Whistling on Berner Street

[JeffHamm]

I should also add, that if the police had dismissed Schwartz's statement in its entirety, then the report to the HO would not bother to present their reinterpretation of who Lipski was shouted at (in their view Schwartz himself rather than as Schwartz stated at pipeman), because providing an alternative explanation for an event they decided was entirely unreliable would be pointless. They would have just told HO that they had reason to disbelieve the entire scenario described in Schwartz's statement. However, the statement to HO makes it clear that the police did believe the events Schwartz described happened but doubted Schwartz's personal interpretation of those events.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let’s just remind Michael about the aims of an Inquest as per the Coroners Act 1887 (so not something that I’ve just invented)

. 'who the deceased was, and how, when, and where the deceased came by his death, and if he came by his death by murder and manslaughter, the persons, if any, the jury find to have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter, or of being accessories to the murder'.

So, Schwartz….

Could he identify the deceased? A let’s be clear, this doesn’t mean “yes that’s the woman I saw.” It means could he have stated “I know from personal experience that the woman was called Elizabeth Stride.”

So clearly a no.

Could he identify when she died? The ‘when’ is in regard to the date of her death and not the time of time death.

So clearly another no.

Could he identify how she died? Firstly he wasn’t a Doctor and secondly he wasn’t present when she died.

So clearly a no.

Could he identify, by name, a person who might have committed the murder or manslaughter?

Clearly no, as it was murder by person or person’s unknown.

…….

So 4 very specific aims and 4 very conclusive, inarguable no’s.

Yes, it wouldn’t have been remarkable had the Coroner decided to have called him as not all witnesses were vital but it wasn’t in any way vital or even important for Schwartz to have been called. These are the facts. So we clearly can’t say that he wasn’t called because the Coroner disbelieved him. The police believed him so on what basis would the Coroner second guess them? Is it being suggested that the Coroner investigated every single witness, checking their Police statements and anything that they might or might not have said to the Press? The idea is ludicrous. We don’t know why he wasn’t called (David O makes 8 suggestions purely as examples without favouring any or stating any as fact) But to make a claim to know why he wasn’t called simply because it fits a theory hardly covers the proposer in glory does it.

[JeffHamm]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

I knew Id have to go over this again with you so I stuck around. Once again, Fanny is relevant to the investigation into Liz Strides murder, she is not relevant into the ONLY question that the Inquest is designed to address. The Inquest is designed to determined if in fact she was murdered at all..which makes Israels witness statement relevant to the Inquest question. They are not the same thing...the Investigation into murder and the investigation into whether a murder even took place. The statements taken are used where their relevance lies. Fanny saw no-one nor did she see the murder site. Israel says he saw what would likely be her killer, thereby assisting the Inquest with, again, the ONLY question that was relevant to them. Did she die accidentally, by her own hand, or by Wilful Murder.

Your problem understanding this point is simply a matter of properly understanding that the Murder Investigation and the Inquest have different mandates. No-one questioned suspects at the Inquest, no-one questioned who killed her, just whether she was in fact murdered.

In keeping with that, it is possible Israel still factored into the Murder investigation, but its clear their belief in his sighting of someone assaulting Liz Stride just before her death is not present. The murder investigation might want to use his statement perhaps if only to determine why he would give a statement of events that could not be proven to have happened at all. A murder investigation might want to evaluate his motives for doing so.

It’s absolutely impossible to discus this with you when you keep posting stuff like this dishonesty. It’s been explained to you god knows how many times about the purpose of an Inquest. David Orsam wrote an in depth article showing why Schwartz wasn’t a vital witness for the Inquest. Proper research, using actual proven facts, quotes, references etc. And yet you keep parroting the same old self-serving nonsense. All that you are doing is attempting to mislead people in a desperate and sad attempt to breathe life into your discredited theory which you refuse to let go of. Schwartz was NOT important to the very specific, narrow aims of an Inquiry.

Try reading and avoid just making things up to suit. Try letting this sink in….

ISRAEL SCHWARTZ WAS NOT VITAL TO THE INQUEST.

[c.d.]

Well I have to say that I am impressed. Actually, let me change that to extremely impressed. It seems that of all the people involved in Ripperology you and you alone actually know for a fact why Schwartz was not at the inquest. The rest of us lesser mortals can only speculate.

Why don't you simply say that while you don't actually know, you believe the preponderance of the evidence indicates that Schwartz was not called because the police did not believe his story. Then support your argument with evidence. Why is that so difficult for you?

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

By ‘inaccurate’ you mean that they don’t conform to your own interpretation. 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.

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

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.

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks for clarifying this for me but just let me make sure I have it straight. So you are in effect saying that it is possible that a witness (i.e., Fanny) could not be called to the inquest but their story was still believed despite not being called and that not being called in no way confirms a disbelief in their story. Maybe it is the fault of the education system here in America but it seems to me that you have just negated your own argument regarding Schwartz.

c.d.

I knew Id have to go over this again with you so I stuck around. Once again, Fanny is relevant to the investigation into Liz Strides murder, she is not relevant into the ONLY question that the Inquest is designed to address. The Inquest is designed to determined if in fact she was murdered at all..which makes Israels witness statement relevant to the Inquest question. They are not the same thing...the Investigation into murder and the investigation into whether a murder even took place. The statements taken are used where their relevance lies. Fanny saw no-one nor did she see the murder site. Israel says he saw what would likely be her killer, thereby assisting the Inquest with, again, the ONLY question that was relevant to them. Did she die accidentally, by her own hand, or by Wilful Murder.

Your problem understanding this point is simply a matter of properly understanding that the Murder Investigation and the Inquest have different mandates. No-one questioned suspects at the Inquest, no-one questioned who killed her, just whether she was in fact murdered.

In keeping with that, it is possible Israel still factored into the Murder investigation, but its clear their belief in his sighting of someone assaulting Liz Stride just before her death is not present. The murder investigation might want to use his statement perhaps if only to determine why he would give a statement of events that could not be proven to have happened at all. A murder investigation might want to evaluate his motives for doing so.

[c.d.]

Thanks for clarifying this for me but just let me make sure I have it straight. So you are in effect saying that it is possible that a witness (i.e., Fanny) could not be called to the inquest but their story was still believed despite not being called and that not being called in no way confirms a disbelief in their story. Maybe it is the fault of the education system here in America but it seems to me that you have just negated your own argument regarding Schwartz.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[c.d.]

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.

[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.

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[c.d.]

Fine. So one of the key arguments in support of Schwartz - who's story seems to have near universal acceptance - turns out to be nothing but an opinion based on no evidence whatsoever.

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.

[GBinOz]

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