Whistling on Berner Street

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The two whistlers is based on Hoschburg and Spooner. Hoschburg's account isn't exactly forensic, it's a rough estimation and should be seen as such.

Spooner's account is a press report, which are always open to interpretation to greater or lesser extents. Adjust the printed punctuation, the words still flow naturally but the meaning can be subtly different. Spooner is quoted as saying:


By a Juryman. - I did not meet anyone as I was hastening to Berner-street, except Mr. Harris, who was coming out of his house in Tiger Bay when he heard the policeman's whistle. He came running after me.

But, did he actually say ' I did not meet anyone as I was hastening to Berner St, except Mr Harris, who was coming out of his house in Tiger Bay. When he heard the policeman's whistle, he came running after me.'

Harris still hears a whistle, Spooner's already there, just before Lamb. Problem solved.

Problem solved? Spooner's already there, and yet Spooner still meets Harris, as he was hastening to Berner street.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

Harris came out of Brunswick St as Diemshitz, Spooner and Jacobs were running west past the intersection. Harris chases them briefly to find out why the police whistle has been blown. Diemshitz and Spooner and maybe Jacobs then proceed back to the yard. There is no mention of Harris at the yard. Constables wear uniforms, so no, Brown didn't mistake Spooner for a constable and there is no evidence that Spooner was WVC. Collins was directed by Harris, or failing that, Jacobs if he didn't return to the yard. Both Harris and Jacobs MAY have been WVC, as those names appear on the WVC list - Spooner's name does not. That is the way I see it. You are free to formulate your own theories but I think your third paragraph, and your posts #493 and #494 are large leaps of speculation.

Cheers, George

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can I ask a general question? Do we have a quote where Goldstein himself gives a time that he passed along Berner Street?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Even into November? Wow, that's a long a time. Just for convenience, we ignore December, 1889, and the 1890's. So what happened after November? Did Scotland Yard finally realize that Schwartz was a fraud, and quietly cease any mention of him? It's also strange that Schwartz is not mentioned in any memoir. Had he caused too much embarrassment?

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.

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The word 'Lipski' had strong connotations with murder. According to Schwartz, this word was not called after, but before the murder. That Schwartz seems to have gotten away with this, both then and now, is nothing less than extraordinary. The acceptance of the notion that 'Lipski' was called pre-murder, makes this one of the greatest cons in the history of crime.

You can’t be serious?

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

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

The two whistlers is based on Hoschburg and Spooner. Hoschburg's account isn't exactly forensic, it's a rough estimation and should be seen as such.

Spooner's account is a press report, which are always open to interpretation to greater or lesser extents. Adjust the printed punctuation, the words still flow naturally but the meaning can be subtly different. Spooner is quoted as saying:


By a Juryman. - I did not meet anyone as I was hastening to Berner-street, except Mr. Harris, who was coming out of his house in Tiger Bay when he heard the policeman's whistle. He came running after me.

But, did he actually say ' I did not meet anyone as I was hastening to Berner St, except Mr Harris, who was coming out of his house in Tiger Bay. When he heard the policeman's whistle, he came running after me.'

Harris still hears a whistle, Spooner's already there, just before Lamb. Problem solved.

[GBinOz]

Double post

[GBinOz]

Spooner: I did not meet anyone as I was hastening to Berner-street, except Mr. Harris, who was coming out of his house in Tiger Bay when he heard the policeman's whistle. He came running after me.

So apparently Harris came running after Spooner, as Spooner was running to Berner street. So where did Harris end up? I'd suggest he ended up at the same place as Spooner did, whereas you're suggesting he ended up where Spooner started from. How did you come to that conclusion? Could I suggest that you need Harris to stay behind, to direct Collins to the yard, who just happens to have stopped right at the intersection that Spooner had been standing at moments earlier, pondering his next movement? Or was it that Spooner was actually WVC but perceived by Brown as being a constable, and his bird was imaginary, or had already flown?

Having said that, there is something quite odd about Spooner's (above) comments, assuming the MA reporter recorded him faithfully. For person X to meet person Y while moving from A to B, suggests that person Y was closer to B, at the start of X's journey. Yet Spooner also said "He came running after me". Is that not a contradiction? Now one way your scenario could be made to work, is to suppose that Harris ran in the opposite direction - East along Fairclough, running away from Berner street, and ending up at the Fairclough and Christian street intersection, having met Spooner on his way. So what was his starting point? Any chance it was the doorway of the Nelson?

Hi Andrew,

Harris came out of Brunswick St as Diemshitz, Spooner and Jacobs were running west past the intersection. Harris chases them briefly to find out why the police whistle has been blown. Diemshitz and Spooner and maybe Jacobs then proceed back to the yard. There is no mention of Harris at the yard. Constables wear uniforms, so no, Brown didn't mistake Spooner for a constable and there is no evidence that Spooner was WVC. Collins was directed by Harris, or failing that, Jacobs if he didn't return to the yard. Both Harris and Jacobs MAY have been WVC, as those names appear on the WVC list - Spooner's name does not. That is the way I see it. You are free to formulate your own theories but I think your third paragraph, and your posts #493 and #494 are large leaps of speculation.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Even into November? Wow, that's a long a time. Just for convenience, we ignore December, 1889, and the 1890's. So what happened after November? Did Scotland Yard finally realize that Schwartz was a fraud, and quietly cease any mention of him? It's also strange that Schwartz is not mentioned in any memoir. Had he caused too much embarrassment?



The word 'Lipski' had strong connotations with murder. According to Schwartz, this word was not called after, but before the murder. That Schwartz seems to have gotten away with this, both then and now, is nothing less than extraordinary. The acceptance of the notion that 'Lipski' was called pre-murder, makes this one of the greatest cons in the history of crime.

... The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her around and threw her down onto the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the other 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', and then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man, he ran so far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far.

Id like to see some evidence that you think makes it after ?. of course there is no way of knowing after he heard the 3 screams and he crossed the street if the cutting of her throat happened at that exact moment and then called out ''lipski ''.

''Greatest cons in the history of crime'' . hmmmmm bit harsh .

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Even into November? Wow, that's a long a time. Just for convenience, we ignore December, 1889, and the 1890's. So what happened after November? Did Scotland Yard finally realize that Schwartz was a fraud, and quietly cease any mention of him? It's also strange that Schwartz is not mentioned in any memoir. Had he caused too much embarrassment?

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.

The word 'Lipski' had strong connotations with murder. According to Schwartz, this word was not called after, but before the murder. That Schwartz seems to have gotten away with this, both then and now, is nothing less than extraordinary. The acceptance of the notion that 'Lipski' was called pre-murder, makes this one of the greatest cons in the history of crime.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

Spooner: I did not meet anyone as I was hastening to Berner-street, except Mr. Harris, who was coming out of his house in Tiger Bay when he heard the policeman's whistle. He came running after me.

So apparently Harris came running after Spooner, as Spooner was running to Berner street. So where did Harris end up? I'd suggest he ended up at the same place as Spooner did, whereas you're suggesting he ended up where Spooner started from. How did you come to that conclusion? Could I suggest that you need Harris to stay behind, to direct Collins to the yard, who just happens to have stopped right at the intersection that Spooner had been standing at moments earlier, pondering his next movement? Or was it that Spooner was actually WVC but perceived by Brown as being a constable, and his bird was imaginary, or had already flown?

Having said that, there is something quite odd about Spooner's (above) comments, assuming the MA reporter recorded him faithfully. For person X to meet person Y while moving from A to B, suggests that person Y was closer to B, at the start of X's journey. Yet Spooner also said "He came running after me". Is that not a contradiction? Now one way your scenario could be made to work, is to suppose that Harris ran in the opposite direction - East along Fairclough, running away from Berner street, and ending up at the Fairclough and Christian street intersection, having met Spooner on his way. So what was his starting point? Any chance it was the doorway of the Nelson?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im speechless. You have direct easy to source information that makes what you wrote above patently incorrect, yet you stand by it. Really remarkable.

1. Heschberg: :Yes; I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter.

So in your world estimations are never wrong. Ok if that how you think there’s no point in applying logic.

2. There is no information anywhere by anyone that says Fanny was not at her door at 12:45, you "guess" she wasnt to fit your beliefs.

Naturally you consistently ignore the fact that she said that she went onto her doorstep just after Smith passed and Smith said that he passed between 12.30 and 12.35 meaning that if she spent around 10 minutes on her step (as she said) then she could have been (and almost certainly was) back inside by the time Schwartz arrived.

3. Goldsteins admitted pass as stated by Fanny is validation she was at her door when he passed, at 12:55-56.

Do we have a time for Goldstein or are we reliant on Fanny for this? Also, did you go back in time and ask him how he arrived at that time? How then can you judge its accuracy? Answer…you can’t of course.

4. Yeah, stride is killed by someone, we dont know who that someone is. It could be someone we already know was there though.

An unknown. Unlike some, I’m not opposed to admitting unknowns.

5. Louis absolutely cannot have arrived at 1, Fanny was at her door and saw no-one approach or arrive, and Lamb was with Eagle at the gates by 1am.

Opinion stated as fact purely to bolster a theory.

6. There is only Louis's statement that suggests he found the body, and we already know it could not have been when he said....so....

We know nothing of the kind. It’s just yet another thing that you’ve invented to bolster your discredited theory.

7. Lamb is summoned by Eagle, and they are joined by Issac Kozebrodksi, and they all are at the gates BY 1am.

Great work Dr Who. Baseless opinion stated as fact.


So your "thats what happened" line is actually quite funny, because nothing you stated is what happened based on current data. You have ignored the evidence and made up your own theory. Fine. Stop pretending its the facts though, intentionally misrepresenting something isnt really a very popular thing these days in case you read papers or watch the news. People read these forums for facts and research, perhaps you should create a fictional page somewhere where you and other people who dont follow evidence can play these theory games you so enjoy. This is meant to be a place where legitimate researchers and investigators meet, your posts should therefore be relegated to General Discussion threads where fiction or even crackpot ideas can be posted.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im speechless. You have direct easy to source information that makes what you wrote above patently incorrect, yet you stand by it. Really remarkable.

1. Heschberg: :Yes; I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter.

2. There is no information anywhere by anyone that says Fanny was not at her door at 12:45, you "guess" she wasnt to fit your beliefs.

3. Goldsteins admitted pass as stated by Fanny is validation she was at her door when he passed, at 12:55-56.

4. Yeah, stride is killed by someone, we dont know who that someone is. It could be someone we already know was there though.

5. Louis absolutely cannot have arrived at 1, Fanny was at her door and saw no-one approach or arrive, and Lamb was with Eagle at the gates by 1am.

6. There is only Louis's statement that suggests he found the body, and we already know it could not have been when he said....so....

7. Lamb is summoned by Eagle, and they are joined by Issac Kozebrodksi, and they all are at the gates BY 1am.


So your "thats what happened" line is actually quite funny, because nothing you stated is what happened based on current data. You have ignored the evidence and made up your own theory. Fine. Stop pretending its the facts though, intentionally misrepresenting something isnt really a very popular thing these days in case you read papers or watch the news. People read these forums for facts and research, perhaps you should create a fictional page somewhere where you and other people who dont follow evidence can play these theory games you so enjoy. This is meant to be a place where legitimate researchers and investigators meet, your posts should therefore be relegated to General Discussion threads where fiction or even crackpot ideas can be posted.

I’ll respond to this drivel later tonight or tomorrow.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Im speechless. You have direct easy to source information that makes what you wrote above patently incorrect, yet you stand by it. Really remarkable.

1. Heschberg: :Yes; I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter.

2. There is no information anywhere by anyone that says Fanny was not at her door at 12:45, you "guess" she wasnt to fit your beliefs.

3. Goldsteins admitted pass as stated by Fanny is validation she was at her door when he passed, at 12:55-56.

4. Yeah, stride is killed by someone, we dont know who that someone is. It could be someone we already know was there though.

5. Louis absolutely cannot have arrived at 1, Fanny was at her door and saw no-one approach or arrive, and Lamb was with Eagle at the gates by 1am.

6. There is only Louis's statement that suggests he found the body, and we already know it could not have been when he said....so....

7. Lamb is summoned by Eagle, and they are joined by Issac Kozebrodksi, and they all are at the gates BY 1am.


So your "thats what happened" line is actually quite funny, because nothing you stated is what happened based on current data. You have ignored the evidence and made up your own theory. Fine. Stop pretending its the facts though, intentionally misrepresenting something isnt really a very popular thing these days in case you read papers or watch the news. People read these forums for facts and research, perhaps you should create a fictional page somewhere where you and other people who dont follow evidence can play these theory games you so enjoy. This is meant to be a place where legitimate researchers and investigators meet, your posts should therefore be relegated to General Discussion threads where fiction or even crackpot ideas can be posted.