Whistling on Berner Street

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

If Lamb did check the clock, he'd have been able to say so, just like Louis D did, and give the precise time it was showing as he passed.

Do you consider it reasonable that Lamb would have neglected to mention this, and instead had to excuse his estimate of the time due to not having a watch?

Sounds to me like Lamb neglected to check the clock on this particular occasion. He was human after all.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

With all due respect, I disagree with your proposal in the stongest possible terms. It casts aspersions on the professionalism of Lamb purely to defend a polished up statement by Diemshitz.

Detective-Inspector Reid: How long before had you passed this place?
Witness: I am not on the Berner-street beat, but I passed the end of the street in Commercial-road six or seven minutes before.

Lamb was answering a question from Reid. Reid didn't ask about what clock and what time was showing. Reid was requesting a time interval. Reid and Lamb were professionals who knew the duties of a PC. Lamb was making it clear that he was estimating from the Harris clock and not deriving his time from a pocket watch. But if you can look at the physical barriers to Diemshitz actually being able to see the clock from his cart position and still accept his testimony while labelling Lamb as derelict in his duty, that's your call.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Now that's funny. If you are right, it would mean that Fanny could have witnessed the three men while standing on her doorstep: Schwartz, Pipeman with knife in hand and BS assaulting Stride, but said nothing because they knew where she lived and she could be next.

I don't think you really wanted to suggest that.

She could have witnessed the three men (or four), if Schwartz' tale were true - which it isn't

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It would only have occurred to Schwartz if he knew "Lipski" was an epithet directed at Jews and the story behind it. With no English, he'd have needed someone who spoke both languages to explain this to him at some point before he heard it being used by Stride's assailant.

Your assumption is that Schwartz cannot be a false witness, because he if he were, he would surely have claimed that 'Lipski' was aimed at him, implying that he knew the connotations of that word. Given you believe Schwartz to be a true witness, the question becomes; how is Abberline going to suggest or hint to Schwartz, that the word was aimed at him, if Schwartz doesn't either already know how the word is used, or Abberline explains to him, how the word is used? Either way, Schwartz needs to know for Abberline's questioning to make sense to Schwartz, and yet, Schwartz remains at best, undecided. Anderson's draft letter suggests that Schwartz was not undecided at all.

But assuming he did know, why would he have fannied around with it and suggested it was called out to an accomplice? If he 'knew exactly what he intended to convey' - that this thug had hurled an insult at him for being Jewish - he could have done it in the first place and left no room for interpretation.

For the reason I gave - if it was directed at Schwartz, then Pipeman has no reason to be 'startled', and run off. In the Pipeman as accomplice scenario, 'Lipski' becomes an alert to Pipeman - who is obviously asleep on the job - that a Jewish intruder is present. Again, aiming the call at Schwartz would amount to nothing bit a bit of verbal abuse, and once again, Pipeman would have very little or no reason to taking his marching orders from BS.

So for me, the epithet theory is out. A man named Lipski was never found. That leaves the murder connotation. So either BS is announcing to the street that he is about to murder the woman he is assaulting, or the murder has already occurred.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi George,

If Lamb did check the clock, he'd have been able to say so, just like Louis D did, and give the precise time it was showing as he passed.

Do you consider it reasonable that Lamb would have neglected to mention this, and instead had to excuse his estimate of the time due to not having a watch?

Sounds to me like Lamb neglected to check the clock on this particular occasion. He was human after all.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

However, it is conceivable that Mortimer saw more than she was willing to admit to the police, and so truncated about 20 minutes, down to 10. She may have been rather like Matthew Packer was initially - adamant that she had seen nothing suspicious, to avoid the possibility of any adverse reaction to herself or her family.

There are several scenarios with key witnesses that are never discussed, usually because people are too focused on protecting Schwartz.

Now that's funny. If you are right, it would mean that Fanny could have witnessed the three men while standing on her doorstep: Schwartz, Pipeman with knife in hand and BS assaulting Stride, but said nothing because they knew where she lived and she could be next.

I don't think you really wanted to suggest that.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Lamb testified that he was at the intersection of Commercial and Berner 6-7 minutes before he arrived at the yard. Diemshitz had already testified that he saw a clock at that location, the first time he had ever mentioned seeing a clock. Do you consider it reasonable that Lamb would not have checked the clock as he passed. He didn't have a pocket watch, so how was he to determine times if he ignored local clocks as he passed them. What reason would you put forward for his averting his eyes to avoid seeing the clock as he passed?

Hi George,

If Lamb did check the clock, he'd have been able to say so, just like Louis D did, and give the precise time it was showing as he passed.

Do you consider it reasonable that Lamb would have neglected to mention this, and instead had to excuse his estimate of the time due to not having a watch?

Sounds to me like Lamb neglected to check the clock on this particular occasion. He was human after all.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

This is a strawman argument. Who is claiming that no one else witnesses anything related? Is that the impression you get of me, after reading this post?

Too often members forget (or perhaps, 'forget') what other members have said on topics, from one day to the next. The gaps are then filled in in a way to make out that someone is a half-wit.

The post you linked me to is on a Witness thread I haven't caught up with since late October, so I have yet to read it in context with all the other related posts. My post here was related to previous posts here, as is usually the case unless otherwise specified.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Makes you wonder about Koz. Did Louis hear that Koz had said 12:40 to the press, and decide retrospectively that he'd seen the Harris clock?



Yeah, I have no idea who these men could be, who appear to be together or know each other





Charles Letchford was Jack the Ripper. Unfortunately, George, I don't have a plot. I did have one at one stage, but I lost it

Isn’t that the third ‘ripper’ that you’ve uncovered in Berner Street?

[caz]

Indeed it is plausible that 'Lipski' was called out to Schwartz, and not the man Schwartz first stated it was aimed at - obviously because Schwartz was the man of Jewish appearance. But plausibility can be a trap, and I think it's a trap that Abberline fell into. Don't you think it would have occurred to Schwartz; "Hey, I'm the Jewish guy, and 'Lipski' is a epithet directed at Jews, so the man that said that word must have been saying it to me". I think Schwartz knew exactly what he intended to convey.

It would only have occurred to Schwartz if he knew "Lipski" was an epithet directed at Jews and the story behind it. With no English, he'd have needed someone who spoke both languages to explain this to him at some point before he heard it being used by Stride's assailant. But assuming he did know, why would he have fannied around with it and suggested it was called out to an accomplice? If he 'knew exactly what he intended to convey' - that this thug had hurled an insult at him for being Jewish - he could have done it in the first place and left no room for interpretation.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Maybe it was the Club clock striking one???

Makes you wonder about Koz. Did Louis hear that Koz had said 12:40 to the press, and decide retrospectively that he'd seen the Harris clock?

My view of what the evidence suggests is that he crossed the road to avoid what he thought was a domestic. When he reached the Fairclough intersection he looked back to see what was happening. At that moment Pipeman appeared on the opposite corner and someone called out what sounded like Lipski (Lizzie??). Schwartz panicked and ran off down Berner St not knowing who was with who, just not wanting to be involved. In his first interview he thought BSman shouted Lipski but didn't know to whom it was directed. Given that it was dark and Schwartz and Pipeman were about the same 20 yard distance from BSman it is unlikely that he could have known. Second interview it is Pipeman verbalising to (or at?) BSman and making a move at "the intruder".

All in all, the is a lot of confusion in these interviews, some of which probably arose from interpretations by the interpreters and embellishments by the Star. I'm puzzled as to what may have been said in the interview with the Star that led them to use the word "intruder", and whether Schwartz's intention was that that word applied to him?

Yeah, I have no idea who these men could be, who appear to be together or know each other

Koster, Herschburg, Spooner and Harris, all worked for the vigilance committee.

BTW Andrew, you're still sniping. When will you roll out the complete plot?

Charles Letchford was Jack the Ripper. Unfortunately, George, I don't have a plot. I did have one at one stage, but I lost it

[GBinOz]

Yes, it is a bit of a joke. However, regarding your challenge, the closest I can find is in the Echo:

There are a pair of iron-studded and iron-capped gates at the entrance to the yard, in which are one or two cottage residences, besides stables. These on Sunday morning, at one o'clock, were open- as is usually the case during the night. The steward of the International and Educational Club reached the gate just as the clock struck one. "It was very dark," he said. "There is no light near here, and the darkness is consequently much more intense between these two walls" - pointing to the walls of the Club and a house on the other side of the yard- "than out in the street. The gate was pushed back, and the wheel of my cart bumped against something. I struck a match to see what it was, but the wind blew it out. However, the flash was enough to show me that the person was on the ground either asleep or dead.

Supposedly the cart struck something just as the Harris clock struck one.



George,
you seem to be avoiding what the evidence suggests - that Schwartz regarded the second man being an accomplice. If that seems far-fetched, that is problem for Schwartz, and not for us (to explain away). Also, you can change the 'to' to 'at' - it still suggests someone with at least basic English. So either Schwartz could indeed speak and understand English to some extent, or it was someone else who heard this interaction.

As for Pipeman validating Schwartz' story, what if it were the case that...?

The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

Suggesting that someone gave a very different account, to that of Schwartz.

Hi Andrew,

Maybe it was the Club clock striking one???

My view of what the evidence suggests is that he crossed the road to avoid what he thought was a domestic. When he reached the Fairclough intersection he looked back to see what was happening. At that moment Pipeman appeared on the opposite corner and someone called out what sounded like Lipski (Lizzie??). Schwartz panicked and ran off down Berner St not knowing who was with who, just not wanting to be involved. In his first interview he thought BSman shouted Lipski but didn't know to whom it was directed. Given that it was dark and Schwartz and Pipeman were about the same 20 yard distance from BSman it is unlikely that he could have known. Second interview it is Pipeman verbalising to (or at?) BSman and making a move at "the intruder".

All in all, the is a lot of confusion in these interviews, some of which probably arose from interpretations by the interpreters and embellishments by the Star. I'm puzzled as to what may have been said in the interview with the Star that led them to use the word "intruder", and whether Schwartz's intention was that that word applied to him?

BTW Andrew, you're still sniping. When will you roll out the complete plot?

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

It says a lot that a report of unknown origin, containing zero quotes, is given higher priority than a direct quote from the witness.



I said it was a possible scenario, not an assumption of mine. It's about considering various possibilities - something you clearly don't believe in.



You seem to be under the impression that calling stuff you don't like the sound of, 'conspiracy', makes your position unassailable. Does anyone who suggests that Packer was initially reticent to tell the police what he had seen, automatically become the peddler of some big conspiracy?



Because you want the Ripper to remain anonymous.



Because Schwartz' story is so absurd, that it doesn't even pass the giggle test.

I’m not going to respond to individual nonsense I’ll just respond to the nonsense as a whole. The suggestion that I want the ripper to remain anonymous is a tired old cliché born of desperation and not worthy of a response.

The suggestion that Schwartz story is somehow ‘absurd’ is baseless, pointless and plain dumb.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Whether it was the last 10, the first 10 or the middle 10, 10 minutes out of 30 is still not ‘nearly the whole time.’ I can’t believe that you’re en attempting to argue that it could have been. It says a lot.

It says a lot that a report of unknown origin, containing zero quotes, is given higher priority than a direct quote from the witness.

Ok, so now you’re assuming that Fanny had something to hide. You have the nerve to suggest that I’m trying to protect Schwartz when you’ve accused just about every witness at some point of having something to hide.

I said it was a possible scenario, not an assumption of mine. It's about considering various possibilities - something you clearly don't believe in.

How big was this conspiracy?

You seem to be under the impression that calling stuff you don't like the sound of, 'conspiracy', makes your position unassailable. Does anyone who suggests that Packer was initially reticent to tell the police what he had seen, automatically become the peddler of some big conspiracy?

And again I’ll ask - why would a man (me) who openly says that Stride might or might not have been a ripper victim have any interest in protecting Schwartz?

Because you want the Ripper to remain anonymous.

The question should be - why are our 2 cover-up merchants so desperate to discredit him?

Because Schwartz' story is so absurd, that it doesn't even pass the giggle test.

[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.

Yes, it is a bit of a joke. However, regarding your challenge, the closest I can find is in the Echo:

There are a pair of iron-studded and iron-capped gates at the entrance to the yard, in which are one or two cottage residences, besides stables. These on Sunday morning, at one o'clock, were open- as is usually the case during the night. The steward of the International and Educational Club reached the gate just as the clock struck one. "It was very dark," he said. "There is no light near here, and the darkness is consequently much more intense between these two walls" - pointing to the walls of the Club and a house on the other side of the yard- "than out in the street. The gate was pushed back, and the wheel of my cart bumped against something. I struck a match to see what it was, but the wind blew it out. However, the flash was enough to show me that the person was on the ground either asleep or dead.

Supposedly the cart struck something just as the Harris clock struck one.

AFAIK the Star report of Schwartz's story didn't include the word "Lipski".

"but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.".

I agree with the points made about errors in translation that may have occurred and the effect they could have on the interpretation. For instance, changing one word here gives a completely different meaning: "and shouting out some sort of warning at the man who was with the woman". I doubt that, when Schwartz was talking to the Star reporter, he meant to portray himself in the role of "the intruder.". What if Pipeman was interviewed by police afterwards, as you suggest, thus validating Schwartz's presence, and Pipeman said he threatened BS to stop bothering Stride and that BS departed as a result?

George,
you seem to be avoiding what the evidence suggests - that Schwartz regarded the second man being an accomplice. If that seems far-fetched, that is problem for Schwartz, and not for us (to explain away). Also, you can change the 'to' to 'at' - it still suggests someone with at least basic English. So either Schwartz could indeed speak and understand English to some extent, or it was someone else who heard this interaction.

As for Pipeman validating Schwartz' story, what if it were the case that...?

The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

Suggesting that someone gave a very different account, to that of Schwartz.

[Herlock Sholmes]

By being the last 10 minutes, and not the entire 30 minutes.

However, it is conceivable that Mortimer saw more than she was willing to admit to the police, and so truncated about 20 minutes, down to 10. She may have been rather like Matthew Packer was initially - adamant that she had seen nothing suspicious, to avoid the possibility of any adverse reaction to herself or her family.

There are several scenarios with key witnesses that are never discussed, usually because people are too focused on protecting Schwartz.

Whether it was the last 10, the first 10 or the middle 10, 10 minutes out of 30 is still not ‘nearly the whole time.’ I can’t believe that you’re en attempting to argue that it could have been. It says a lot.

Ok, so now you’re assuming that Fanny had something to hide. You have the nerve to suggest that I’m trying to protect Schwartz when you’ve accused just about every witness at some point of having something to hide. How big was this conspiracy?

And again I’ll ask - why would a man (me) who openly says that Stride might or might not have been a ripper victim have any interest in protecting Schwartz?

The question should be - why are our 2 cover-up merchants so desperate to discredit him?