Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whistling on Berner Street

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    James Brown: When I heard screams of "Police" and "Murder" I opened the window, but could not see any one and the screams ceased. The cries were those of moving persons, and appeared to be going in the direction of Grove-street. Shortly afterwards I saw a policeman standing at the corner of Christian-street. I heard a man opposite call out to the constable that he was wanted. I then saw the policeman run along to Berner-street.

    I have argued that the man JB saw at the corner, was actually Ed Spooner. However, let's say for the sake of argument that he actually saw a Met constable. Presumably this constable made it to that point, after hearing Lamb's whistle when further away. Why didn't Brown also hear this whistle? Or did he just not mention it (possibly because he had forgotten hearing it)?
    Hi Andrew,

    I don't read it that way. I think the policeman that Brown saw was Collins and he had heard the WVC whistle and made his way to the corner of Christian-street. I think that he was then told by Harris that he was wanted, and he proceeded to Berner St.

    Cheers, George
    “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”
    If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
    Everybody lies - Greg House MD

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      Why are you so obsessed with this whistle?? I’m losing the will to live on this endlessly pointless quibbling and nitpicking and all to manufacture a plot. Someone blew a f*****g whistle. So what?

      Hoschberg wasn’t in the yard with the body at 12.45.
      At 12.45 Fanny was back indoors.
      Schwartz passed.
      Goldstein passed once and is an irrelevance.
      Stride is killed by an unknown man.
      Louis returned 1.00 (with a + or - on the accuracy of the clock.)
      Louis finds body.
      Police are found and come to yard.

      Thats what happened.

      No further comment required.

      Case closed until something new surfaces.




      Herlock,

      With this opinion and your wish to end discussion, might I be so bold as to ask why you are even on a thread titled "whistling in berner street"??

      Cheers, George
      “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”
      If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
      Everybody lies - Greg House MD

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

        You don't know that Spooner didn't hear the whistle, only that he didn't say he heard it. Speaking of Spooner, I agree with Jeff that he likely said he arrived at the yard at "about five to one" and that has been recorded as twenty five to one and then 12:35.

        This time of 12:45 that you keep dismissing. Was that Club time, or Police time, or Doctor time, or Mortimer time, or GMT, or.......? Perhaps you should re-read the comments made by Jeff and myself on our timelines?

        Cheers, George
        That’s why I said “then again” George and then I highlighted the word ‘the.’ I was pointing out that he didn’t say that Harris heard a whistle. So unless the interviewer or Spooner had mentioned the whistle before the interview commenced this might point to Spooner hearing it too.

        On your second point the problem is that although it can probably be called lazy posting by me it’s a pain to keep adding (plus or minus a reasonable margin for error/ including clock error) to every time that I mention in a quote. So just to be clear, what I’m saying is that there was nothing underhand going on. Hoschberg wasn’t with the body before Diemschitz was claiming to have been with the body. We also have to remember that Hoschberg used the word ‘about’ and the phrase ‘I should think,’ which clearly tells us that he wasn’t quoting a time that he’d just seen. He was estimating a time based on the last time that he’d looked at a clock whenever that was. So yes of course Diemschitz clock could have been out (as I’ve stated in previous posts) so when he arrived at the club it might have been 12.55 by club clock time and Hoschberg might only have noted the clock at say 12.15 and so estimated that he heard about the body 30 minutes later when it was actually later.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

          Herlock,

          With this opinion and your wish to end discussion, might I be so bold as to ask why you are even on a thread titled "whistling in berner street"??

          Cheers, George
          A fair question George.

          When I first posted on here after Christmas the posts weren’t whistle-related. I’ve noticed this in the past of course and have been equally to blame with crossover topics from the other Schwartz thread.

          The reason that I’m personally tired of the whistle stuff is that I can’t see where it gets us apart from more and more fanciful theories. Two people heard a whistle. So…

          Did another incident occur in another street which resulted in a Constable blowing his whistle?
          Did a ‘trigger happy’ WVC member blow his whistle in another street?
          Did Lamb blow his whistle when Eagle found him to get the attention of the FP officer?
          Was there a WVC member in Berner Street or even the yard who blew a whistle?

          We can’t answer any of these questions but it doesn’t appear to me to have any bearing on what happened unless it’s used to try and indicate an earlier discovery time.

          ​​​​​​……

          Its certainly frustrating when you are debating against people with an agenda. The absolute determination to prove that something fishy was going on that night. And then when you simply attempt to keep things on solid ground it’s repeated that you’re sentimentally attached to some kind of ‘orthodoxy’ (despite the fact that I’ve said the BS man might or might not have been the killer, and that the killer might or might not have been the ripper. I’ve even suggested that Schwartz might have misinterpreted the nature of the incident.)
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Its certainly frustrating when you are debating against people with an agenda. The absolute determination to prove that something fishy was going on that night. And then when you simply attempt to keep things on solid ground it’s repeated that you’re sentimentally attached to some kind of ‘orthodoxy’ (despite the fact that I’ve said the BS man might or might not have been the killer, and that the killer might or might not have been the ripper. I’ve even suggested that Schwartz might have misinterpreted the nature of the incident.)
            Nothing fishy was going on that night. Sure, two woman were brutally murdered, and 133 years later we still haven't identified the murderer(s). However, there was nothing fishy going on that night. Now can we please get back to solid ground?
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

              Nothing fishy was going on that night. Sure, two woman were brutally murdered, and 133 years later we still haven't identified the murderer(s). However, there was nothing fishy going on that night. Now can we please get back to solid ground?
              And at this late stage the chances of identifying are becoming more and more remote. And no, I’m not suggesting that we give up, but I don’t see how it helps to keep coming up with increasingly less and less likely scenarios. Or by building on slight differences in wording in Press reports or by interpreting everything without considering that there might be an entirely plausible non-sinister explanation. I think that we should always begin from a position that the so-called ‘official version’ was correct especially considering that the police knew far more than we did. And only then should we consider other possibilities if we have reasonable evidence where an alternative explanation is less likely.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                I don't agree with this argument specifically, or with this style of argument, in general. One could just as easily suggest that as the police supposedly 'hated their guts', they felt compelled to make up a story that would take the culprit away from the club, and onto the street. Either way, it is not adequate to suggest that the club's perception of the police's attitude toward them, would necessarily result in either complete cooperate, or a resolve to 'do something'. The validity of Schwartz's story, cannot be determined by in principle arguments.
                Since there is no way that I could be privy to the thinking process of the club's members, I thought it was apparent that I was simply expressing an opinion. If you don't agree with this style of argument, you most likely are going to be disappointed in most of the posts on these boards.

                c.d.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                  I don't agree with this argument specifically, or with this style of argument, in general. One could just as easily suggest that as the police supposedly 'hated their guts', they felt compelled to make up a story that would take the culprit away from the club, and onto the street. Either way, it is not adequate to suggest that the club's perception of the police's attitude toward them, would necessarily result in either complete cooperate, or a resolve to 'do something'. The validity of Schwartz's story, cannot be determined by in principle arguments.
                  Then how can we judge it? One way would be to suggest the a Police force coming under desperate pressure to apprehend the ripper. And that Abberline was an experienced and highly regarded officer who was there at the time speaking to witnesses face to face and yet he expressed no doubt at all in the validity of Schwartz statement. Indeed arrests were made (2 I believe) on the strength of it. And that even into November the Police were writing about Schwartz as a valid witness. Yes of course they could have been wrong but we can’t just assume it for convenience.

                  Then we have the fact that no one else saw the incident but reading Schwartz account leaves us with no doubt that this incident took place over a very short period of time and included little noise. So how can we express serious doubt purely on the basis that no one else witnessed it or heard it. We just can’t.

                  Then we have the difference in The Star interview. Even if this wasn’t down to Press exaggeration (not impossible but we can’t state it as a fact) or an error emanating from the use of 2 different interpreters this still doesn’t provide anything like solid evidence that Schwartz wasn’t there. He might even have added the part about the knife to try and cover his embarrassment at not offering assistance to a woman in distress.

                  Finally we have to ask ourselves how likely it would have been for a man to tell such a lie that placed him unwitnessed at the scene of a brutal murder around the time that it occurred when he’d actually been elsewhere? And why would he have risked this (if he hadn’t been there) when he wouldn’t have known if anyone else had been around at the time to prove that he was lying?

                  So when we take this as a whole, without getting carried away, we should come to the conclusion that the overwhelming likelihood is that Schwartz was where he said that he was and when he said that he was there (although, like other witnesses, we have no way of judging the accuracy of his time) and that he witnessed an incident outside Dutfield’s Yard involving a man and a woman.

                  This conclusion isn’t based on a sentimental attachment to an orthodox version and it isn’t coming from someone who is desperate for the case to remain unsolved. It’s simply coming from someone who refuses to get carried away about errors (especially where the Press are concerned)
                  Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 01-31-2022, 04:09 PM.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                    Why are you so obsessed with this whistle?? I’m losing the will to live on this endlessly pointless quibbling and nitpicking and all to manufacture a plot. Someone blew a f*****g whistle. So what?

                    Hoschberg wasn’t in the yard with the body at 12.45.
                    At 12.45 Fanny was back indoors.
                    Schwartz passed.
                    Goldstein passed once and is an irrelevance.
                    Stride is killed by an unknown man.
                    Louis returned 1.00 (with a + or - on the accuracy of the clock.)
                    Louis finds body.
                    Police are found and come to yard.

                    Thats what happened.

                    No further comment required.

                    Case closed until something new surfaces.



                    Im speechless. You have direct easy to source information that makes what you wrote above patently incorrect, yet you stand by it. Really remarkable.

                    1. Heschberg: :Yes; I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter.

                    2. There is no information anywhere by anyone that says Fanny was not at her door at 12:45, you "guess" she wasnt to fit your beliefs.

                    3. Goldsteins admitted pass as stated by Fanny is validation she was at her door when he passed, at 12:55-56.

                    4. Yeah, stride is killed by someone, we dont know who that someone is. It could be someone we already know was there though.

                    5. Louis absolutely cannot have arrived at 1, Fanny was at her door and saw no-one approach or arrive, and Lamb was with Eagle at the gates by 1am.

                    6. There is only Louis's statement that suggests he found the body, and we already know it could not have been when he said....so....

                    7. Lamb is summoned by Eagle, and they are joined by Issac Kozebrodksi, and they all are at the gates BY 1am.



                    So your "thats what happened" line is actually quite funny, because nothing you stated is what happened based on current data. You have ignored the evidence and made up your own theory. Fine. Stop pretending its the facts though, intentionally misrepresenting something isnt really a very popular thing these days in case you read papers or watch the news. People read these forums for facts and research, perhaps you should create a fictional page somewhere where you and other people who dont follow evidence can play these theory games you so enjoy. This is meant to be a place where legitimate researchers and investigators meet, your posts should therefore be relegated to General Discussion threads where fiction or even crackpot ideas can be posted.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                      Im speechless. You have direct easy to source information that makes what you wrote above patently incorrect, yet you stand by it. Really remarkable.

                      1. Heschberg: :Yes; I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter.

                      2. There is no information anywhere by anyone that says Fanny was not at her door at 12:45, you "guess" she wasnt to fit your beliefs.

                      3. Goldsteins admitted pass as stated by Fanny is validation she was at her door when he passed, at 12:55-56.

                      4. Yeah, stride is killed by someone, we dont know who that someone is. It could be someone we already know was there though.

                      5. Louis absolutely cannot have arrived at 1, Fanny was at her door and saw no-one approach or arrive, and Lamb was with Eagle at the gates by 1am.

                      6. There is only Louis's statement that suggests he found the body, and we already know it could not have been when he said....so....

                      7. Lamb is summoned by Eagle, and they are joined by Issac Kozebrodksi, and they all are at the gates BY 1am.



                      So your "thats what happened" line is actually quite funny, because nothing you stated is what happened based on current data. You have ignored the evidence and made up your own theory. Fine. Stop pretending its the facts though, intentionally misrepresenting something isnt really a very popular thing these days in case you read papers or watch the news. People read these forums for facts and research, perhaps you should create a fictional page somewhere where you and other people who dont follow evidence can play these theory games you so enjoy. This is meant to be a place where legitimate researchers and investigators meet, your posts should therefore be relegated to General Discussion threads where fiction or even crackpot ideas can be posted.
                      I’ll respond to this drivel later tonight or tomorrow.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                        Im speechless. You have direct easy to source information that makes what you wrote above patently incorrect, yet you stand by it. Really remarkable.

                        1. Heschberg: :Yes; I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter.

                        So in your world estimations are never wrong. Ok if that how you think there’s no point in applying logic.

                        2. There is no information anywhere by anyone that says Fanny was not at her door at 12:45, you "guess" she wasnt to fit your beliefs.

                        Naturally you consistently ignore the fact that she said that she went onto her doorstep just after Smith passed and Smith said that he passed between 12.30 and 12.35 meaning that if she spent around 10 minutes on her step (as she said) then she could have been (and almost certainly was) back inside by the time Schwartz arrived.

                        3. Goldsteins admitted pass as stated by Fanny is validation she was at her door when he passed, at 12:55-56.

                        Do we have a time for Goldstein or are we reliant on Fanny for this? Also, did you go back in time and ask him how he arrived at that time? How then can you judge its accuracy? Answer…you can’t of course.

                        4. Yeah, stride is killed by someone, we dont know who that someone is. It could be someone we already know was there though.

                        An unknown. Unlike some, I’m not opposed to admitting unknowns.

                        5. Louis absolutely cannot have arrived at 1, Fanny was at her door and saw no-one approach or arrive, and Lamb was with Eagle at the gates by 1am.

                        Opinion stated as fact purely to bolster a theory.

                        6. There is only Louis's statement that suggests he found the body, and we already know it could not have been when he said....so....

                        We know nothing of the kind. It’s just yet another thing that you’ve invented to bolster your discredited theory.

                        7. Lamb is summoned by Eagle, and they are joined by Issac Kozebrodksi, and they all are at the gates BY 1am.


                        Great work Dr Who. Baseless opinion stated as fact.


                        So your "thats what happened" line is actually quite funny, because nothing you stated is what happened based on current data. You have ignored the evidence and made up your own theory. Fine. Stop pretending its the facts though, intentionally misrepresenting something isnt really a very popular thing these days in case you read papers or watch the news. People read these forums for facts and research, perhaps you should create a fictional page somewhere where you and other people who dont follow evidence can play these theory games you so enjoy. This is meant to be a place where legitimate researchers and investigators meet, your posts should therefore be relegated to General Discussion threads where fiction or even crackpot ideas can be posted.
                        Yes they might and it’s an embarrassment to the subject when one person persists in promoting a theory that was discredited 20 years ago and remains discredited today. And in 10 years time it will still be discredited and considered a joke.

                        You’re right and everyone else is wrong.

                        Ever thought of becoming a Bond villain.




                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                          Hi Andrew,

                          I don't read it that way. I think the policeman that Brown saw was Collins and he had heard the WVC whistle and made his way to the corner of Christian-street. I think that he was then told by Harris that he was wanted, and he proceeded to Berner St.

                          Cheers, George
                          Spooner: I did not meet anyone as I was hastening to Berner-street, except Mr. Harris, who was coming out of his house in Tiger Bay when he heard the policeman's whistle. He came running after me.

                          So apparently Harris came running after Spooner, as Spooner was running to Berner street. So where did Harris end up? I'd suggest he ended up at the same place as Spooner did, whereas you're suggesting he ended up where Spooner started from. How did you come to that conclusion? Could I suggest that you need Harris to stay behind, to direct Collins to the yard, who just happens to have stopped right at the intersection that Spooner had been standing at moments earlier, pondering his next movement? Or was it that Spooner was actually WVC but perceived by Brown as being a constable, and his bird was imaginary, or had already flown?

                          Having said that, there is something quite odd about Spooner's (above) comments, assuming the MA reporter recorded him faithfully. For person X to meet person Y while moving from A to B, suggests that person Y was closer to B, at the start of X's journey. Yet Spooner also said "He came running after me". Is that not a contradiction? Now one way your scenario could be made to work, is to suppose that Harris ran in the opposite direction - East along Fairclough, running away from Berner street, and ending up at the Fairclough and Christian street intersection, having met Spooner on his way. So what was his starting point? Any chance it was the doorway of the Nelson?
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                            Since there is no way that I could be privy to the thinking process of the club's members, I thought it was apparent that I was simply expressing an opinion. If you don't agree with this style of argument, you most likely are going to be disappointed in most of the posts on these boards.

                            c.d.
                            Fine. So one of the key arguments in support of Schwartz - who's story seems to have near universal acceptance - turns out to be nothing but an opinion based on no evidence whatsoever.
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Then how can we judge it? One way would be to suggest the a Police force coming under desperate pressure to apprehend the ripper. And that Abberline was an experienced and highly regarded officer who was there at the time speaking to witnesses face to face and yet he expressed no doubt at all in the validity of Schwartz statement. Indeed arrests were made (2 I believe) on the strength of it. And that even into November the Police were writing about Schwartz as a valid witness. Yes of course they could have been wrong but we can’t just assume it for convenience.
                              Even into November? Wow, that's a long a time. Just for convenience, we ignore December, 1889, and the 1890's. So what happened after November? Did Scotland Yard finally realize that Schwartz was a fraud, and quietly cease any mention of him? It's also strange that Schwartz is not mentioned in any memoir. Had he caused too much embarrassment?

                              So when we take this as a whole, without getting carried away, we should come to the conclusion that the overwhelming likelihood is that Schwartz was where he said that he was and when he said that he was there (although, like other witnesses, we have no way of judging the accuracy of his time) and that he witnessed an incident outside Dutfield’s Yard involving a man and a woman.
                              The word 'Lipski' had strong connotations with murder. According to Schwartz, this word was not called after, but before the murder. That Schwartz seems to have gotten away with this, both then and now, is nothing less than extraordinary. The acceptance of the notion that 'Lipski' was called pre-murder, makes this one of the greatest cons in the history of crime.
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                                Even into November? Wow, that's a long a time. Just for convenience, we ignore December, 1889, and the 1890's. So what happened after November? Did Scotland Yard finally realize that Schwartz was a fraud, and quietly cease any mention of him? It's also strange that Schwartz is not mentioned in any memoir. Had he caused too much embarrassment?



                                The word 'Lipski' had strong connotations with murder. According to Schwartz, this word was not called after, but before the murder. That Schwartz seems to have gotten away with this, both then and now, is nothing less than extraordinary. The acceptance of the notion that 'Lipski' was called pre-murder, makes this one of the greatest cons in the history of crime.


                                ... The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her around and threw her down onto the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the other side of the street he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out, apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road, 'Lipski', and then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man, he ran so far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far.

                                Id like to see some evidence that you think makes it after ?. of course there is no way of knowing after he heard the 3 screams and he crossed the street if the cutting of her throat happened at that exact moment and then called out ''lipski ''.

                                ''Greatest cons in the history of crime'' . hmmmmm bit harsh .
                                Last edited by FISHY1118; 02-01-2022, 01:19 AM.
                                'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X