Whistling on Berner Street

[GBinOz]

It’s all over. Jeff has gone through the timeline using a reasonable + or - and there are no issues to the overall picture. Sorted.

The irony is that Jeff was working on "doctor time" and I was working on "police time" but when Jeff correlated the two timelines he assessed them as being substantially the same if clock corrections were taken into account. My timeline also allowed for "Club time" and Michael's theories also fitted with another clock correction. It is the same in Buck's Row. A great deal of discussion about minute accurate times and gaps that can all be explained by clock corrections. Baxter and the police were surely aware of the limitations in the keeping of time for the era, and this explains why times were seldom questioned.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here we go again.

All the times must be exactly correct 2 very obviously incorrect witnesses become multiple witnesses. Manipulation City here we come again

It’s all over. Jeff has gone through the timeline using a reasonable + or - and there are no issues to the overall picture. Sorted.

The ‘plot’ has the feeblest imaginable motive, the plan is one that the Marx brothers would have been embarrassed to have owned up to and the execution of that plan would have made a half decent Goon Show script.

Add all that to the fact there’s probably only one other person on planet Earth who might give your theory the time of day then we can safely say that your castle built on sand has crumbled, collapsed and sunk below the surface beyond all hope of rescue.

Time to put it to bed. You’ve possibly managed to convince 1 person in 20 odd years so take that as at least a kind of ‘result’ and move on. You’ll feel much better for it.

[Michael W Richards]

Agreed, Herlock.

Another bone of contention is the insistence in certain quarters that Louis D must have lied about when he found Stride dead.

Because Louis said that the clock showed the time to be exactly 1am when he passed it, but gave an approximate time of around 1am for his arrival in the yard followed by the grim discovery, this is seen as evidence of dishonesty!

Caz
X

I see now why you are having issues with this point, you must have forgotten that Lamb was there before 1am after seeing Eagle before 1am and Fanny was at her door at 1am. You must also have forgotten that multiple witnesses said they were by the dying woman in Louis's company before 1am.

I can certainly understand that lacking that information one might tend to give Louis the benefit of the doubt, but as it is, he clearly cannot be when so many people stated otherwise. And they almost match each others times and details precisely. We dont have to extend his any benefits when he is quite obviously provably wrong. The real question, since he didnt mention the scenarios that all these other men did...is why? Did he forget? Hard to imagine, since he was interviewed on the spot shortly after Lamb arrives. Error? Maybe youd still like to extend that benefit to him yourself, I personally see only intentional misrepresentation as most probable based on the cumulative facts and directly contradicting witness accounts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're right, but what would you expect from a colossal bull****ter like myself?

Abberline: 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.

As for Fred misleading himself, well, he does say that it was Schwartz with the strong Jewish appearance, and so implicitly Pipeman did not have the same general appearance (Caz's claims to the contrary, notwithstanding). So Fred's logic says that 'Lipski' was directed at Schwartz. Yet what does Swanson's report say ...?

The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski'...

So Schwartz had the opposite opinion. It was Abberline's choice not believe Schwartz, who was there, and replace Israel's perception with his own interpretation. Yet Fred's logic does make some sense - why would the 1st man call Lipski to the gentile 2nd man? Is his warning him about the intruding Jew? That would mean the men were somehow connected. Failing that, it was in some sense a reference to murder, and possibly a 'murdering Jew'.

An assumption by Abberline perhaps and not a point that he would have considered particularly important. No mention of him stopping in The Star interview of course.

. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved. As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, 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

Im not going to waste time in yet again nitpicking over who might have said what to whom and how it was worded. There’s no mystery here just tedious fantasising. I’m utterly bored with Berner Street. We know what happened. End of story as far as I’m concerned. I’ll leave you to your ongoing effort to knit a theory out of fog.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes, Abberline might of course have given Schwartz a nudge in one direction because that’s just what Fred needed at that time. A false lead. Good idea.

”Stood and gawked….” More imagination triumphing over facts. Schwartz never claimed to have stopped. He viewed the entire incident on the move.

You're right, but what would you expect from a colossal bull****ter like myself?

Abberline: 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.

As for Fred misleading himself, well, he does say that it was Schwartz with the strong Jewish appearance, and so implicitly Pipeman did not have the same general appearance (Caz's claims to the contrary, notwithstanding). So Fred's logic says that 'Lipski' was directed at Schwartz. Yet what does Swanson's report say ...?

The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski'...

So Schwartz had the opposite opinion. It was Abberline's choice not believe Schwartz, who was there, and replace Israel's perception with his own interpretation. Yet Fred's logic does make some sense - why would the 1st man call Lipski to the gentile 2nd man? Is his warning him about the intruding Jew? That would mean the men were somehow connected. Failing that, it was in some sense a reference to murder, and possibly a 'murdering Jew'.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Given the Star treatment, the story was tarted up or got lost in translation and became a hovercraft with a bomb on board.

Is that right? So why no mention of ...?

* a woman being thrown to the ground, and her subsequent gentle screams
* the word 'Lipski' and the context in which it was used
* a man apparently pursuing the fleeing 'Hungarian'


Apart from the knife, which the Star tells us was a confirmed claim, and is totally compatible with Anderson's later reference to the 'supposed accomplice', there is no 'tarting up' at all.

With no English, Schwartz was entirely at the mercy of the skills and integrity of all those involved in interpreting and printing his account. He had no way of checking it for himself before the public devoured it and reached their own conclusions.

The poor dear, and I don't suppose his interpreter was of much help in that regard.

Easy to see why the police may have doubted the truth of that story, while giving the benefit of the doubt to the version Schwartz gave directly to Abberline.

The Star tells us that Leman street had stopped making arrests based on 'the story'. If that refers to the Star article only, then you are effectively claiming that the police initially believed this article, and made arrests based on it, but quickly changed their mind about it. But on what basis would they have done so? Conflicting statements of the men arrested, perhaps? But how did they know who to believe?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I am a little at a loss to see the problem here that requires interpretations of language or insistence on mistakes by journalists. Goldstein went to considerable lengths to establish that the was at the Spectacle Cafe. There appears to be no problem in accepting that he was seen returning home from that direction, but outrage at another report that he was seen headed in the direction of the Cafe. He had to get there some how, some time, so why not via the same route that he used to get home?

Cheers, George

As you would know, George, my Goldstein thread is peppered with angry and resentful comments. Obviously this issue hits a raw nerve with many members. Like yourself, I'm at a loss to explain it.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

My hunch is that Schwartz couldn't say whether the two men were together or known to each other - because he had no English and he had never seen either man before.

So presumably the Star made all this up ...

... 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. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

If the (second) second man shouted in the direction of the man with the woman, a non-English speaker would have no way of knowing:

* who the shouting was intended for
* what the shouting consisted of

Schwartz implied to the Star reporter, that he knew both the recipient and the purpose of the message. That is gigantic red flag.

The Star wanted a story - and a witness who couldn't say what he had witnessed was not a story. So a couple of suggestions and leading questions were needed to turn it into something worth publishing, and that's why the police police and the press tell stories.

I see. So can you tell me why the Star editorial introduced the readers to the incident, in the following manner ...?

... the story of a man who is said to have seen the Berner-street tragedy, and declares that one man butchered and another man watched, is, we think, a priori incredible.

It is plainly obvious that the Star was highly skeptical of Schwartz. Are you really claiming the Star had to manipulate Schwartz, because Schwartz had temporarily expressed some doubt about who 'Lipski' was aimed at, and this doubt would spoil their 'scoop'? The word 'Lipski' does not even appear in the Star.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. This is a line you seem to have pushed for several years - if Schwartz had not been telling the truth, he wouldn't have given an inch. He did give an inch, and therefore he must have been telling the truth. Not necessarily. There are a number of plausible scenarios in which Schwartz concedes or 'gives in' to Abberline's close questioning, while privately maintaining his initial position.

* He may have felt under pressure or somewhat intimidated by the situation, and wanted it over and done with. So he decides to agree with Abberline.

* He may have felt this was the weak spot in his story, and didn't want to dwell on it. So he admits to some doubt, for tactical reasons. In other words, he takes the path of least resistance.

* He may have supposed that Abberline was becoming suspicious that 'Lipski' was supposedly aimed at the second man - who is never described or referred to as a Jew - when it might seem more logical that Schwartz was the intended recipient.

* Schwartz grasped that his story would appear more realistic if he 'admitted' to having certain doubts. In other words, if doubts make it so 'obvious' he was telling the truth, a smart but dishonest Schwartz has an obvious tactic at his disposal.

I'll admit there is some overlap in these points, but the point is there are plausible scenarios in which Schwartz does admit to being less that 100% certain on all points, and is also being less than 100% honest, in general

So why do you think that Schwartz lied? And by that I mean what motive did he have for lying? Obviously he wasn’t part of a plot because that idea has been shown to have been nonsense so what’s left?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
It's somewhat similar Leon Goldstein, who had to be 'persuaded' to go to the police, and yet no sooner had he grudgingly done so, he and Wess (or was it just Wess?), were straight off the press. What's going on there?

Who knows but I’m sure you’ll manage to weave something around it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Or was it more like a nudge in a certain direction? Whatever the case, it seems incongruous that Schwartz would come away from the interview feeling even more confused and in the dark as to what he had seen and heard, but then happily retell his story to the press. Why do suppose this supposedly frightened yet civic-minded man, stood and gawked at the incident at the gates, did f***-all about it, then waited until the evening to go to the police about it, and then speak to the Star?

Yes, Abberline might of course have given Schwartz a nudge in one direction because that’s just what Fred needed at that time. A false lead. Good idea.

”Stood and gawked….” More imagination triumphing over facts. Schwartz never claimed to have stopped. He viewed the entire incident on the move.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Excellent work, and you didn't even need to PM a friend for help!

As you can no doubt see, the two descriptions of black bag man's witnessing were very different, and cannot be explained away as a mere slip of the tongue or pen. So did Fanny see Goldstein twice, or were there two 'Fanny's', or were there two men, each with a black bag?



He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

Why is that these one word has wreaked so much havoc?

Although I’m certainly no stranger to a bit of sarcasm I can’t really see the point of this one? I don’t consider myself an expert on this case but i’ve been interested in it for around 35 years so I don’t see an issue with that I know and what I don’t know? I’ve admitted numerous times that in this case (an in life in general) I’m not great with geography and directions so if someone says “north of x” then I find that I have to check a map. And yes I don’t spend untold time trawling the various newspaper articles looking for grammatical anomalies or minor time difference to weave various plots around.

No Fanny didn’t see Goldstein twice. This can be dismissed without wasting a second of time on it. Likewise Mrs Artisan (or to use her correct name, Fanny Mortimer)

The words have caused no ‘havoc’ because 2 or 3 people in the whole subject giving them a second thought doesn’t exactly constitute a tremor in The Force does it?

He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club

Ive suggested 2 explanations for this:

1) Obviously those words were written by a Reporter. Fanny could have said something meaning that Goldstein (no doubt a Jewish and possibly a Jewish-looking man) might have been a Club member. Or more likely imo

2) When Fanny went onto her doorstep Goldstein had already passed her door and when she looked to her right she saw him either adjacent to the Club walking toward Fairclough Street or he’d just passed the Club. So she sees a Jewish looking man passing a Jewish Club. It’s not really a stretch of anyone’s over-active imagination to suggest that he ‘might’ have just left the Club. As Goldstein apparently looked toward the Club then obviously it’s likelier that he was adjacent to the building when Fanny first saw him. We would also have to ask ourselves why would he look up at a Club that he’d just stepped out of.

No havoc. No plot. No mystery.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Abberline determined from Schwartz that he didn't know what was going on! Schwartz admitted under close questioning that he couldn't say who had been addressed as Lipski.

So what you mean by "he didn't know what was going on!", is simply that Schwartz admitted "under close questioning", that he couldn't be 100% sure on one point - who 'Lipski' was directed at.

Why did Abberline feel Schwartz required close questioning on that point? Did he mean by that that he simply asked for confirmation once or twice, similar to what the Star man appears to have done ...?

The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand ...

Or was it more like a nudge in a certain direction? Whatever the case, it seems incongruous that Schwartz would come away from the interview feeling even more confused and in the dark as to what he had seen and heard, but then happily retell his story to the press. Why do suppose this supposedly frightened yet civic-minded man, stood and gawked at the incident at the gates, did f***-all about it, then waited until the evening to go to the police about it, and then speak to the Star?

It's somewhat similar Leon Goldstein, who had to be 'persuaded' to go to the police, and yet no sooner had he grudgingly done so, he and Wess (or was it just Wess?), were straight off the press. What's going on there?

That's all you need to know.

These aren't the droids you're looking for.

If Schwartz was lying through his teeth about any part of this incident, he would have had every reason to work out what he was going to say and then stick to it.

This is a line you seem to have pushed for several years - if Schwartz had not been telling the truth, he wouldn't have given an inch. He did give an inch, and therefore he must have been telling the truth. Not necessarily. There are a number of plausible scenarios in which Schwartz concedes or 'gives in' to Abberline's close questioning, while privately maintaining his initial position.

* He may have felt under pressure or somewhat intimidated by the situation, and wanted it over and done with. So he decides to agree with Abberline.

* He may have felt this was the weak spot in his story, and didn't want to dwell on it. So he admits to some doubt, for tactical reasons. In other words, he takes the path of least resistance.

* He may have supposed that Abberline was becoming suspicious that 'Lipski' was supposedly aimed at the second man - who is never described or referred to as a Jew - when it might seem more logical that Schwartz was the intended recipient.

* Schwartz grasped that his story would appear more realistic if he 'admitted' to having certain doubts. In other words, if doubts make it so 'obvious' he was telling the truth, a smart but dishonest Schwartz has an obvious tactic at his disposal.

I'll admit there is some overlap in these points, but the point is there are plausible scenarios in which Schwartz does admit to being less that 100% certain on all points, and is also being less than 100% honest, in general.

And what he said initially had the effect of putting two Jewish men close to the murder scene, and involved in an assault on the murdered woman. Abberline doubted this interpretation, so it's possible that Schwartz never meant to give that impression and regretted doing so.

I thought it had the effect of putting a Mr. Lipski had been at the scene.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why the quiz?

From Fanny’s front door Commercial Road was to the left running across the end of Berner Street. The board school was across the road and to the right at the corner of Fairclough and the IWMEC was, I think, a couple of doors to the right.

Excellent work, and you didn't even need to PM a friend for help!

As you can no doubt see, the two descriptions of black bag man's witnessing were very different, and cannot be explained away as a mere slip of the tongue or pen. So did Fanny see Goldstein twice, or were there two 'Fanny's', or were there two men, each with a black bag?

I can’t claim to know for certain what we don’t have evidence for but we have no record anywhere of her seeing Goldstein twice. So all that you have is 2 different words used in the Press. Now in your world that might be sufficient to hang a theory on but it’s not in mine.

He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

Why is that these one word has wreaked so much havoc?

[GBinOz]

Jeff showed us a timeline using reasonable margins for error and there are no issues. It’s the way we look at things in my opinion Caz. I think that we should look with caution others prefer to specifically look for a questionable word here and there or a different way of interpreting a sentence. Reading between the lines whilst ignoring the actual lines. And I think that this is the root of the issues on these threads with some posters. They actively want to find a cover up or just something ‘new’ whether it’s true or reasonable. At the end of the day we know roughly what occurred in Berner Street. There’s nothing more to learn accept increasingly more far-fetched theories. We just don’t know who killed Liz. But there’s no reliable evidence to dislodge the story that we’re all aware of.

Hi Herlock,

As Jeff said, his timeline and mine were substantially the same once clock corrections were applied.

I think that the bold text above could be applied to this situation. Interpretations being used, not to promote a cover up or something new, but to massage basic language in an interview because it doesn't conform to traditional thinking. If Goldstein was observed walking up Berner St, so what?
Does this make him a suspect? Since we don't know who killed Stride and he was known to be in the area we should examine the possibility. There are many Ripper suspects that can't be placed in the area of a murder but are staunchly promoted by their adherents. I agree that some use fanciful interpretations of words to create unfounded sinister alternatives, but, from my perspective, those tactics are being used here to deny the content of a basically harmless interview on the basis that it could be used for a theory of which they do not approve. Was Goldstein the murderer? Maybe, but I don't think so. Neither do I think it was Eagle or Diemshitz or Lave or Spooner or even Schwartz all of whom have been cast in the role by various investigators. Kosminski for this murder only - possibly.
What little evidence we have consists of contradictory press reports. Then we have Trevor contending that we can't trust police testimony (and Greg House's theory - Everybody lies). If we then resort to taking liberties with the English language on the basis of crystal-balling that what said wasn't really what was meant, then all we will end up with is gobbledegook.

Cheers, George