Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whistling on Berner Street

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

  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    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?
    Hi Andrew,

    Harris came out of Brunswick St as Diemshitz, Spooner and Jacobs were running west past the intersection. Harris chases them briefly to find out why the police whistle has been blown. Diemshitz and Spooner and maybe Jacobs then proceed back to the yard. There is no mention of Harris at the yard. Constables wear uniforms, so no, Brown didn't mistake Spooner for a constable and there is no evidence that Spooner was WVC. Collins was directed by Harris, or failing that, Jacobs if he didn't return to the yard. Both Harris and Jacobs MAY have been WVC, as those names appear on the WVC list - Spooner's name does not. That is the way I see it. You are free to formulate your own theories but I think your third paragraph, and your posts #493 and #494 are large leaps of speculation.

    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


    • Double post
      “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


      • The two whistlers is based on Hoschburg and Spooner. Hoschburg's account isn't exactly forensic, it's a rough estimation and should be seen as such.

        Spooner's account is a press report, which are always open to interpretation to greater or lesser extents. Adjust the printed punctuation, the words still flow naturally but the meaning can be subtly different. Spooner is quoted as saying:


        By a Juryman. - 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.

        But, did he actually say ' I did not meet anyone as I was hastening to Berner St, 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.'

        Harris still hears a whistle, Spooner's already there, just before Lamb. Problem solved.
        Thems the Vagaries.....

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

          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.
          You can’t be serious?

          The names Lipski was used as an insult and not as an accusation of being a murderer.
          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 02-01-2022, 09:30 AM.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          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 fact that the Police were still mentioning him in November shows that they were taking him seriously during the investigation. I’m not aware of any later records mentioning the case so I can’t say whether or not Schwartz was mentioned after November.

            It’s also possible that the Police at the time cleared up any ‘mysteries.’ So they might have double-checked his story of his reason for being in Berner Street at the time. They might also have gotten to the bottom of the discrepancies in The Star. After all isn’t it possible that the police would have become aware of the addition of a knife in The Star interview and decided to question him about it?
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            Comment


            • Can I ask a general question? Do we have a quote where Goldstein himself gives a time that he passed along Berner Street?
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                Hi Andrew,

                Harris came out of Brunswick St as Diemshitz, Spooner and Jacobs were running west past the intersection. Harris chases them briefly to find out why the police whistle has been blown. Diemshitz and Spooner and maybe Jacobs then proceed back to the yard. There is no mention of Harris at the yard. Constables wear uniforms, so no, Brown didn't mistake Spooner for a constable and there is no evidence that Spooner was WVC. Collins was directed by Harris, or failing that, Jacobs if he didn't return to the yard. Both Harris and Jacobs MAY have been WVC, as those names appear on the WVC list - Spooner's name does not. That is the way I see it. You are free to formulate your own theories but I think your third paragraph, and your posts #493 and #494 are large leaps of speculation.

                Cheers, George
                George,
                I think there are a few issues here.

                Spooner is not quoted as saying 'Brunswick street' - he only mentioned Tiger Bay, which is very general. One reporter inserted (Brunswick street) in brackets, and how this was determined or guessed, is unclear. I think I've mentioned it previously, that there is no record of a Mr Harris in Brunswick street, in the 1891 census. Not that that's definitive for 1888, of course.

                If Harris chased the men briefly, to find out what was going on, then what you're implying is that Harris ran them down. Yet Spooner apparently described this as he and Harris meeting while on his way to the yard. So as Spooner was running along, Mr Harris supposedly sprung up by his side, being the speedster he apparently was, and was quickly told about the murder. By this point the men must have just about been in Berner street, yet you're claiming Harris inexplicably went back to the intersection, which is actually slightly further east than Brunswick street. Why on earth would he do that?

                True, there is no mention of Harris at the yard. Does it follow that he wasn't there? Perhaps tell me which of the following is true...

                There is no evidence that Spooner's lady friend was in the yard, and that is because:

                * He left her stranded on the street
                * She went along to the yard with him, but he just never gave even a hint that that was the case

                Constables do wear uniforms, and some WVC patrolmen may have carried lanterns. Presumably Brown could clearly distinguish that uniform from behind his window, in the lighting conditions that prevailed. Another thing about constables on a beat, is that they keep moving. They are walking their beats, attending to an incident, or responding to a whistle. Why would Collins be standing still? If he had heard a whistle, he should keep moving in the direction he heard it come from. Not stop and wait for the chance assistance of someone from the public.

                As for Spooner not being WVC, anyone in agreement that he was not, should have a good answer to the lady friend problem. If you're keen on Jacobs being WVC, then how keen are you on Mr Harris being also, given there were three Harris's on the committee? Now if Mr Harris is assumed to be WVC, and Spooner is out on the street, and he knows Harris by name, then there is a case for joining the dots. As for Spooner's name not being on the WVC list, that is simple to explain - not all patrolmen were committee members.
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                  The two whistlers is based on Hoschburg and Spooner. Hoschburg's account isn't exactly forensic, it's a rough estimation and should be seen as such.

                  Spooner's account is a press report, which are always open to interpretation to greater or lesser extents. Adjust the printed punctuation, the words still flow naturally but the meaning can be subtly different. Spooner is quoted as saying:


                  By a Juryman. - 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.

                  But, did he actually say ' I did not meet anyone as I was hastening to Berner St, 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.'

                  Harris still hears a whistle, Spooner's already there, just before Lamb. Problem solved.
                  Problem solved? Spooner's already there, and yet Spooner still meets Harris, as he was hastening to Berner street.
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    George,
                    I think there are a few issues here.

                    Spooner is not quoted as saying 'Brunswick street' - he only mentioned Tiger Bay, which is very general. One reporter inserted (Brunswick street) in brackets, and how this was determined or guessed, is unclear. I think I've mentioned it previously, that there is no record of a Mr Harris in Brunswick street, in the 1891 census. Not that that's definitive for 1888, of course.

                    If Harris chased the men briefly, to find out what was going on, then what you're implying is that Harris ran them down. Yet Spooner apparently described this as he and Harris meeting while on his way to the yard. So as Spooner was running along, Mr Harris supposedly sprung up by his side, being the speedster he apparently was, and was quickly told about the murder. By this point the men must have just about been in Berner street, yet you're claiming Harris inexplicably went back to the intersection, which is actually slightly further east than Brunswick street. Why on earth would he do that?

                    True, there is no mention of Harris at the yard. Does it follow that he wasn't there? Perhaps tell me which of the following is true...

                    There is no evidence that Spooner's lady friend was in the yard, and that is because:

                    * He left her stranded on the street
                    * She went along to the yard with him, but he just never gave even a hint that that was the case

                    Constables do wear uniforms, and some WVC patrolmen may have carried lanterns. Presumably Brown could clearly distinguish that uniform from behind his window, in the lighting conditions that prevailed. Another thing about constables on a beat, is that they keep moving. They are walking their beats, attending to an incident, or responding to a whistle. Why would Collins be standing still? If he had heard a whistle, he should keep moving in the direction he heard it come from. Not stop and wait for the chance assistance of someone from the public.

                    As for Spooner not being WVC, anyone in agreement that he was not, should have a good answer to the lady friend problem. If you're keen on Jacobs being WVC, then how keen are you on Mr Harris being also, given there were three Harris's on the committee? Now if Mr Harris is assumed to be WVC, and Spooner is out on the street, and he knows Harris by name, then there is a case for joining the dots. As for Spooner's name not being on the WVC list, that is simple to explain - not all patrolmen were committee members.
                    Andrew,

                    Tiger Bay was the area around Brunswick St. Harris chased briefly and attracted their attention. While returning home he spotted Collins who had stopped to get his bearings. Spooner had already said goodnight to his lady friend. Police helmets were distinctive. "Hello, my name is Harris".

                    I am offering some speculation of the press reports. I think that the dots you are joining have fallen off the page.

                    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 NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                      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.
                      I'm a little confused here. So the argument that the club members would have come up with a story for Schwartz in order to save their jobs and deflect suspicion away from the club is an established fact and not an opinion? Damn! Who knew?

                      c.d.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        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.



                        Im surprised that you didnt explain why you posted statements that are quite easily recognized as being wholly inaccurate, and instead chose to insult me for doing so. Very Trumpian of you.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                          I'm a little confused here. So the argument that the club members would have come up with a story for Schwartz in order to save their jobs and deflect suspicion away from the club is an established fact and not an opinion? Damn! Who knew?

                          c.d.
                          Well, its not a reach to suggest it. Schwartz quite obviously, despite various contemporary and modern opinions offering their personal support for his statement, had no official confidence shown by entering it as evidence in the Inquest into how Liz Stride dies. And it does suggest that, based upon the scenario he creates, that her killer was seen assaulting her OFF PREMISES...thereby insinuating that all 30 or so of the people who were ON PREMISES at that time had nothing to do with her murder. The convenience of this for the club seems to escape many... oddly, but these are the facts.

                          As I pointed out earlier, a leading Socialist figure at that time refused to speak at the club because he felt they were Anarchists, not Socialists, and the local police and neighbors seem to agree with him. This club did not have a law abiding reputation therefore, so a murder perhaps committed by someone affiliated with that club on that clubs property would be a very formidable obstacle to their remaining open.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                            Well, its not a reach to suggest it. Schwartz quite obviously, despite various contemporary and modern opinions offering their personal support for his statement, had no official confidence shown by entering it as evidence in the Inquest into how Liz Stride dies. And it does suggest that, based upon the scenario he creates, that her killer was seen assaulting her OFF PREMISES...thereby insinuating that all 30 or so of the people who were ON PREMISES at that time had nothing to do with her murder. The convenience of this for the club seems to escape many... oddly, but these are the facts.

                            As I pointed out earlier, a leading Socialist figure at that time refused to speak at the club because he felt they were Anarchists, not Socialists, and the local police and neighbors seem to agree with him. This club did not have a law abiding reputation therefore, so a murder perhaps committed by someone affiliated with that club on that clubs property would be a very formidable obstacle to their remaining open.
                            Looks to me like you like you are expressing an opinion rather than stating a fact. Look out. NBFN is going to rip you a new one!

                            c.d.

                            Comment


                            • Schwartz quite obviously, despite various contemporary and modern opinions offering their personal support for his statement, had no official confidence shown by entering it as evidence in the Inquest into how Liz Stride dies.

                              Here we go again. Since you don't actually KNOW why Schwartz did not appear at the inquest you are putting forth your opinion not a FACT. And again, Fanny Mortimer did not appear. Clearly the police had no confidence in her story. There can be no other explanation, right?

                              c.d.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                                Schwartz quite obviously, despite various contemporary and modern opinions offering their personal support for his statement, had no official confidence shown by entering it as evidence in the Inquest into how Liz Stride dies.

                                Here we go again. Since you don't actually KNOW why Schwartz did not appear at the inquest you are putting forth your opinion not a FACT. And again, Fanny Mortimer did not appear. Clearly the police had no confidence in her story. There can be no other explanation, right?

                                c.d.
                                You seem to have some problems digesting this, but again...IF Schwartz had been believed his story would have to be considered in the question of How Liz Stride died, which is the Inquest purpose. Not who killed her, not what was used to kill her, just was it Murder or something else. A witnessed assault on her minutes before her throat being cut, and feet from that location, is not only germane it would be the most important evidence presented. So yeah...its a fact his story was not believed...whether they thought he lied, or couldnt prove what he said is irrelevant.

                                Fanny Mortimer saw only a young couple and Leon Goldstein during that half hour. Neither of those parties had any interaction with the location of the murder, or the deceased. Her value is in the murder investigation, not to How Liz Stride dies, because nothing she saw or didnt see addressed that specific question. In the murder investigation, her evidence IS valuable, but is not for public disclosure. She is evidence that no-one from the street was seen entering those gates during that half hour....since she was there "nearly the whole time". The fact she doesnt see Israel or any of what he claimed isnt relevant since his statement obviously wasnt believed anyway. That explains why both parties were not summoned. Im sure Ill have to state this again, repeating the obvious is a thing that is done by necessity here quite a bit, for some reason.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X