Whistling on Berner Street

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Perhaps Gilleman is so mysterious, because so very little, if anything, is known about him, as he was only mentioned by Eagle and because he's also known as Gid(d)leman(n) and Giglemann. He may very well be the Gilyarovsky mentioned in the October edition of the Arbeter Fraint and some, based on that edition of the Arbeter Fraint, think he might also be Kozebrodski. You'll find Gilleman/Giglemann/Gidleman, among others, in the Daily News of 2 October, the Daily Telegraph, Morning Advertiser and Times of the same date.

I and others don't think he's so important to the case, but Mike Richards, who keeps calling him Gillen, thinks he is, as he's somehow supposed to support the notion that Stride wasn't found at about 1 o'clock, but just before 12:40.

Arbeter Fraint of October:
"At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body. His horse became frightened as he drove into the gate and shied to the right, and this caused Dimshits to bend down to see the reason for this. He noticed a black object on the ground. He touched it with his whip and felt that it was a body. He immediately struck a match, but that was insufficient and he wasn’t able to get a [good] flame, he was nevertheless able by the light of the first match to see that the object was a woman. From excitement he jumped off the cart, ran through the back door into the club and raised an alarm.
Immediately Comrade Gilyarovsky ran into the printing shop and editor’s office that are located in the same building as the club, but separated in the back by the yard.
There was no one in the printing shop. Comrades Krants and Yaffa were busy in the editor’s office.
“Don’t you know that a murdered woman is lying in the yard?” Gilyarovsky breathlessly called out. At first the two comrades did not want to believe him. “What, don’t you believe me?” Gilyarovsky quickly asked: “I saw blood.” Yaffa and Krants immediately ran out and went over to the gate. The gate was open and it was very dark near the gate. A black object was barely discernable near the brick building. Once they got very close, they could notice that it was the shape of a woman that was lying with its face to the wall, with its head toward the yard and with its feet pointing to the gate. Comrades Morris Eygel, Fridenthal and Gilyarovsky were standing around the body. Eygel struck a match and shouted to the figure lying there: “Get up!” “Why are you waking her?” asked Yaffa, who noticed that the woman was lying in a liquid. “Don’t you see that the woman is dead?”
In the meantime, there was quite a to-do going on inside the club, and everyone ran out into the yard. Dimshits, Eygel and Gilyarovsky ran to look for a policeman;"

I hope this answers your questions, at least to some extent (and doesn't create new ones!).

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Thanks for the reply. Cool new avatar.

None of the mentions of him as a witness have him quoting a discovery time at all. Perhaps the solution of the "Mystery of Gilleman" proposed by Paul Begg in the Ripperologist No 11 is that he was actually Deimshits?

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

I keep seeing posted references to "Gilleman" but all I can find is

1. the entry in the Complete A-Z :
Gilleman: Supposed member of the IWC who according to Morris Eagle came into the clubroom at around 1am and said "There is a dead woman lying in the yard". Analysis of the sources shows that Eagle was talking about Louis Diemshutz.

2. Ripperologist No 11
Contents:

Page Thirteen:

The Mystery of Gilleman - Solved?

Paul Begg

Can someone please enlighten me as to why Gilleman is so mysterious and as to what importance he has on the Stride case???

Cheers, George

No real importance in relation to the point that I was making George except that for a long time Michael has been claiming that Gilleman can be included in some kind of list of witnesses who’s evidence points to an earlier discovery time. That there exists some kind of statement with Gilleman saying that he was with the body earlier. David O posted a long list of quotes from Michael claiming this but, as we know, the only mention of Gilleman in the case is by Eagle (plus the possible AF mention as Frank quoted.) So we know that he doesn’t point to an earlier discovery time. Has Michael acknowledged this? Have a guess?

[FrankO]

I keep seeing posted references to "Gilleman" but all I can find is

1. the entry in the Complete A-Z :
Gilleman: Supposed member of the IWC who according to Morris Eagle came into the clubroom at around 1am and said "There is a dead woman lying in the yard". Analysis of the sources shows that Eagle was talking about Louis Diemshutz.

2. Ripperologist No 11
Contents:

Page Thirteen:

The Mystery of Gilleman - Solved?

Paul Begg

Can someone please enlighten me as to why Gilleman is so mysterious and as to what importance he has on the Stride case???

Hi George,

Perhaps Gilleman is so mysterious, because so very little, if anything, is known about him, as he was only mentioned by Eagle and because he's also known as Gid(d)leman(n) and Giglemann. He may very well be the Gilyarovsky mentioned in the October edition of the Arbeter Fraint and some, based on that edition of the Arbeter Fraint, think he might also be Kozebrodski. You'll find Gilleman/Giglemann/Gidleman, among others, in the Daily News of 2 October, the Daily Telegraph, Morning Advertiser and Times of the same date.

I and others don't think he's so important to the case, but Mike Richards, who keeps calling him Gillen, thinks he is, as he's somehow supposed to support the notion that Stride wasn't found at about 1 o'clock, but just before 12:40.

Arbeter Fraint of October:
"At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body. His horse became frightened as he drove into the gate and shied to the right, and this caused Dimshits to bend down to see the reason for this. He noticed a black object on the ground. He touched it with his whip and felt that it was a body. He immediately struck a match, but that was insufficient and he wasn’t able to get a [good] flame, he was nevertheless able by the light of the first match to see that the object was a woman. From excitement he jumped off the cart, ran through the back door into the club and raised an alarm.
Immediately Comrade Gilyarovsky ran into the printing shop and editor’s office that are located in the same building as the club, but separated in the back by the yard.
There was no one in the printing shop. Comrades Krants and Yaffa were busy in the editor’s office.
“Don’t you know that a murdered woman is lying in the yard?” Gilyarovsky breathlessly called out. At first the two comrades did not want to believe him. “What, don’t you believe me?” Gilyarovsky quickly asked: “I saw blood.” Yaffa and Krants immediately ran out and went over to the gate. The gate was open and it was very dark near the gate. A black object was barely discernable near the brick building. Once they got very close, they could notice that it was the shape of a woman that was lying with its face to the wall, with its head toward the yard and with its feet pointing to the gate. Comrades Morris Eygel, Fridenthal and Gilyarovsky were standing around the body. Eygel struck a match and shouted to the figure lying there: “Get up!” “Why are you waking her?” asked Yaffa, who noticed that the woman was lying in a liquid. “Don’t you see that the woman is dead?”
In the meantime, there was quite a to-do going on inside the club, and everyone ran out into the yard. Dimshits, Eygel and Gilyarovsky ran to look for a policeman;"

I hope this answers your questions, at least to some extent (and doesn't create new ones!).

Cheers,
Frank

[GBinOz]

Your lie about Gilleman is enough for anyone to show what depths you’re willing to stoop to to shoehorn your comedic theory in to place.

I keep seeing posted references to "Gilleman" but all I can find is

1. the entry in the Complete A-Z :
Gilleman: Supposed member of the IWC who according to Morris Eagle came into the clubroom at around 1am and said "There is a dead woman lying in the yard". Analysis of the sources shows that Eagle was talking about Louis Diemshutz.

2. Ripperologist No 11
Contents:

Page Thirteen:

The Mystery of Gilleman - Solved?

Paul Begg

Can someone please enlighten me as to why Gilleman is so mysterious and as to what importance he has on the Stride case???

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Despite your desire to have Fanny simply missing seeing anything that is claimed and controversial...(Schwartz, Louis's arrival),..resorting to re-working what is already known about that night isnt valid. Simply put, in this scenario of yours Fanny went indoors at 1, a few minutes later would be 1:02-1:03, correct?

Louis: "...and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at the baker's shop at the corner of Berner-street."
Lamb: "Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me".
Blackwell: "On Sunday morning last, at ten minutes past one o'clock, I was called to Berner-street by a policeman"
Johnson: "On Sunday morning last, at a few minutes past one o'clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H"
Philips: "I was called on Sunday morning last at twenty past one to Leman-street Police-station."

There is quite simply not enough time in your revision of history to accomplish the above events with the timings they provide. Im not even going to bother bringing up the multiple witnesses whose corroborated statements invalidate Louis, Israel, Morris...and your revisions....well, I guess I just did,...but very clearly and quite obviously people MUST have left for help before 1am, like Eagle and Issac, only 1 of which stated that same fact.

Lamb could not see the men "shortly before 1", Johnson could not have been there at a "few minutes past 1", Blackwell could not have been notified at "10 minutes past 1", and Phillips could not have been summoned at "20 minutes past 1", if the initial discovery only took place at 1:02-1:03. Cannot have happened at that time for all those statements to work.

Louis said he lit a match, went inside to see his wife, summoned help from inside, members gathered by the body and it was decided to send men out for help. If as you suggest the discovery itself too place at approx 1:02-1:03, and all the activities I just listed took place before help was even sent, then basic math tells you that would suggest that the people left to get help at what, 1:08-1:10?

So why does Fanny hear about it at around 1:04? Why does Lamb meet Eagle before 1am? How can Johnson be there before anyone has been sent for help? How does Blackwell hear about it at the same time the initial search party seeks help?

Then you can add the 5-10 minutes the searchers were out on the street before finding help...how do 2 medical professionals and 1 policeman get summoned there before the body is found?

Louis clearly, without any doubt, lied about arriving at 1. Its undeniable, which is why I spend my time assessing other witnesses who can better construct events and times with their statements. You however spend your time presuming all these witnesses were wrong or had no access to timepieces and Louis was the ONLY one that got the time right.

And you cannot see the facts for the Diemshitz.

Im no longer interested in discussing this aspect of the case with a biased, manipulator of evidence like yourself. I’m bored of your exaggerations and your infantile assessments and your pig-headed refusal to accept a reasonable margin for error on these timings. Your lie about Gilleman is enough for anyone to show what depths you’re willing to stoop to to shoehorn your comedic theory in to place.

Your theory has been conclusively rebutted. Of course you can continue on your lonely, ego-fuelled path if you wish to waste you’re own time like that but I’m no longer willing to waste my own time repeatedly refuting your nonsense. It’s impossible to debate with a zealot who is devoid of all reason. I’m done with fantasists.

[Michael W Richards]

Im not talking about ‘copying.’ I’m simply saying that if Goldstein didn’t give a definite time then he has to be explained in terms of what Mortimer claimed and there is doubt about her times.

So why not - Mortimer goes onto her doorstep just after Smith passed and went back inside at around 12.45. The Schwartz incident occurs then Stride is killed. She then went back to her door to lock it just before 1.00 when she heard someone pass. She looked into the street and saw Goldstein walk past the club. She locks her door. The Louis returns so 2 or 3 minutes after Fanny had locked the door she hears the disturbance at the club.

Despite your desire to have Fanny simply missing seeing anything that is claimed and controversial...(Schwartz, Louis's arrival),..resorting to re-working what is already known about that night isnt valid. Simply put, in this scenario of yours Fanny went indoors at 1, a few minutes later would be 1:02-1:03, correct?

Louis: "...and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at the baker's shop at the corner of Berner-street."
Lamb: "Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me".
Blackwell: "On Sunday morning last, at ten minutes past one o'clock, I was called to Berner-street by a policeman"
Johnson: "On Sunday morning last, at a few minutes past one o'clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H"
Philips: "I was called on Sunday morning last at twenty past one to Leman-street Police-station."

There is quite simply not enough time in your revision of history to accomplish the above events with the timings they provide. Im not even going to bother bringing up the multiple witnesses whose corroborated statements invalidate Louis, Israel, Morris...and your revisions....well, I guess I just did,...but very clearly and quite obviously people MUST have left for help before 1am, like Eagle and Issac, only 1 of which stated that same fact.

Lamb could not see the men "shortly before 1", Johnson could not have been there at a "few minutes past 1", Blackwell could not have been notified at "10 minutes past 1", and Phillips could not have been summoned at "20 minutes past 1", if the initial discovery only took place at 1:02-1:03. Cannot have happened at that time for all those statements to work.

Louis said he lit a match, went inside to see his wife, summoned help from inside, members gathered by the body and it was decided to send men out for help. If as you suggest the discovery itself too place at approx 1:02-1:03, and all the activities I just listed took place before help was even sent, then basic math tells you that would suggest that the people left to get help at what, 1:08-1:10?

So why does Fanny hear about it at around 1:04? Why does Lamb meet Eagle before 1am? How can Johnson be there before anyone has been sent for help? How does Blackwell hear about it at the same time the initial search party seeks help?

Then you can add the 5-10 minutes the searchers were out on the street before finding help...how do 2 medical professionals and 1 policeman get summoned there before the body is found?

Louis clearly, without any doubt, lied about arriving at 1. Its undeniable, which is why I spend my time assessing other witnesses who can better construct events and times with their statements. You however spend your time presuming all these witnesses were wrong or had no access to timepieces and Louis was the ONLY one that got the time right.

And you cannot see the facts for the Diemshitz.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is the closest we get ...



As Mortimer does not give a specific time for seeing black bag man, there is no way Goldstein could have been 'copying' Mortimer. So 'about 1 a.m.' must have been his estimate. Yet it is now being claimed that Mortimer locked up by 12:45, to avoid the possibility of her seeing (but not hearing), Schwartz & co. Goldstein's estimate contradicts this notion.

Im not talking about ‘copying.’ I’m simply saying that if Goldstein didn’t give a definite time then he has to be explained in terms of what Mortimer claimed and there is doubt about her times.

So why not - Mortimer goes onto her doorstep just after Smith passed and went back inside at around 12.45. The Schwartz incident occurs then Stride is killed. She then went back to her door to lock it just before 1.00 when she heard someone pass. She looked into the street and saw Goldstein walk past the club. She locks her door. The Louis returns so 2 or 3 minutes after Fanny had locked the door she hears the disturbance at the club.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Star to the rescue! Wow, who'd have thought? So who amongst us who has pilloried the Star report for it's (supposed) inaccuracies and exaggerations, now objects to the Star report being used to correct Abberline, where he was "very obviously" wrong?



That would be after he witnesses the assault, which you conveniently failed to mention.



You conveniently failed to mention that Schwartz is at the gateway, when the man speaks to and then assaults the woman ...

... having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

Schwartz was at the gateway. The man and woman were at the gateway. It's simple. Yet it is also clearly a problem. How could Schwartz claim to stop and watch this, and yet run away in fear when a man smoking a pipe starts walking in his general direction, after he crosses the road and heads toward Fairclough street? It rather defies common sense. Hence your motivation to 'fix' the story.



There are only 2 versions. One is the story Schwartz gave Abberline. The other is the story Schwartz gave the Star man. Only Schwartz can give a 'version', as it is his story alone. He may well have given another telling of the story at a later time (and I suspect he did), but there are only 2 definitive versions that we know of for certain. Everything else is derivative.



There is a massive amount of guesswork going on here. Why would he lie? Well that depends on exactly what happened during the murder, and in its immediate aftermath, and in response to those events. This question cannot be answered by armchair speculation. How could he be confident that he wouldn't be found out? Why assume he would have to have felt confident? Perhaps he felt he had little choice. When Goldstein was persuaded by Wess to go to Leman street, do you think he was feeling confident about the outcome? Yet if Goldstein had reservations, why wouldn't Schwartz? After all, all Goldstein supposedly did, was hurriedly walk down Berner street from Commercial Road, carrying his shiny black bag, before continuing on to his place near a railway arch. By contrast, Schwartz similar journey was much more eventful, and detailed enough that Abberline (according to yourself) was confused as to exactly what had occurred.

I think there was more going on that night, than your simple a, b & c choices allow for.

And I think that there was nothing going on. He walked along Berner Street, saw an incident, the buggered off. Things happened, mistaken timing estimates were given.

When will you tell us what you think happened instead of just telling me that I’m wrong? As my ‘version’ involves no plots, conspiracies or cover-up’s we can take it as a given that you will disagree with me on every point in the case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Who is suggesting that the body was found at 12:40? Perhaps you could explain the mental gymnastics that went into determining that a 'plot' that involves the body being found at 12:40, also included Schwartz turning into Berner street at 12:45, and seeing the would be victim speaking to a man?

What are you talking about?

Anyone that believes that Kozebrodski and Hoschberg were correct would have to believe it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your choice of words is questionable. A plot is forward looking. A response to an event that has already occurred, cannot therefore be called a plot.

How on earth did you reach the conclusion that a response would have to be formulated before anyone went searching for police? Schwartz didn't go to police for another 16 or so hours

Because if the body had been discovered earlier and they didn’t go for the Police until around 1.00 then there was a reason for that gap. Michael suggests that they were worried about the club being closed down so they must have decided on a plan. You can’t be suggesting that they delayed announcing the body for no reason and then came up with the Schwartz plan hours later?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Diemschitz never mentioned meeting a man who was with a woman, nor does he say that a man and woman ran around to the yard with him. He only mentions meeting a man, who ran around to the yard with him. If the lady friend had been there when he met Spooner, it must have been a very quick 'goodnight' - Diemschitz had no reason to wait. So Spooner must have run off almost immediately on being told of the murder, leaving the woman to her own devices.

To suppose that Spooner didn't mention the fate of the lady friend, because it wasn't germane to events, would be a reasonable assumption if what he did say about the woman was true.

So Spooner is talking to a woman; possibly just saying goodnight as Diemschutz and Koz go running past calling for a Constable. Spooner say something like “I’ll see you tomorrow I’m going to see what’s going on.” The woman goes indoors and he goes the few paces to the corner and stops Diemschutz as he returns in the direction of Berner Street. Or maybe he just walked back with him as Louis told him what had happened on the way?

I see nothing mysterious or questionable. Maybe he was a WVC member but wasn’t ‘on duty’ that night?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don’t know if this has been answered elsewhere George but we tend to hear a time put to Goldstein’s passing. Was a time actually quoted by Goldstein or are we fitting Goldstein in with Fanny time?

This is the closest we get ...

From Swanson's October 19 report, out of the Ultimate JtR Sourcebook:

about 1 a.m. 30th Leon Goldstein of 22 Christian Street Commercial Road, called at Leman St. & stated that he was the man that passed down Berner St. with a black bag at that hour, that the bag contained empty cigarette boxes & that he had left a coffee house in Spectacle Alley a short time before. [Here there is a marginal note. - "Who saw this man go down Berner St. or did he come forward to clear himself in case any questions might be asked".]

As Mortimer does not give a specific time for seeing black bag man, there is no way Goldstein could have been 'copying' Mortimer. So 'about 1 a.m.' must have been his estimate. Yet it is now being claimed that Mortimer locked up by 12:45, to avoid the possibility of her seeing (but not hearing), Schwartz & co. Goldstein's estimate contradicts this notion.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes but if there was a plot (and there wasn’t) then they (the plotters) would have had to have come up with it in the time between the body being found and the start of the search for a Constable.

Your choice of words is questionable. A plot is forward looking. A response to an event that has already occurred, cannot therefore be called a plot.

How on earth did you reach the conclusion that a response would have to be formulated before anyone went searching for police? Schwartz didn't go to police for another 16 or so hours.

So if for eg it’s being suggested that the body was found at 12.40 and Eagle went for a Constable at 12.55 say then that means that they saw the motive, came up with the plot and executed it all in the space of 15 minutes or so.

Who is suggesting that the body was found at 12:40? Perhaps you could explain the mental gymnastics that went into determining that a 'plot' that involves the body being found at 12:40, also included Schwartz turning into Berner street at 12:45, and seeing the would be victim speaking to a man?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don’t need this to be patronisingly ‘pointed out’ to me and I’ll repeat “why must they have noted it?”

More likely he just didn’t mention something that wasn’t germane to events that evening.

Diemschitz never mentioned meeting a man who was with a woman, nor does he say that a man and woman ran around to the yard with him. He only mentions meeting a man, who ran around to the yard with him. If the lady friend had been there when he met Spooner, it must have been a very quick 'goodnight' - Diemschitz had no reason to wait. So Spooner must have run off almost immediately on being told of the murder, leaving the woman to her own devices.

To suppose that Spooner didn't mention the fate of the lady friend, because it wasn't germane to events, would be a reasonable assumption if what he did say about the woman was true.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Nothing changes the fact that The Star interview doesn’t mention him stopping.

The Star to the rescue! Wow, who'd have thought? So who amongst us who has pilloried the Star report for it's (supposed) inaccuracies and exaggerations, now objects to the Star report being used to correct Abberline, where he was "very obviously" wrong?

In fact it has him looking back to see what was going on so clearly in this version Schwartz was in motion.

That would be after he witnesses the assault, which you conveniently failed to mention.

And in Swanson’s version:

No mention of him stopping. In fact he saw the second man ‘on crossing’ the road.

You conveniently failed to mention that Schwartz is at the gateway, when the man speaks to and then assaults the woman ...

... having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

Schwartz was at the gateway. The man and woman were at the gateway. It's simple. Yet it is also clearly a problem. How could Schwartz claim to stop and watch this, and yet run away in fear when a man smoking a pipe starts walking in his general direction, after he crosses the road and heads toward Fairclough street? It rather defies common sense. Hence your motivation to 'fix' the story.

So ok, we have 3 versions. One of which mentions stopping. Take your pick. The point about stopping or not isn’t a particularly important one so isn’t it possible that Abberline just assumed this? I don’t know which one is correct. You appear to be confident.

There are only 2 versions. One is the story Schwartz gave Abberline. The other is the story Schwartz gave the Star man. Only Schwartz can give a 'version', as it is his story alone. He may well have given another telling of the story at a later time (and I suspect he did), but there are only 2 definitive versions that we know of for certain. Everything else is derivative.

I don’t base the authenticity of Schwartz on anything particular. Witnesses usually tell the truth but can be mistaken of course. Why would he lie? How could he have been anything like confident that he wouldn’t be exposed as a liar? So…..

There is a massive amount of guesswork going on here. Why would he lie? Well that depends on exactly what happened during the murder, and in its immediate aftermath, and in response to those events. This question cannot be answered by armchair speculation. How could he be confident that he wouldn't be found out? Why assume he would have to have felt confident? Perhaps he felt he had little choice. When Goldstein was persuaded by Wess to go to Leman street, do you think he was feeling confident about the outcome? Yet if Goldstein had reservations, why wouldn't Schwartz? After all, all Goldstein supposedly did, was hurriedly walk down Berner street from Commercial Road, carrying his shiny black bag, before continuing on to his place near a railway arch. By contrast, Schwartz similar journey was much more eventful, and detailed enough that Abberline (according to yourself) was confused as to exactly what had occurred.

I think there was more going on that night, than your simple a, b & c choices allow for.