Whistling on Berner Street

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't agree with this argument specifically, or with this style of argument, in general. One could just as easily suggest that as the police supposedly 'hated their guts', they felt compelled to make up a story that would take the culprit away from the club, and onto the street. Either way, it is not adequate to suggest that the club's perception of the police's attitude toward them, would necessarily result in either complete cooperate, or a resolve to 'do something'. The validity of Schwartz's story, cannot be determined by in principle arguments.

Then how can we judge it? One way would be to suggest the a Police force coming under desperate pressure to apprehend the ripper. And that Abberline was an experienced and highly regarded officer who was there at the time speaking to witnesses face to face and yet he expressed no doubt at all in the validity of Schwartz statement. Indeed arrests were made (2 I believe) on the strength of it. And that even into November the Police were writing about Schwartz as a valid witness. Yes of course they could have been wrong but we can’t just assume it for convenience.

Then we have the fact that no one else saw the incident but reading Schwartz account leaves us with no doubt that this incident took place over a very short period of time and included little noise. So how can we express serious doubt purely on the basis that no one else witnessed it or heard it. We just can’t.

Then we have the difference in The Star interview. Even if this wasn’t down to Press exaggeration (not impossible but we can’t state it as a fact) or an error emanating from the use of 2 different interpreters this still doesn’t provide anything like solid evidence that Schwartz wasn’t there. He might even have added the part about the knife to try and cover his embarrassment at not offering assistance to a woman in distress.

Finally we have to ask ourselves how likely it would have been for a man to tell such a lie that placed him unwitnessed at the scene of a brutal murder around the time that it occurred when he’d actually been elsewhere? And why would he have risked this (if he hadn’t been there) when he wouldn’t have known if anyone else had been around at the time to prove that he was lying?

So when we take this as a whole, without getting carried away, we should come to the conclusion that the overwhelming likelihood is that Schwartz was where he said that he was and when he said that he was there (although, like other witnesses, we have no way of judging the accuracy of his time) and that he witnessed an incident outside Dutfield’s Yard involving a man and a woman.

This conclusion isn’t based on a sentimental attachment to an orthodox version and it isn’t coming from someone who is desperate for the case to remain unsolved. It’s simply coming from someone who refuses to get carried away about errors (especially where the Press are concerned)

[c.d.]

I don't agree with this argument specifically, or with this style of argument, in general. One could just as easily suggest that as the police supposedly 'hated their guts', they felt compelled to make up a story that would take the culprit away from the club, and onto the street. Either way, it is not adequate to suggest that the club's perception of the police's attitude toward them, would necessarily result in either complete cooperate, or a resolve to 'do something'. The validity of Schwartz's story, cannot be determined by in principle arguments.

Since there is no way that I could be privy to the thinking process of the club's members, I thought it was apparent that I was simply expressing an opinion. If you don't agree with this style of argument, you most likely are going to be disappointed in most of the posts on these boards.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nothing fishy was going on that night. Sure, two woman were brutally murdered, and 133 years later we still haven't identified the murderer(s). However, there was nothing fishy going on that night. Now can we please get back to solid ground?

And at this late stage the chances of identifying are becoming more and more remote. And no, I’m not suggesting that we give up, but I don’t see how it helps to keep coming up with increasingly less and less likely scenarios. Or by building on slight differences in wording in Press reports or by interpreting everything without considering that there might be an entirely plausible non-sinister explanation. I think that we should always begin from a position that the so-called ‘official version’ was correct especially considering that the police knew far more than we did. And only then should we consider other possibilities if we have reasonable evidence where an alternative explanation is less likely.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Its certainly frustrating when you are debating against people with an agenda. The absolute determination to prove that something fishy was going on that night. And then when you simply attempt to keep things on solid ground it’s repeated that you’re sentimentally attached to some kind of ‘orthodoxy’ (despite the fact that I’ve said the BS man might or might not have been the killer, and that the killer might or might not have been the ripper. I’ve even suggested that Schwartz might have misinterpreted the nature of the incident.)

Nothing fishy was going on that night. Sure, two woman were brutally murdered, and 133 years later we still haven't identified the murderer(s). However, there was nothing fishy going on that night. Now can we please get back to solid ground?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

With this opinion and your wish to end discussion, might I be so bold as to ask why you are even on a thread titled "whistling in berner street"??

Cheers, George

A fair question George.

When I first posted on here after Christmas the posts weren’t whistle-related. I’ve noticed this in the past of course and have been equally to blame with crossover topics from the other Schwartz thread.

The reason that I’m personally tired of the whistle stuff is that I can’t see where it gets us apart from more and more fanciful theories. Two people heard a whistle. So…

Did another incident occur in another street which resulted in a Constable blowing his whistle?
Did a ‘trigger happy’ WVC member blow his whistle in another street?
Did Lamb blow his whistle when Eagle found him to get the attention of the FP officer?
Was there a WVC member in Berner Street or even the yard who blew a whistle?

We can’t answer any of these questions but it doesn’t appear to me to have any bearing on what happened unless it’s used to try and indicate an earlier discovery time.

……

Its certainly frustrating when you are debating against people with an agenda. The absolute determination to prove that something fishy was going on that night. And then when you simply attempt to keep things on solid ground it’s repeated that you’re sentimentally attached to some kind of ‘orthodoxy’ (despite the fact that I’ve said the BS man might or might not have been the killer, and that the killer might or might not have been the ripper. I’ve even suggested that Schwartz might have misinterpreted the nature of the incident.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

You don't know that Spooner didn't hear the whistle, only that he didn't say he heard it. Speaking of Spooner, I agree with Jeff that he likely said he arrived at the yard at "about five to one" and that has been recorded as twenty five to one and then 12:35.

This time of 12:45 that you keep dismissing. Was that Club time, or Police time, or Doctor time, or Mortimer time, or GMT, or.......? Perhaps you should re-read the comments made by Jeff and myself on our timelines?

Cheers, George

That’s why I said “then again” George and then I highlighted the word ‘the.’ I was pointing out that he didn’t say that Harris heard a whistle. So unless the interviewer or Spooner had mentioned the whistle before the interview commenced this might point to Spooner hearing it too.

On your second point the problem is that although it can probably be called lazy posting by me it’s a pain to keep adding (plus or minus a reasonable margin for error/ including clock error) to every time that I mention in a quote. So just to be clear, what I’m saying is that there was nothing underhand going on. Hoschberg wasn’t with the body before Diemschitz was claiming to have been with the body. We also have to remember that Hoschberg used the word ‘about’ and the phrase ‘I should think,’ which clearly tells us that he wasn’t quoting a time that he’d just seen. He was estimating a time based on the last time that he’d looked at a clock whenever that was. So yes of course Diemschitz clock could have been out (as I’ve stated in previous posts) so when he arrived at the club it might have been 12.55 by club clock time and Hoschberg might only have noted the clock at say 12.15 and so estimated that he heard about the body 30 minutes later when it was actually later.

[GBinOz]

Why are you so obsessed with this whistle?? I’m losing the will to live on this endlessly pointless quibbling and nitpicking and all to manufacture a plot. Someone blew a f*****g whistle. So what?

Hoschberg wasn’t in the yard with the body at 12.45.
At 12.45 Fanny was back indoors.
Schwartz passed.
Goldstein passed once and is an irrelevance.
Stride is killed by an unknown man.
Louis returned 1.00 (with a + or - on the accuracy of the clock.)
Louis finds body.
Police are found and come to yard.

Thats what happened.

No further comment required.

Case closed until something new surfaces.

Herlock,

With this opinion and your wish to end discussion, might I be so bold as to ask why you are even on a thread titled "whistling in berner street"??

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

James Brown: When I heard screams of "Police" and "Murder" I opened the window, but could not see any one and the screams ceased. The cries were those of moving persons, and appeared to be going in the direction of Grove-street. Shortly afterwards I saw a policeman standing at the corner of Christian-street. I heard a man opposite call out to the constable that he was wanted. I then saw the policeman run along to Berner-street.

I have argued that the man JB saw at the corner, was actually Ed Spooner. However, let's say for the sake of argument that he actually saw a Met constable. Presumably this constable made it to that point, after hearing Lamb's whistle when further away. Why didn't Brown also hear this whistle? Or did he just not mention it (possibly because he had forgotten hearing it)?

Hi Andrew,

I don't read it that way. I think the policeman that Brown saw was Collins and he had heard the WVC whistle and made his way to the corner of Christian-street. I think that he was then told by Harris that he was wanted, and he proceeded to Berner St.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

I’m not saying that it couldn’t have happened but just that it seems strange that Harris heard it from indoors but Spooner didn’t from outside. Then again….

“Mr. Harris told me he had heard the policeman’s whistle blowing.”

The problem is of course that we don’t know how accurate the wording was.

It still doesn’t change the fact that the body wasn’t discovered at 12.45 or before though.

You don't know that Spooner didn't hear the whistle, only that he didn't say he heard it. Speaking of Spooner, I agree with Jeff that he likely said he arrived at the yard at "about five to one" and that has been recorded as twenty five to one and then 12:35.

This time of 12:45 that you keep dismissing. Was that Club time, or Police time, or Doctor time, or Mortimer time, or GMT, or.......? Perhaps you should re-read the comments made by Jeff and myself on our timelines?

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You have one the one hand the local law officials referring casually to this club as an "anarchists" club and you have locals referring to men found there after Saturday evening meetings had ended as "low men", perhaps the only issue for them with this incident might not be the club remaining open. They might well be involved in activities that were unlawful. They sure as hell were 6 months later when they attacked the police with clubs, resulting in the arrest of a number of them.

If this were in fact the case, you have to question the wisdom of lying to the police in a murder investigation. "You know, the police consider us anarchists and really hate our guts. They would love to come up with a reason to shut us down and throw us in jail. Clearly they don't trust us. What do you think we should do? Hey, how about this? We make up a very questionable story from a witness who doesn't speak English. They will never suspect a thing."

Doesn't sound like a very good plan to me especially since cooperating fully with the police would seem like a much better option.

c.d.

I don't agree with this argument specifically, or with this style of argument, in general. One could just as easily suggest that as the police supposedly 'hated their guts', they felt compelled to make up a story that would take the culprit away from the club, and onto the street. Either way, it is not adequate to suggest that the club's perception of the police's attitude toward them, would necessarily result in either complete cooperate, or a resolve to 'do something'. The validity of Schwartz's story, cannot be determined by in principle arguments.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why are you so obsessed with this whistle?? I’m losing the will to live on this endlessly pointless quibbling and nitpicking and all to manufacture a plot. Someone blew a f*****g whistle. So what?

Hoschberg wasn’t in the yard with the body at 12.45.
At 12.45 Fanny was back indoors.
Schwartz passed.
Goldstein passed once and is an irrelevance.
Stride is killed by an unknown man.
Louis returned 1.00 (with a + or - on the accuracy of the clock.)
Louis finds body.
Police are found and come to yard.

Thats what happened.

No further comment required.

Case closed until something new surfaces.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I’m not saying that it couldn’t have happened but just that it seems strange that Harris heard it from indoors but Spooner didn’t from outside. Then again….

“Mr. Harris told me he had heard the policeman’s whistle blowing.”

The problem is of course that we don’t know how accurate the wording was.

It still doesn’t change the fact that the body wasn’t discovered at 12.45 or before though.

Once again, how do you know Spooner didn't hear it?

Arguably, Spooner's reference to the police whistle, means he is talking about a specific whistling, whereas a police whistle, would not. That might suggest Spooner was aware of the whistling heard by Harris.

James Brown: When I heard screams of "Police" and "Murder" I opened the window, but could not see any one and the screams ceased. The cries were those of moving persons, and appeared to be going in the direction of Grove-street. Shortly afterwards I saw a policeman standing at the corner of Christian-street. I heard a man opposite call out to the constable that he was wanted. I then saw the policeman run along to Berner-street.

I have argued that the man JB saw at the corner, was actually Ed Spooner. However, let's say for the sake of argument that he actually saw a Met constable. Presumably this constable made it to that point, after hearing Lamb's whistle when further away. Why didn't Brown also hear this whistle? Or did he just not mention it (possibly because he had forgotten hearing it)?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And then, why did Hoschberg hear a whistle at 12.45 and yet Spooner (in one of the 2 different times that he gave) heard it 10 minutes earlier?

What are you talking about? Who has claimed either of these things?

….

Typed in a hurry. I meant that Hoschberg supposedly heard the whistle at 12.45 and yet when Harris met Spooner (according to Spooner at close to 12.35) he’d already heard a whistle. So 10 minutes earlier.

And how come Spooner didn’t hear it?

You seem to have difficulty in differentiating between the hearing of an early whistle, and the accuracy of the times reported by relevant witnesses. Why is it that you love telling us that Herschburg's time was a guess, and can therefore be 'dismissed', and yet when the evidence strongly suggests that he arrived at the yard before police, his estimate suddenly becomes a claim that the time was spot-on 12:45? Would it have anything to do with you wanting to discredit the whole notion of an early whistle? To answer my own question; in using Spooner's later stated and obviously erroneous time, 'Yes'.

This is the time estimate you should be using for Spooner ...

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. I had previously been in another beershop at the top of the street, and afterwards walked down. After talking for about 25 minutes I saw two Jews come running along and shouting out "Murder" and "Police."

So about 12:55.

We’re talking about Hoschberg and not Fanny? Hoschberg said 12.45.

So let me spell it out for you. If Fanny is supposed (by myself), to have locked-up about midway between 12:45 and 1:00 GMT, and this was just before the discovery, and the early whistle was in response to the discovery, then Herschburg is arriving at the yard some time between lockup and 1:00 GMT. In other words, Herschburg's estimate of the time, by this reckoning, was out by about 10 minutes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fanny said that she went onto her doorstep just after the Constable passed (which she believed to have been at 12.45 but Smith said 10 or 15 minutes earlier)

So if she went onto her doorstep just after Smith…..let’s say 12.36 then obviously she wasn’t on her doorstep between 12.30 and then. She said that she stayed on her doorstep for around 10 minutes then went back inside until she heard the disturbance.

So between 12.30 and 1.00 she spent around 10 minutes on her doorstep. And one period.

Can someone explain how this can be called either “off and on” or “nearly the whole time.” Fractions obviously weren’t her strong point.

……

How are we so sure what time Goldstein passed?

[Michael W Richards]

Lamb's arrival did not start the commotion. It would more correct to say that his arrival had the effect of ending the commotion.

FM: A man touched her face and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house.

That man was probably Ed Spooner. Like Herschburg, Fanny seems to have arrived just before the police did.

As Fanny indicated, she went back inside just after 1 then heard the commotion outside a few minutes later, that coincides nicely with Lamb having arrived at the scene just before or at 1am. It also indicates that Lamb met with Eagle before 1am then proceeded to the club with him, joined by Issac K, who was alone up to that point. Which means that Eagle went out around 12:40-12:45 which coincides with the witnesses who said they were alerted to the woman at that time. And with Issac saying he went out for help just after being alerted to the body at 12:40.

Fanny was at her door "off and on", or "nearly the whole time" between 12:30 and 1am, but we can only place her there with any certainty when Goldstein passes at around 12:55-56. I believe since a few witnesses say they were there by the body at that time, when he looked into the yard, he must have seen them there. Maybe thats why he is coaxed into making his statement Tuesday evening with Wess as translator.....they knew Fanny had seen him.

Sorry for the deviation from the whistle business, some think that solves something.....