Whistling on Berner Street

[GBinOz]

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

[JeffHamm]

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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Clear and accurate.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

Schwartz passed the incident, crossed the road, saw Pipeman, got shouted at and left.:2thumbsup:

Oh, so the term was shouted AT Schwartz? Thats another Herlock fact for us? You will eventually re-write the entire history of these cases with your creative application of What Actually Happened. Like the Monty Python sketch...."what I merely meant"....

In case you havent been paying attention there is not one account, statement, report, memo or casual comment that validates Israel Schwartz's statement in any way, shape or form. Just "belief".....your personal igloo of ignorance.

[Michael W Richards]

The police were looking for a man named Lipski, never found one, and after November we hear nothing more of Schwartz. This suggests they eventually gave up on Schwartz, as nothing had come of the investigation based on his statement.

Clear and accurate.

[Michael W Richards]

If the police had no confidence in Schwartz's statement, why were they canvassing the area to locate all the Lipski families? This went on for some time, incurring costs both in manhour and financial terms. While the police believed Schwartz's assertion that Lipski was shouted at an accomplice was probably incorrect, they still investigated what he told them as he told it. If they had set aside his entire statement, as describing it as being viewed with no confidence implies, they would have done just that - set it aside and not engaged in an expensive and time consuming search for Lipski's in the area. The police action at the time indicates they had confidence in the events described by Schwartz, but were not convinced his interpretation was the only one. However, rather than presume their reinterpretation was the correct one, they had to see if they could rule out local Lipski's, which I believe there is a report suggesting they were able to (though I could be misremembering the phrasing of one of the reports to HO?). Regardless, it is far from obvious the police at the time had no official confidence in Schwartz, in fact, quite the opposite.


Convenience is a bit loaded here, and the inconvenience of an assault starting off premises pales in comparison to having a body on premises. If the club were trying to reduce the inconveniences, then using Deimshutz's cart to move the body elsewhere would be far more desirable than simply trying to convince the police the assault happened a few minutes later in time. Changing the time of the assult in no way removes the inconvenience of a body on their property.

There wasn't exactly a high level of trust between the local residence of the East End and the police. The police, and the public at large, tended to paint the entire area with a rather dark brush. While such clubs were agitating for social reforms (and yes, some of that agitation included illegal activities although some was exacerbated by the police response), attempting to remove some of the inequalities that were stacked against them, that doesn't mean they would engage in any and all criminal activity. Covering up a murder of another person who was also suffering due to the social inequalities might indeed have been seen as the very antithesis of their purpose and as such it would serve their purposes to assist the police as much as they could while at the same time reserving the right to criticise the police for failing to catch the killer despite their assistance. Of course, if the police did catch the killer, they can then point to their assistance and claim some credit - a win win for them really.

- Jeff

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

. On crossing to the opposite 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’ & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

Here we see that ‘Lipski’ is called out after Schwartz crossed the road and not before. It’s clumsily worded of course but we have Schwartz on the opposite side of the road to the club and BS man shouting Lipski to the man on the opposite side of the road. Schwartz doesn’t say here where Pipeman was.

but in The Star…

. he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

Again we have Schwartz crossing the road first and Pipeman coming from the pub doorway (so the same side of the road as the club) Pipeman shouts at BS Man but there’s no mention of BS man shouting Lipski.

…….

How accurate was Swanson? How accurate was The Star report?

This is a scenario told by a non-English speaker via 2 different reporters and ripe for a bit of imaginative fiction and you’re just the man for the job.

…..

Schwartz passed the incident, crossed the road, saw Pipeman, got shouted at and left.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

The police were looking for a man named Lipski, never found one, and after November we hear nothing more of Schwartz. This suggests they eventually gave up on Schwartz, as nothing had come of the investigation based on his statement.

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?

The 'mysteries' could have been cleared up, if BS and Pipeman had been identified, and either cleared or charged. To be more precise, Pipeman could have been cleared, if it were believed he were an innocent bystander. Yet BS man could not have been cleared just by giving a good account of himself. He would surely have had to face trial. As there is no evidence for this trial having occurred, it seems safe to say that BS man was never identified. So Schwartz places 4 people on the street, that no one else reports seeing any of, and the police never seem to have identified the first man, and possibly the second man also. This must raise some doubts about the truth of Schwartz's story.

As for questioning Schwartz about the knife and the Star report in general, that to me seems a real possibility. An explanation for why Schwartz did not attend the inquest, is that he were being held for questioning, by the police.

[Michael W Richards]

The need to correct you seems to be constant...

By ‘inaccurate’ you mean that they don’t conform to your own interpretation.1. For example, it cannot be said for a fact (which you treat it as) that Fanny went onto her doorstep at 12.45. This was her estimate but she qualified it by saying that she went onto her doorstep just after Smith passed. Well we know what time Smith said the he’d passed - 12.30-12.35.

So if your interpretation is that Mortimer must have be right and Smith must have been wrong then there little point in any of us hoping for an unbiased assessment.

So it can’t be claimed that she went onto her doorstep as you seek to do.

2. It is entirely plausible (and likely) that she was back indoors when Schwartz passed.

3. It also can’t be claimed that she was on her doorstep almost all of the time between 12.30 and 1.00. It’s a nonsensical claim and not supported by the facts.

You believe 12.45 as a fact because it suits your theory. Your wrong of course.

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You can’t be serious?

The names Lipski was used as an insult and not as an accusation of being a murderer.

I can be serious, and you can be completely wrong.

Swanson: The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away...

The story as told by Schwartz, was that 'Lipski' was called to the second man. It was not called to Schwartz. Only Schwartz is entitled to tell his story.

Abberline tells us it was Schwartz who had the strong Jewish appearance, and gave his opinion on who 'Lipski' was addressed to...

I beg to report that since a jew named Lipski was hanged for the murder of a jewess in 1887 the name has very frequently been used by persons as mere ejaculation by way of endeavouring to insult the jew to whom it has been addressed, and as Schwartz has a strong jewish appearance I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.

There is a very big clue here, that Schwartz was right in supposing that 'Lipski' was directed at the second man. The word was exclaimed while Schwartz had stopped to look at the man and woman at the gateway. In other words, it was when Schwartz was still on the club side of the street, and not on the opposite side. The second man was on the opposite side, and thus it would have been quite obvious to Schwartz, to who the first man had called 'Lipski'.

It is obvious why Abberline had the opinion that 'Lipski' had been addressed to Schwartz. As told by Schwartz, the story did not quite make sense to him, so in his own mind he made an alteration to the story, to make it work. In other words, Schwartz's story could only be made sense of, by changing it. For any student of the case, this should set mental alarm bells ringing.

From Abberline's words, the implication is that the second man did not have a strong Jewish appearance, and yet 'Lipski' seems to have been addressed to him. This precludes to the possibility that the word was being used as an insult. As no man by the name of Lipski was ever found, the only remaining possibility is that 'Lipski' was a reference to murder. Yet it at this point according to Schwartz, no murder had occurred. Strangely though, when we read the Echo report, we learn of a man who was pursued from the scene, but not an innocent man fleeing a man smoking a pipe, but rather a man believed to be the murderer. Consequently, there is a good case for supposing 'Lipski' was called after the murder, and in reference to the murder, rather than before it.