to look for mysteries in places that no one else suspects.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

It was just after one o'clock when I went out
Applying the ten minutes brings us back to the 12:52 mark.

It does, but then what are we to make of Marshall, Brown, and club people, who all supposed the commotion began at close to 1am? If they were correct, then we would expect Mortimer to not agree with them - she was seemingly 10 minutes ahead of time. Yet she does agree with them, so in effect you're saying that Mortimer's clock was ahead of time by almost the same amount as these other witnesses were out, either subjectively or in reference to their own timepieces.

Marshall: I went in about 12 o'clock and heard nothing more until I heard "Murder" being called in the street. It had then just gone 1 o'clock.

Alternatively, the 10 minute report is wrong, or Mortimer badly underestimated the time she spent at her door, or she told the statement taking person, something different to what she told the press, not unlike Packer.

The explanation for Spooner's "two jews" is that they were Diemshitz and Jacobs, and that Koze was behind them and had turned north on Batty on the way out. So maybe Diemshitz and Jacobs left, Koze was still by the body when Eagle came down the stairs, and then they left but in different directions coming back together in at the Commercial/Batty intersection.

That is not what the press reports indicate. The total ambiguity of who went for police, where and when, suggests to me that some other issue is being 'worked around' - something happened after the discovery, that they don't want us to know about. That something doesn't need to be sinister, but I think there is a reason we never get the full story.

[GBinOz]

Hi George.
That gave me something of a moment. As you know, there is a anomaly with Fanny Mortimer. She appears from the unquoted report, to be about 10 minutes ahead of time - she hears the plod between 12:40 and 12:45, rather than between 12:30 and 12:35. Yet in the quoted report, she does not say what we might expect - that she went out just after 1:10, but seemingly manages to 'resync' with Smith Time:

It was just after one o'clock when I went out...

How can that be? Well perhaps it has something to do with expectations.

DN: Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard the pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

EN: Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

Perhaps she thought she went out just after 1am, because that is when Diemschitz normally got home. In other words, 1am may have had nothing to do with a clock - observed occasionally or often - but was simply a time she associated with Louis' normal arrival.

That explanation obviously leaves unanswered how she did know that Diemschitz normally got back close to one, without referencing a clock that she could have looked at on murder night. However, if we ignore the 4 minute gap - which I think is a calculation and not an estimate - we could probably get some idea of the gap between her locking up and going to the yard, by looking at the interview report.

I should think I must have heard it if the poor creature screamed at all, for I hadn't long come in from the door when I was roused, as I tell you, by that call for the police.

She thinks (in this hypothesis) that it is just after 1am, but it's actually between 12:50 and 12:55. So at what time did Diemschitz arrive?

Obviously it is, and how should we view a witness who changes his story?

I don't think that is going to work.

Spooner: I was standing outside the Beehive Tavern, at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street along with a young woman. I had been standing there about five-and-twenty minutes when two Jews came running along hallooing out "Murder" and "Police." They ran as far as Grove-street and turned back. I stopped them and asked what was the matter.

Evidently they ran together.

I seem to have missed those.

Hi Andrew,

It was just after one o'clock when I went out
Applying the ten minutes brings us back to the 12:52 mark.

The explanation for Spooner's "two jews" is that they were Diemshitz and Jacobs, and that Koze was behind them and had turned north on Batty on the way out. So maybe Diemshitz and Jacobs left, Koze was still by the body when Eagle came down the stairs, and then they left but in different directions coming back together in at the Commercial/Batty intersection.

The comments about Mrs D were on this or other forums.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

"As the night was so wet I did not stay quite so late as usual." He gives the impression that he was ahead of his usual arrival time of 1:00.

Hi George.
That gave me something of a moment. As you know, there is a anomaly with Fanny Mortimer. She appears from the unquoted report, to be about 10 minutes ahead of time - she hears the plod between 12:40 and 12:45, rather than between 12:30 and 12:35. Yet in the quoted report, she does not say what we might expect - that she went out just after 1:10, but seemingly manages to 'resync' with Smith Time:

It was just after one o'clock when I went out...

How can that be? Well perhaps it has something to do with expectations.

DN: Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard the pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

EN: Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

Perhaps she thought she went out just after 1am, because that is when Diemschitz normally got home. In other words, 1am may have had nothing to do with a clock - observed occasionally or often - but was simply a time she associated with Louis' normal arrival.

That explanation obviously leaves unanswered how she did know that Diemschitz normally got back close to one, without referencing a clock that she could have looked at on murder night. However, if we ignore the 4 minute gap - which I think is a calculation and not an estimate - we could probably get some idea of the gap between her locking up and going to the yard, by looking at the interview report.

I should think I must have heard it if the poor creature screamed at all, for I hadn't long come in from the door when I was roused, as I tell you, by that call for the police.

She thinks (in this hypothesis) that it is just after 1am, but it's actually between 12:50 and 12:55. So at what time did Diemschitz arrive?

"on driving into the yard my donkey shied a little in consequence of my cart coming in contact with something on the ground."
From the inquest:
A Juror: Could you in going up the yard have passed the body without touching it? - Oh, yes.
[Coroner] Any person going up the centre of the yard might have passed without noticing it? - I, perhaps, should not have noticed it if my pony had not shied. I had passed it when I got down from my barrow.
Another example of Diemshitz changing his story.

Obviously it is, and how should we view a witness who changes his story?

He said he alerted members on the ground floor and went with Koze with a match or a candle. It was after this point that they realised that there had been a murder, and Eagle would have still been upstairs. So Louis must have left before Koze.

I don't think that is going to work.

Spooner: I was standing outside the Beehive Tavern, at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street along with a young woman. I had been standing there about five-and-twenty minutes when two Jews came running along hallooing out "Murder" and "Police." They ran as far as Grove-street and turned back. I stopped them and asked what was the matter.

Evidently they ran together.

It has been suggested before that Louis may have discovered his wife passed out drunk on previous occasions.

I seem to have missed those.

[GBinOz]

George,
here is something closer to a precise time, but no clock. The Star, Oct 1:

The first to find the body was Mr. Diemshitz, steward of the club. Interviewed by a Star reporter, Mr. Diemshitz said:- "I was coming home from market at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I am a traveller by trade, and go to different markets to sell my goods. Yesterday I went to Westow-hill. As the night was so wet I did not stay quite so late as usual. After I had passed through the gate which had been left open on driving into the yard my donkey shied a little in consequence of my cart coming in contact with something on the ground. On looking down I saw the ground was not level, so I took the butt end of my whip and touched what appeared to me in the dark to be a heap of dirt lately placed there, a thing I was not accustomed to see. Not being able to move it, I struck a match and FOUND IT WAS A WOMAN.

First of all I thought it was my wife, but I found her inside the club enjoying herself with the others. I said to some of the members there is a woman lying in the yard, and I think she is drunk. Young Isaacs, a tailor machinist, went to the door and struck a match, and to our horror we saw blood trickling down the gutter almost from the gate to the club. The dance was immediately stopped. I and Isaacs ran out for a policeman, but could not find one after traversing several streets, but in the meantime another man from the Club, Eagle, ran to the Leman-street police-station and fetched two policemen, who arrived about seven minutes after the discovery.

It seems clear that both he and Kozebrodsky went to Grove street and back. He also claims that Eagle went for police at some point after he did, but before he returned. Eagle claimed at the inquest to have been with Isaac when he lit a match to better view the victim. Kozebrodsky cannot be out searching for police, and also be by Eagle's side in the yard. As Diemschitz states he went for police immediately on returning to the body with a candle and matches, the only way Kozebrodsky could have been with Eagle for a independent viewing by matchlight, is for this to have occurred prior to Diemschitz doing the same.

One other thing; was Diemschitz implying his wife was an alcoholic?

Hi Andrew,

"As the night was so wet I did not stay quite so late as usual." He gives the impression that he was ahead of his usual arrival time of 1:00.

"on driving into the yard my donkey shied a little in consequence of my cart coming in contact with something on the ground."
From the inquest:
A Juror: Could you in going up the yard have passed the body without touching it? - Oh, yes.
[Coroner] Any person going up the centre of the yard might have passed without noticing it? - I, perhaps, should not have noticed it if my pony had not shied. I had passed it when I got down from my barrow.
Another example of Diemshitz changing his story.

He said he alerted members on the ground floor and went with Koze with a match or a candle. It was after this point that they realised that there had been a murder, and Eagle would have still been upstairs. So Louis must have left before Koze.

It has been suggested before that Louis may have discovered his wife passed out drunk on previous occasions.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I would issue a challence to anyone to find ONE interview with Diemshitz on 30 Sep 1888 where he mentioned a clock sighting. Just one. But the next day he has suddenly remembered looking at a clock (one account said the Baker's clock) and everyone wants to ignore police times and adopt this newly reviewed one time only you beaut exact and precise time of one o'clock rather than his multiple statements on the day before of his usual time of about one o'clock.

George,
here is something closer to a precise time, but no clock. The Star, Oct 1:

The first to find the body was Mr. Diemshitz, steward of the club. Interviewed by a Star reporter, Mr. Diemshitz said:- "I was coming home from market at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I am a traveller by trade, and go to different markets to sell my goods. Yesterday I went to Westow-hill. As the night was so wet I did not stay quite so late as usual. After I had passed through the gate which had been left open on driving into the yard my donkey shied a little in consequence of my cart coming in contact with something on the ground. On looking down I saw the ground was not level, so I took the butt end of my whip and touched what appeared to me in the dark to be a heap of dirt lately placed there, a thing I was not accustomed to see. Not being able to move it, I struck a match and FOUND IT WAS A WOMAN.

First of all I thought it was my wife, but I found her inside the club enjoying herself with the others. I said to some of the members there is a woman lying in the yard, and I think she is drunk. Young Isaacs, a tailor machinist, went to the door and struck a match, and to our horror we saw blood trickling down the gutter almost from the gate to the club. The dance was immediately stopped. I and Isaacs ran out for a policeman, but could not find one after traversing several streets, but in the meantime another man from the Club, Eagle, ran to the Leman-street police-station and fetched two policemen, who arrived about seven minutes after the discovery.

It seems clear that both he and Kozebrodsky went to Grove street and back. He also claims that Eagle went for police at some point after he did, but before he returned. Eagle claimed at the inquest to have been with Isaac when he lit a match to better view the victim. Kozebrodsky cannot be out searching for police, and also be by Eagle's side in the yard. As Diemschitz states he went for police immediately on returning to the body with a candle and matches, the only way Kozebrodsky could have been with Eagle for a independent viewing by matchlight, is for this to have occurred prior to Diemschitz doing the same.

One other thing; was Diemschitz implying his wife was an alcoholic?

[drstrange169]

>>... found both the Prisoners Guilty of assaults on the police only<<

Correct, as I wrote, Israel Sunshine, Julius Barnett, and Emanuel Snapper and others appear to have lied.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was taking the mickey out of myself, you humorless sod

So you haven’t at some point suggested that Schwartz and Goldstein might have been the ripper?

With some of the suggestions on here it’s difficult to tell when some posters are being serious or not.