Whistling on Berner Street

[FrankO]

It's absolutely obvious that there was a second witness who saw him headed in the opposite direction. The alternative is to distort the language or completely ignor the evidence. What reasons can be found for just dismissing the possibility there couldn't be a second witness?

Hi George,

Just a quick visit.

As with almost anything out here, we can't flat out dismiss the possibility, but I do see one decent reason to put little stock into the notion that there was another witness who saw Leon Goldstein passing through Berner Street in a northern direction in the last, say, 10 minutes before Stride's body was discovered. And that is what Swanson wrote in his report:
"About 1 a.m. 30th. Leon Goldstein of 22 Christian Street, Commercial Road, called at Leman Street and stated that he was the man that passed down Berner Street with a black bag at that hour, that the bag contained empty cigarette boxes and that he had left a coffe house in Spectale Alley a short time before."

Threre's no mention of Goldstein passing through Berner Street in the direction of Commercial Road "at that hour".

Cheers,
Frank

[Wickerman]

Hi Al,

I'm with you on the intepretation of "previously", but how do we get around one sighting of Goldstein going down Berner St from Commercial Road and turning at the Board School, and another of him heading up Berner St, possibly from the Club? There can be no doubt about the direction of the first sighting. Where can she have been standing for the second description to make these the same sighting? I would have thought that if FM had made both sightings she would have referred to that in one of her interviews? That, and the fact that FM's husband was not an artisan, makes me suspect a second woman, but I would welcome any alternative explanations.

Cheers, George

Hi George.

I think we have to allow for the fact there were two reporters talking to Mrs Mortimer, and neither of them used her words verbatim. One of them may have, but not both. It was not at all unusual for the reporter to mix verbatim responses with paraphrase, whether quotes were used or not.
"Up" the street can be the same as "Down" the street.

"Up" could mean in the direction towards the nearest main road, going up to Commercial Rd., but it could also mean in the same direction as the house numbers increase, they go up towards Fairclough, the opposite direction.

Likewise, "Down" the street could mean towards Commercial Rd., as the house numbers decrease (going down), or it could mean coming away from Commercial Rd. down to Fairclough.
Mortimer likely used one expression whereas one of the reporters in his account used the other.
I don't think it's a key factor as it is easily explainable.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Just a quick visit.

As with almost anything out here, we can't flat out dismiss the possibility, but I do see one decent reason to put little stock into the notion that there was another witness who saw Leon Goldstein passing through Berner Street in a northern direction in the last, say, 10 minutes before Stride's body was discovered. And that is what Swanson wrote in his report:
"About 1 a.m. 30th. Leon Goldstein of 22 Christian Street, Commercial Road, called at Leman Street and stated that he was the man that passed down Berner Street with a black bag at that hour, that the bag contained empty cigarette boxes and that he had left a coffe house in Spectale Alley a short time before."

Threre's no mention of Goldstein passing through Berner Street in the direction of Commercial Road "at that hour".

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Nice to see you back.

There was a marginal note in Swanson's report:- "Who saw this man go down Berner St. or did he come forward to clear himself in case any questions should be asked." I read this as questioning whether Goldstein was establishing an alibi. Google shows a round trip to Spectacle Alley as 12 minutes, plus say 3 minutes to establish a presence, gives a time around 12:45 heading up Berner St, and "might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club". I should think that when he reported to Leman St it would be expected that he would have omitted the northern journey as that would have put him in the realm of person of interest.

While the terms up and down the street are open to some interpretation, it is more difficult to explain a person coming from the direction of the club.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi George.

I think we have to allow for the fact there were two reporters talking to Mrs Mortimer, and neither of them used her words verbatim. One of them may have, but not both. It was not at all unusual for the reporter to mix verbatim responses with paraphrase, whether quotes were used or not.
"Up" the street can be the same as "Down" the street.

"Up" could mean in the direction towards the nearest main road, going up to Commercial Rd., but it could also mean in the same direction as the house numbers increase, they go up towards Fairclough, the opposite direction.

Likewise, "Down" the street could mean towards Commercial Rd., as the house numbers decrease (going down), or it could mean coming away from Commercial Rd. down to Fairclough.
Mortimer likely used one expression whereas one of the reporters in his account used the other.
I don't think it's a key factor as it is easily explainable.

Hi Jon,

I agree partially. As I posted to Frank, while the terms up and down the street are open to some interpretation, it is more difficult to explain a person coming from the direction of the club. I also partially agree with Herlock, in that if FM had seen him twice she would have said so. I am not as yet persuaded that there wasn't a second witness, and if she observed Goldstein coming from the direction of the club then surely he has to be a person of interest.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

How are we distorting language George? ‘Up’ or ‘down’ can be used interchangeably in conversation. There’s also a report that says ‘passing through.’ So that’s 3 ‘versions.’ I may be mistaken but haven’t I seen a ‘passing along’ somewhere? So we have a difference of one word. Against that we have absolutely no mention anywhere of FM seeing Goldstein twice. We’ll probably just have to agree to disagree on this one George but to me it’s obvious that Fanny saw Goldstein once and that we should be wary of reading too much into the vagaries of language.

Looks like we’re showing at least a bit of fight at The Gabba. We are too reliant on Root though. Any danger of snow over there so that we can salvage a draw.

Hi Herlock,

We don't disagree on FM seeing Goldstein only once. I am not persuaded that there was not a second witness. Setting aside up, down, through etc, there is still evidence that someone saw him in the street coming from the direction of the club. I don't think we can just discard that evidence.

I have seen England come back and win from a situation such as this, but in that case they did not have their bowling attack incomprehensibly weakened by selectors. Not much chance of snow but the east coast of Australia is being lashed by torrential rain. I never like to see a test match resolved by weather. Bring on the battle.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Again, you’re reading way to much into the use of language. Especially when we can’t even be certain that the reporter wrote down what she said to the letter. None of this even remotely points to her seeing him twice. If you’re being that pedantic with language then why not ask the obvious question - why didn’t she just say that she’d seen him twice? She seemed keen to be helpful to the police so how could she not have been aware how interested they would have been to know that the same man had walked past that spot twice on the same evening? It’s absolutely obvious that she saw Goldstein once. This is blind alley number 2,412 I’m afraid.

I suppose there are two possible reasons:

one: As I argued in #227, she did indeed imply she had seen him twice. She just didn't put it in the simple "I saw him twice" terms, that you require.
two: She liked to create a mystery where none exists.

It's interesting that whenever I look closely at the words Fanny used, nothing I say is ever refuted. It's just dismissed as being pedantic. Pathetic.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It's absolutely obvious that there was a second witness who saw him headed in the opposite direction. The alternative is to distort the language or completely ignor the evidence. What reasons can be found for just dismissing the possibility there couldn't be a second witness?

Cheers, George

If it's absolutely obvious there was a second witness, why did you say in response to Wickerman's post #210...?

I am having difficulty in refuting any of the points you have made.

Has the situation changed, George?

I dare say there are wider issues to consider, if Mortimer had indeed seen Goldstein twice. Firstly, it would mean that the following is probably fairly close to the truth.

FM: I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out...

Where would that leave Israel Schwartz? It seems that the fortunes of Goldstein and Schwartz, rise and fall together.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

We don't disagree on FM seeing Goldstein only once. I am not persuaded that there was not a second witness. Setting aside up, down, through etc, there is still evidence that someone saw him in the street coming from the direction of the club. I don't think we can just discard that evidence.

I have seen England come back and win from a situation such as this, but in that case they did not have their bowling attack incomprehensibly weakened by selectors. Not much chance of snow but the east coast of Australia is being lashed by torrential rain. I never like to see a test match resolved by weather. Bring on the battle.

Cheers, George

I don’t see it to be honest George. But we agree on the cricket. It’s always unfortunate if a team that deserves to win gets robbed by the weather. I’d guess that it happens far less often in Oz though. With our weather some of our cricketers have webbed feet.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi George,

Just a quick visit.

As with almost anything out here, we can't flat out dismiss the possibility, but I do see one decent reason to put little stock into the notion that there was another witness who saw Leon Goldstein passing through Berner Street in a northern direction in the last, say, 10 minutes before Stride's body was discovered. And that is what Swanson wrote in his report:
"About 1 a.m. 30th. Leon Goldstein of 22 Christian Street, Commercial Road, called at Leman Street and stated that he was the man that passed down Berner Street with a black bag at that hour, that the bag contained empty cigarette boxes and that he had left a coffe house in Spectale Alley a short time before."

Threre's no mention of Goldstein passing through Berner Street in the direction of Commercial Road "at that hour".

Cheers,
Frank

This is evidence that the duty inspector who took Goldstein's statement, was unaware of the Evening News interview.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I suppose there are two possible reasons:

one: As I argued in #227, she did indeed imply she had seen him twice. She just didn't put it in the simple "I saw him twice" terms, that you require.
two: She liked to create a mystery where none exists.

It's interesting that whenever I look closely at the words Fanny used, nothing I say is ever refuted. It's just dismissed as being pedantic. Pathetic.

This might annoy you but there’s nothing I can do about that. With every single aspect of these events you imply that something is hidden between the lines or that someone is lying. Have you ever read anything and believed it?

She didn’t say or imply or infer that she’d seen him twice. And why? Surprisingly, it’s because she only saw him once.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If it's absolutely obvious there was a second witness, why did you say in response to Wickerman's post #210...?



Has the situation changed, George?

I dare say there are wider issues to consider, if Mortimer had indeed seen Goldstein twice. Firstly, it would mean that the following is probably fairly close to the truth.

FM: I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out...

Where would that leave Israel Schwartz? It seems that the fortunes of Goldstein and Schwartz, rise and fall together.

And there we have it. The answer to the question…why are you determined that Goldstein was seen twice?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Frank,

Nice to see you back.

There was a marginal note in Swanson's report:- "Who saw this man go down Berner St. or did he come forward to clear himself in case any questions should be asked." I read this as questioning whether Goldstein was establishing an alibi. Google shows a round trip to Spectacle Alley as 12 minutes, plus say 3 minutes to establish a presence, gives a time around 12:45 heading up Berner St, and "might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club". I should think that when he reported to Leman St it would be expected that he would have omitted the northern journey as that would have put him in the realm of person of interest.

Obviously. Yet this this does need to be stated.

While the terms up and down the street are open to some interpretation, it is more difficult to explain a person coming from the direction of the club.

Cheers, George

Same again. The problem is that for JtR hobbyists, the reference to black bag man possibly coming from the club is just too much to bare. Quoting it is like holding up a crucifix to a vampire.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok, so we have JTR hobbyists vs Compulsive Conspiracy theorists. Fine.

”Possibly” coming from the Club? Did she say that he came from the Club? No. Did she say that he ‘might’ have come from the club? Possibly, though she might have told a reporter that he might have been a member especially if he was of Jewish appearance? So did she see him coming from the club? No. Did she say exactly where he was when she saw him? No. So is it possible that when she first saw him he was just passing the gates? Yes. And that she simply suggested a possibility? Yes.

Goldstein himself said that he just passed the club. Did he say where he’d been previously? Yes he did. Did the Police check this? We have no way of knowing but it would have been an entirely reasonable and easy check to have done given the seriousness of the situation. So there has to be at least a reasonable chance that his story checked out.

Therefore do we have any evidence worth considering that he might have come from the club. Absolutely not.

This doesn’t affect me ‘like a crucifix to a vampire’ because I’ve done what most will have done. Looked at the evidence and seen that it’s the product of a compulsion to see mystery where none exists.

Simple explanations appear to bother you which is entirely understandable if you’re starting proposition is “there just has to be a mystery/cover-up in here somewhere.” And that appears to be the case as you’ve proved over and over and over again.

[GBinOz]

Ok, so we have JTR hobbyists vs Compulsive Conspiracy theorists. Fine.

”Possibly” coming from the Club? Did she say that he came from the Club? No. Did she say that he ‘might’ have come from the club? Possibly, though she might have told a reporter that he might have been a member especially if he was of Jewish appearance? So did she see him coming from the club? No. Did she say exactly where he was when she saw him? No. So is it possible that when she first saw him he was just passing the gates? Yes. And that she simply suggested a possibility? Yes.

Goldstein himself said that he just passed the club. Did he say where he’d been previously? Yes he did. Did the Police check this? We have no way of knowing but it would have been an entirely reasonable and easy check to have done given the seriousness of the situation. So there has to be at least a reasonable chance that his story checked out.

Therefore do we have any evidence worth considering that he might have come from the club. Absolutely not.

This doesn’t affect me ‘like a crucifix to a vampire’ because I’ve done what most will have done. Looked at the evidence and seen that it’s the product of a compulsion to see mystery where none exists.

Simple explanations appear to bother you which is entirely understandable if you’re starting proposition is “there just has to be a mystery/cover-up in here somewhere.” And that appears to be the case as you’ve proved over and over and over again.

Hi Herlock,

There is no proof he was coming from the club, just from that direction. It depends where Mrs Artisan is standing at the time. If she is north of the yard then he is headed towards Commercial St and might have come from the club. If she is south of the yard then he is headed home and it is the same sighting as FM's. That would restrict her to living between Packer and the Nelson.

The police might have checked that he was at the Spectacle coffee house, but would they have checked where he was before he got there, to establish an alibi? I don't see how you can label this as a conspiracy. It is simply a sighting of a man near a murder scene, the same as BS, Pipeman and Parcelman.

Commiserations on the cricket. The team didn't last long after the anchor was removed, but a commendable effort by Malan. I hope your selectors aren't stupid enough to repeat their mistake in the next test. I'm not quite enough of a purist to believe that a draw is the best theoretical outcome. I like a battle, not a walkover, regardless of whichever side is doing the walking over.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

If it's absolutely obvious there was a second witness, why did you say in response to Wickerman's post #210...?
I was using superlatives here in response to Herlock's use of them expressing the opposing view.


Has the situation changed, George?

I dare say there are wider issues to consider, if Mortimer had indeed seen Goldstein twice. Firstly, it would mean that the following is probably fairly close to the truth.

FM: I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out...

Where would that leave Israel Schwartz? It seems that the fortunes of Goldstein and Schwartz, rise and fall together.

Hi Andrew,

I did have trouble refuting the points made by Jon with regard to use of language and the times involved, but times have been a constant problem. We have to remember that when people made statements to the press their use of language was unlikely to be perfect. If they knew that, 130 years later, their every word was to be hung upon and analysed for subtle nuances they would surely want a second chance to make their language more accurately reflect what they thought they saw. Jon made some good points regarding the event schedules which would seem to leave little time for Goldstein to effect a return trip to the coffee house. Never the less, the evidence is there, and if the option is to assume Mrs Artisan and FM are the same person then the evidence is against her seeing Goldstein only once.

Cheers, George