Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whistling on Berner Street

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

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    The need to correct you seems to be constant...

    For #1, I never, ever said that Fanny was definitely at her door at 12:45. Re-read the posts if you are still unclear. #2, YOU stated it as fact she wasnt....your post #478..."At 12.45 Fanny was back indoors....thats what happened". You do recall your own posts dont you? And for number 3, on what basis can you dispute Fannys claim she was at her door "almost the whole time" between 12:30 and 12:45? Do you have one tiny piece of actual evidence for this persistent disparaging of her statement? Just one? Anything? Of course you dont....it doesnt exist. Which means much of what you write isnt a reflection of actual statements and evidence, its what you believe actually happened and when.

    One would think that being exposed as someone who posts provable falsehoods might at some point fear for his/her reputation on the topic, having been called on this many times. And for the last time, Fanny never once said she went to her door after "SMITH" passed, thats another of your own historical invention.

    Mortimer said that she was on her doorstep almost the whole of the time between 12.30 and 1.00 which is clearly incorrect.

    No of course she didn’t mention Smith by name but this is childish nitpicking. She said that she went onto her doorstep after hearing a Constable pass. No I don’t hear many Victorian Constable’s passing my house but Fanny would have heard them every day. She knew that it was a Constable and indeed a Constable did pass by her house. He was called Smith and he said that he passed between 12.30 and 12.35. Fanny went onto her doorstep just after he’d passed for around 10 minutes.

    This is all that we need to know. Neither of us can prove the exact time that Fanny went onto her doorstep. Neither of us can prove the exact duration of her stay. And that’s the point. Fanny Mortimer CANNOT be used to disprove Schwartz presence. It’s not honest to attempt to do so. But you do of course.

    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

      The police rightly investigated any statements submitted by any witness. The Inquest, despite Mr Orsams apparent disagreement with me (and such a well respected man by Ripperologists too...oh well), is clearly devoid of Israel, his story, his characters and his storyline. But in the context of the Inquest establishing whether Stride was murdered is a paramount concern. His story would clearly provide some evidence that suggests she was murdered, and by the same man who he claims assaulted her in the street. Side point, ONLY Israel Schwartz gave a statement that includes Liz Stride in the street after 12:35, all other witnesses saw an empty street during that time. Brown obviously didnt see Stride, thats why I exclude him. Interesting that they did include him at the Inquest though. For the exact same time as Schwartz gives his altercation. Hmm.

      To some of your other insights, one cannot move a body that has a trail of blood 10 feet or more long. And we have the young couple still about, even if Fanny is indoors at that time. The suggestion that the assault began off premises, despite your "convenience" interpretations, would exonerate ALL of the people still at the club immediately. Thats not in their interests? The club was an anarchist club, referred to as such and with the kind of reputation that goes with that term. All the revised interpretations of what they really were, and that they were really just law abiding folk, is dismissed by the fact that the steward of the club and arguably the one who most represented its values attacked the police with a club on that same property not long after this event.
      Drivel.

      Try reading instead of making things up. Read The Coroners Act 1887 to find out the aims of an Inquest. To continue to deny an absolute fact fact is typical of you. A disgrace to the subject.

      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

        Clear and accurate.
        Of course Mr Grassy and Mr Knoll are going to agree with each other.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

          The police rightly investigated any statements submitted by any witness. The Inquest, despite Mr Orsams apparent disagreement with me (and such a well respected man by Ripperologists too...oh well), is clearly devoid of Israel, his story, his characters and his storyline. But in the context of the Inquest establishing whether Stride was murdered is a paramount concern. His story would clearly provide some evidence that suggests she was murdered, and by the same man who he claims assaulted her in the street. Side point, ONLY Israel Schwartz gave a statement that includes Liz Stride in the street after 12:35, all other witnesses saw an empty street during that time. Brown obviously didnt see Stride, thats why I exclude him. Interesting that they did include him at the Inquest though. For the exact same time as Schwartz gives his altercation. Hmm.

          To some of your other insights, one cannot move a body that has a trail of blood 10 feet or more long. And we have the young couple still about, even if Fanny is indoors at that time. The suggestion that the assault began off premises, despite your "convenience" interpretations, would exonerate ALL of the people still at the club immediately. Thats not in their interests? The club was an anarchist club, referred to as such and with the kind of reputation that goes with that term. All the revised interpretations of what they really were, and that they were really just law abiding folk, is dismissed by the fact that the steward of the club and arguably the one who most represented its values attacked the police with a club on that same property not long after this event.
          A scenario can’t just be wished into existence.

          Invent a motive.
          Find a couple of timing errors.
          Invent a plot no matter how infantile.
          Defend it at all costs even after 20+ years of dismissal.

          Bob’s your uncle and a ‘theory’ is born.

          Sad really.

          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

            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
            George, I know where Tiger Bay was, and Brunswick street. My point is that you seem to be falsely attributing the words 'Brunswick street', to Ed Spooner. He is not quoted as mentioning that street, only Tiger Bay. Having Harris come out of Brunswick street, is an assumption.

            The notion that Harris chased briefly, and while doing so formally introduced himself before being informed of the murder, and then returned home without ever going to the yard, is pure supposition on your part. What dots have you joined to come up with this story?

            If Harris spotted Collins while returning home, how long had it taken him to not quite make it back to Brunswick street? After Spooner made it to the yard and observed the victim, he tells us he waited for about 5 minutes before Lamb arrived. Shortly after, Lamb blew his whistle, and presumably, Collins heard that whistle. Then Collins makes it as far as the C & F intersection. In all that time, you're suggesting the speedster Harris had still not made his way back home.

            Police helmets were distinctive, but recall what Brown said about the man and woman he sees on his return from the chandlers shop...

            I am certain the woman was the deceased. I did not notice any flowers in her dress. The man had his arm up against the wall, and the woman had her back to the wall facing him. I noticed the man had a long coat on, which came very nearly down to his heels. I believe it was an overcoat. I could not say what kind of cap he had on. The place where they were standing was rather dark. I saw nothing light in colour about either of them.

            Are you certain that Brown observed the constables headwear, from behind a window? Could he have just assumed that the man who was wanted, must have been a policeman?

            You claim that Spooner had already said goodnight to his lady friend. This raises a few questions.

            Between half-past 12 and 1 o'clock on Sunday morning I was standing outside the Bee Hive publichouse, at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street, along with a young woman. ... After talking for about 25 minutes I saw two Jews come running along and shouting out "Murder" and "Police."

            Who had Spooner been talking with, when the two men came running along?

            Why do you suppose Spooner did not walk his lady friend home?

            Why did Spooner remain standing on the street, after he and the woman said goodnight?
            Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

            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.
              You're a little confused, because you're confusing me with Michael Richards. At least you aren't doing it deliberately.

              I think the situation was a little more complicated than the simple story of the club coming up with a story.
              Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                The police rightly investigated any statements submitted by any witness. The Inquest, despite Mr Orsams apparent disagreement with me (and such a well respected man by Ripperologists too...oh well), is clearly devoid of Israel, his story, his characters and his storyline. But in the context of the Inquest establishing whether Stride was murdered is a paramount concern. His story would clearly provide some evidence that suggests she was murdered, and by the same man who he claims assaulted her in the street. Side point, ONLY Israel Schwartz gave a statement that includes Liz Stride in the street after 12:35, all other witnesses saw an empty street during that time. Brown obviously didnt see Stride, thats why I exclude him. Interesting that they did include him at the Inquest though. For the exact same time as Schwartz gives his altercation. Hmm.

                To some of your other insights, one cannot move a body that has a trail of blood 10 feet or more long. And we have the young couple still about, even if Fanny is indoors at that time. The suggestion that the assault began off premises, despite your "convenience" interpretations, would exonerate ALL of the people still at the club immediately. Thats not in their interests? The club was an anarchist club, referred to as such and with the kind of reputation that goes with that term. All the revised interpretations of what they really were, and that they were really just law abiding folk, is dismissed by the fact that the steward of the club and arguably the one who most represented its values attacked the police with a club on that same property not long after this event.
                Hi Michael,

                Oh, I agree, moving the body would be difficult as they would need to wrap it to prevent a dripping blood trail at the very least; then get some buckets to wash away the blood at the scene, and find a new location to dispose of it, all without getting spotted by the PC who is probably due on his beat fairly soon.

                But, doing so would solve what you called the inconvenience of having a body on their doorstep. What I can't understand, is after they reject something that would theoretically solve this problem, why they then resort to shifting the time of discovery? I don't see that as solving any of their problem? It doesn't matter when she was killed, the problem is that she was killed next to their club. And given Schwartz's story implicates a Jewish offender, that doesn't really point away from the club members now does it? None of the problem is even remotely addressed if we presume they are "making something up" rather than simply "telling it as they recall".

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                  George, I know where Tiger Bay was, and Brunswick street. My point is that you seem to be falsely attributing the words 'Brunswick street', to Ed Spooner. He is not quoted as mentioning that street, only Tiger Bay. Having Harris come out of Brunswick street, is an assumption.
                  No, it is speculation, as stated.
                  The notion that Harris chased briefly, and while doing so formally introduced himself before being informed of the murder, and then returned home without ever going to the yard, is pure supposition on your part. What dots have you joined to come up with this story?
                  No, it is speculation, as stated. No joined dots. They are all yours.
                  If Harris spotted Collins while returning home, how long had it taken him to not quite make it back to Brunswick street? After Spooner made it to the yard and observed the victim, he tells us he waited for about 5 minutes before Lamb arrived. Shortly after, Lamb blew his whistle, and presumably, Collins heard that whistle. Then Collins makes it as far as the C & F intersection. In all that time, you're suggesting the speedster Harris had still not made his way back home.
                  No, speculation, as stated.
                  Police helmets were distinctive, but recall what Brown said about the man and woman he sees on his return from the chandlers shop...

                  I am certain the woman was the deceased. I did not notice any flowers in her dress. The man had his arm up against the wall, and the woman had her back to the wall facing him. I noticed the man had a long coat on, which came very nearly down to his heels. I believe it was an overcoat. I could not say what kind of cap he had on. The place where they were standing was rather dark. I saw nothing light in colour about either of them.

                  Are you certain that Brown observed the constables headwear, from behind a window? Could he have just assumed that the man who was wanted, must have been a policeman?
                  No, speculation, as stated. I don't know and neither do you.
                  You claim that Spooner had already said goodnight to his lady friend. This raises a few questions.
                  No, it doesn't, I make no claim, it is speculation, as stated.
                  Between half-past 12 and 1 o'clock on Sunday morning I was standing outside the Bee Hive publichouse, at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street, along with a young woman. ... After talking for about 25 minutes I saw two Jews come running along and shouting out "Murder" and "Police."

                  Who had Spooner been talking with, when the two men came running along?
                  I don't know and neither do you. It is speculation, as stated.
                  Why do you suppose Spooner did not walk his lady friend home?
                  I don't know and neither do you. It is speculation, as stated.
                  Why did Spooner remain standing on the street, after he and the woman said goodnight?
                  I don't know and neither do you. It is speculation, as stated.
                  Andrew,

                  When you raise a series of questions, to which no one knows the answers, and I respond with a scenario that I label as speculation, you want to examine and contest every detail of my conjectures. I have in my mind what I currently consider to be a reasonable assessment of what happened and have laid it out for peer comment and criticism. I accept that others have different views and believe I profit from hearing them even if I don't concur. Despite several attempts to persuade you to present your overall theory, you continue to snipe from the shadows so that no one knows which dots you are trying to connect to which. Perhaps you could give us all the benefit of your answers to the questions that you have posed to me in your post?

                  Cheers, George
                  Last edited by GBinOz; 02-02-2022, 05:53 AM.
                  They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
                  Out of a misty dream
                  Our path emerges for a while, then closes
                  Within a dream.
                  Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

                  ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    George, I know where Tiger Bay was, and Brunswick street. My point is that you seem to be falsely attributing the words 'Brunswick street', to Ed Spooner. He is not quoted as mentioning that street, only Tiger Bay. Having Harris come out of Brunswick street, is an assumption.
                    From the Inquest

                    . By the jury. – As I was going to Berner-street I did not meet any one except Mr. Harris, who came out of his house in Tiger Bay (Brunswick-street). Mr. Harris told me he had heard the policeman’s whistle blowing.
                    Now of course we can’t be certain that Brunswick Street wasn’t added by a reporter for added information but it might also have been added by Spooner himself; perhaps in response to a question?
                    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 02-02-2022, 10:24 AM.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                      Why do you suppose Spooner did not walk his lady friend home?

                      Why did Spooner remain standing on the street, after he and the woman said goodnight?
                      If you place such significance in the use of single words like ‘up’ as opposed to the word ‘down’ in the case of FM and Goldstein, I can’t think why you place no significance in the word ‘I?’

                      . I then went round with them to Berner-street,

                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                        You're a little confused, because you're confusing me with Michael Richards. At least you aren't doing it deliberately.

                        I think the situation was a little more complicated than the simple story of the club coming up with a story.
                        More complicated?

                        Why don’t you tell us what you think really happened? We’ll all assemble in the drawing room…..over to you Monsieur Poirot.

                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                        Comment


                        • .
                          To some of your other insights, one cannot move a body that has a trail of blood 10 feet or more long. And we have the young couple still about, even if Fanny is indoors at that time
                          Louis finds the body.
                          They decided that the Police would take a dim view of them hosting a ripper murder.
                          They have a horse and cart. So…
                          They close the gates.
                          They wrap the body in something.
                          They put it onto Louis cart and open the gates.
                          Louis (possible with a helper) drives away to dump the body elsewhere.
                          They close the gates giving them hours to clean away the blood (no reason for anyone to check the yard)

                          The problem with this of course is the same problem that exists with Michael’s version of what happened. They were reliant on around 30 club members all playing ball. That none of them has their consciences pricked and decided to spill the beans. And unlike Michael’s plan of course they would have had to have remembered to have informed ‘everyone’ present about the plot. Obviously they wouldn’t have wanted a couple of members giving away the ‘real’ discovery time of course. And of course it wouldn’t have involved using a non-English speaking false witness. Or a useless interpreter who couldn’t even manage to tell the police “I saw a man fighting with a woman and the man shouted ‘Lipski’ at me.” A non-English speaking false witness plus the world’s most useless interpreter. Could anything be less believable?
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                          Comment


                          • Hi Herlock,

                            Leaving aside any conspiracy theories, given the destructive anti-sematic reaction to the previous murders and the decision by Warren to erase the Goulston Street graffiti on the basis of preventing riots against the Jewry, do you think it unreasonable that the members of the Socialist club, many of whom were Jews, might have experienced some trepidation over what may result from the circumstances of Stride's murder?

                            Cheers, George
                            Last edited by GBinOz; 02-02-2022, 12:33 PM.
                            They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
                            Out of a misty dream
                            Our path emerges for a while, then closes
                            Within a dream.
                            Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

                            ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                              Hi Herlock,

                              Leaving aside any conspiracy theories, given the destructive anti-sematic reaction to the previous murders and the decision by Warren to erase the Goulston Street graffiti on the basis of preventing riots against the Jewry, do you think it unreasonable that the members of the Socialist club, many of whom were Jews, might have experienced some trepidation over what may result from the circumstances of Stride's murder?

                              Cheers, George
                              Hello George,

                              At this particular time I think that everyone’s first thought would have been that this was another ripper murder, whether it actually was or wasn’t so it’s difficult, to say the least, to see why they would have believed that the police might have believed that the ripper had killed ‘on his own doorstep’ so to speak. I just can’t see this being in their minds especially faced with the shock of the situation.

                              To follow on, and I recognise your ‘leaving aside any conspiracy theories’ point, would this thought have been so immediate and so terrifying to club members that in such a short space of time they decided to take such an enormous step as lying to the police with the very obvious risks of discovery. Risks that they had absolutely no control over?

                              So in a way the fact that they were in the middle of a massively publicised series of murders actually worked in their favour. If this had been an isolated murder they ‘might’ have thought that the police would have seen this as indicative of what kind of club the IWMEC actually was. I still don’t think that they would have come up with this kind of plot though because it was far too risky and easy to unravel.

                              So no I don’t think that they would have thought that the situation merited lying to the Police.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                              “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                From the Inquest



                                Now of course we can’t be certain that Brunswick Street wasn’t added by a reporter for added information but it might also have been added by Spooner himself; perhaps in response to a question?
                                Or Spooner had stated his address at the start of his testimony and the press didn't include that in the print edition (I can't recall if his address is given; if it is, the paper may have just reminded the reader with the insert). We know the residence of some witnesses is printed in the press, but not all. Editors have to decide what information needs to be culled in order to fit a story into the designated column space, reporters have to decide what to submit, and so forth. While we eventually we do get transcripts recorded in the news, even there we do see some judicial trimming between papers, so it becomes a bit of a puzzle to try and put together as complete a statement as possible, combining the various sources (official inquest statements, transcripts from various news sources; avoiding reports that present summaries of testimony while doing this of course as those will have been filtered through the reporter's understanding and get modified by their vocabulary).

                                - Jeff

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X