Whistling on Berner Street

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Neither in the Swanson version or in The Star interview does Schwartz mention ‘stopping.’

I don't think that is correct.

... having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street ...

The assault occurs while Schwartz is at the gateway. Then he crosses the road. It is by stopping that Schwartz is able to observe what he claimed to observe. However, this is somewhat beside the point, as this was from Swanson's summary of the statement taken by Abberline. Abberline explicitly stated that Schwartz stopped to watch. There can be no argument on this point.

Abberline says it but was he right? Schwartz sounds a bit of a coward. Is he really going to stop and stare? Or look as he was passing? The latter is very obviously the more likely.

As if to prove my point that Schwartz's story can only be made sense of, by changing it, you go ahead and change it. Has it even occurred to you that the reason Abberline stated that Schwartz stopped to look, was because that is what Schwartz told him he did? Anything Abberline said that Schwartz did or witnessed, was because Schwartz told him so (via an interpreter). The only exception to this, is Abberline giving his opinion on who 'Lipski' was addressed to. When doing so, Abberline made it clear that this was his opinion, and thus not necessarily the opinion of Schwartz. In other words, it was not what Schwartz had told him had occurred.

It's fascinating to me that you claim the authenticity of Schwartz's story, partly based on Abberline extensive knowledge and experience, and his reputation as a policemen, and yet you're happy to casually conclude that Abberline must have been guessing, and guessing wrong at that, when he claimed that Schwartz had stopped to watch. So no, the later is not obviously the more likely. What is obvious is that you're not going to accept all of the story given by Schwartz as recorded by Abberline, if any of it doesn't make sense or sound right to you. Instead, you're going to 'fix' the parts that need 'fixing', and apparently without complaint from anyone except myself. By doing so, however, you're no longer dealing with the events of 1888, but just some fictionalised version of those events.

[JeffHamm]

Edward Spooner, in reply to the coroner, said: I live at No. 26, Fairclough-street, and am a horse-keeper with Messrs. Meredith, biscuit bakers. On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Public-house, at the corner of Christian-street, with my young woman. We had left a public-house in Commercial-road at closing time, midnight, and walked quietly to the point named. We stood outside the Beehive about twenty-five minutes, when two Jews came running along, calling out "Murder" and "Police."

That would mean they both lived on Fairclough street, but chose to stand outside a closed pub for half an hour. Spooner was 25 at the time. Why not her invite inside? Presumably he'd managed that feat (of getting her inside), by the time he and Catherine had a son in 1890. Perhaps he did try though (that night), and she said, "No, not to-night, some other night."

By the way, the public house on Commercial Road, was actually "a beershop at the corner of Settles-street, Commercial-road". Settles street was were Stride had been seen by the labourers, at around 11pm.

Where does it say the young woman lived on Fairclough? I see it says Spooner did, but there's no mention of her address. Why can't she live next to the pub, and they were chatting there, spending a bit more time together, before she went inside. It's possible that Spooner was trying to get invited in, as you suggest.

And how can we be certain that the young woman was Catherine, with whom he had a son? As you say, he was 25, romances can change fairly quickly at that age. As you say, maybe they were the "no not tonight" couple, but even if they were, that doesn't change the possibility that she lived next to the pub.

And so to me, of the three options, the:

The woman with Spooner lived beside the pub they were talking in front of, explaining why they were there, and she went inside when he went to assist.

seems to make the most sense. It accounts for why they were standing outside a closed pub (because she lived about there), they were chatting there because she was going inside and they were extending their time together, and when Spooner decides to go assist, she could safely go inside.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

The words 'up' and 'down' were used in context, as you well know. As for Spooner's repeated use of the word 'I', rather than 'we', actually I do place significance on it. So along with other evidence, of the following possibilities I heavily favour the second as being the most likely.

* On hearing of the murder, Spooner left his woman stranded on the street, alone, in the middle of the Autumn of Terror

* There was no woman with Spooner, and Spooner's reason for being on the street was not what he claimed it to be

And this is exactly what I mean. There’s absolutely no basis for believing this. It’s a perfect example of what I mean when I say that you see the sinister in everything. Just because he didn’t mention the irrelevant piece of information about what had happened to the woman doesn’t mean that he was lying. Maybe he did but the reporter didn’t bother to write it up from his notes? “Stranded?” How do you know that she didn’t live a few feet away and he’d just was just talking to him before she went inside?

Edit: I just noticed that Jeff has made this point in post#544

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why not include:

The woman with Spooner lived beside the pub they were talking in front of, explaining why they were there, and she went inside when he went to assist.

- Jeff

Edward Spooner, in reply to the coroner, said: I live at No. 26, Fairclough-street, and am a horse-keeper with Messrs. Meredith, biscuit bakers. On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Public-house, at the corner of Christian-street, with my young woman. We had left a public-house in Commercial-road at closing time, midnight, and walked quietly to the point named. We stood outside the Beehive about twenty-five minutes, when two Jews came running along, calling out "Murder" and "Police."

That would mean they both lived on Fairclough street, but chose to stand outside a closed pub for half an hour. Spooner was 25 at the time. Why not her invite inside? Presumably he'd managed that feat (of getting her inside), by the time he and Catherine had a son in 1890. Perhaps he did try though (that night), and she said, "No, not to-night, some other night."

By the way, the public house on Commercial Road, was actually "a beershop at the corner of Settles-street, Commercial-road". Settles street was were Stride had been seen by the labourers, at around 11pm.

[JeffHamm]

The words 'up' and 'down' were used in context, as you well know. As for Spooner's repeated use of the word 'I', rather than 'we', actually I do place significance on it. So along with other evidence, of the following possibilities I heavily favour the second as being the most likely.

* On hearing of the murder, Spooner left his woman stranded on the street, alone, in the middle of the Autumn of Terror

* There was no woman with Spooner, and Spooner's reason for being on the street was not what he claimed it to be

Why not include:

The woman with Spooner lived beside the pub they were talking in front of, explaining why they were there, and she went inside when he went to assist.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

That is actually quite funny. I presume you refer to your own drawing room? You can presume I've arrived when you see the silver Aston Martin.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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?’

The words 'up' and 'down' were used in context, as you well know. As for Spooner's repeated use of the word 'I', rather than 'we', actually I do place significance on it. So along with other evidence, of the following possibilities I heavily favour the second as being the most likely.

* On hearing of the murder, Spooner left his woman stranded on the street, alone, in the middle of the Autumn of Terror

* There was no woman with Spooner, and Spooner's reason for being on the street was not what he claimed it to be

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

George,
could you let me know the difference between sniping from the shadows, and peer comment and criticism? Regarding me asking impossible to answer questions, isn't that what speculation is for? So why not answer these questions with further speculation? For example, why did Harris return home rather than go to the yard? A: He couldn't stand the sight of blood. Why did take so long to return home? A: He stopped and began speaking to the board school couple. That sort of thing.

[JeffHamm]

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[GBinOz]

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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,

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?