Whistling on Berner Street

[FrankO]

I don't understand how Goldstein putting his name to the man with the black bag, clears that man/him of any suspicion.

I don’t either, Andrew, and that is why I didn’t suggest it would.

Was the man with a black bag under suspicion before Goldstein went to the police, but not after his name was known? How does that work?

Why do you think Goldstein only gave his name and said he was seen carrying a black bag when he made his statement to the police? And at the time not only Mortimer stated about seeing a man with a black bag in the neighbourhood of a crime scene, but there was also Albert Baskert, who had made a statement about seeing a suspiciously acting man carrying a black bag. And in September the police arrested William Pigott, who was also seen with a black bag.

According to Swanson's report, Goldstein's bag carried empty cigarette boxes. To me, this is evidence that Goldstein was never properly investigated. The police had no way of verifying the contents of the bag on the night, so Swanson is essentially saying that Goldstein was taken on trust. Also, what was the relationship between the Spectacle Alley coffee house, and the cigarette boxes? The report does not say. Wess's reference to the statement being regarded as entirely satisfactory, is more evidence that Goldstein was taken on trust.

Why should that be evidence of that? Because Swanson’s summary report didn’t include any information about what the police did or didn’t do to check Goldstein’s statement?

About 100 people attended the meeting that night. Leon Goldstein was a club member. Do you suppose he attended the meeting? It would seem a little strange if he hadn't, unless he'd been at a market like Diemschitz, or had gone out for the day, like Schwartz. The meeting didn't finish until nearly midnight, so if Goldstein did attend, he must have walked up Berner street at some point after midnight.

He may well have attended and may have left for Spectacle Alley shortly after the discussion ended between 11.30 and 11.45. Or he may have left for Sp. Alley earlier still and directly from his home. There, unfortunately, is no way for us to know.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I read it in a different way. I think he came forward because he was seen returning from Spectacle Alley, carrying a black bag and wanted to clear himself of any possible suspicion. To me, Swanson's report makes this also quite clear as he wrote "called at Leman Street and stated that he was the man that passed down Berner Street with a black bag at that hour".

Frank,
I don't understand how Goldstein putting his name to the man with the black bag, clears that man/him of any suspicion. Was the man with a black bag under suspicion before Goldstein went to the police, but not after his name was known? How does that work?

According to Swanson's report, Goldstein's bag carried empty cigarette boxes. To me, this is evidence that Goldstein was never properly investigated. The police had no way of verifying the contents of the bag on the night, so Swanson is essentially saying that Goldstein was taken on trust. Also, what was the relationship between the Spectacle Alley coffee house, and the cigarette boxes? The report does not say.

In this regard, the following snippets are also of interest.

Morning Advertiser,
3 October 1888
W. Wess, secretary of the International Club, Berner-street, called at our office at midnight, and stated that, it having come to his knowledge that the man who was seen by Mrs. Mortimer, of 36, Berner-street, passing her house with a black, shiny bag, and walking very fast down the street from the Commercial-road at about the time of the murder, was a member of the club, he persuaded him last night, between ten and eleven o'clock, to accompany him to the Leman-street station, where he made a statement as to his whereabouts on Saturday evening, which was entirely satisfactory. The young man's name is Leon Goldstein, and he is a traveller.

Lloyds Weekly
7 October 1888
Reports have been ciculated this week of a man having been seen in the streets with a black bag about the time of the murders; but suspicion was removed by a young traveller named Goldstein coming forward and stating that he was in Berner Street.

Wess's reference to the statement being regarded as entirely satisfactory, is more evidence that Goldstein was taken on trust. Did it not occur to the duty inspector to ask Goldstein why he hadn't managed to come forward until late Tuesday evening? What do you suppose caused the delay? Why did Goldstein apparently need 'persuading', to go to the police? Surely he would have been keen to clear himself of any suspicion.

The Lloyds Weekly report also follows the strange logic; the man with a black bag was suspicious because he was anonymous, more so than his actual behavior. Once the man had a name, that suspicion was removed. If Lave had been seen on the street, eating from a bag of grapes, would he have been regarded as suspicious, until he told the police it was him?

As to his trip to Spectacle Alley, I find it a bit hard to understand why he would come forward but then not tell the whole truth. If he'd decided to come forward, why then not tell about his trip to Spectacle Alley as well - be it from the club or from his home - if he did take it at an hour relevant to the murder? After all, so what if he had come from the club? Proofwise for the police, it would mean nothing and he wouldn't be more interesting than Eagle or Lave or Wess.

About 100 people attended the meeting that night. Leon Goldstein was a club member. Do you suppose he attended the meeting? It would seem a little strange if he hadn't, unless he'd been at a market like Diemschitz, or had gone out for the day, like Schwartz. The meeting didn't finish until nearly midnight, so if Goldstein did attend, he must have walked up Berner street at some point after midnight.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

Thanks George.

I agree that a return trip would be difficult to fit in. If FM made a double sighting, it's much more likely that the journey north was the most recent, and the journey south occurred ... umm ... previously.

[FrankO]

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

Possibly, but certainly not necessarily, Andrew.

[FrankO]

As for the "he may have come from the club" (I forget the exact phrasing, but that one), it's a pretty unsure statement even as it is and can't be said to indicate she saw him come from there. Rather, given the context, it sounds much more like a response to a question from the reporter (along the lines of "Do you think he could have come out of the club?"...."Well, he looked foreign, so I suppose he could have", which the reporter paraphrases as "he may have come from the club". It's always difficult with news stories to separate out what is spontaneous and what is prompted to "get the story".

I entirely agree with you, Jeff. The reporter asked her "Did you observe him closely, or notice anything in his appearance?", to which she answered "No, I didn't pay particular attention to him. He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me." It seems very much like a reporter to then have asked something like what you suggest with the result as you suggest it.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

It seems clear to me that Mrs Artisan and FM were one and the same.

" I suppose you did not notice a man and woman pass down the street while you were at the door?"

"No, sir. I think I should have noticed them if they had. Particularly if they'd been strangers, at that time o' night. I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand."

"Did you observe him closely, or notice anything in his appearance?"

"No, I didn't pay particular attention to him. He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club., A good many young men goes there, of a Saturday night especially."

She doesn’t say that he was coming from the direction of the club. All that she says is that he might have been coming from the club which doesn’t tell us anything apart from the fact that she definitely didn’t see him exiting the yard. As I’ve suggested it might well have been the case that when Fanny first stood on her doorstep she looked right and saw Goldstein who was, at that time, just passing the club. Leaving the possibility that he’d just left the yard.

The only reason I mentioned conspiracy is a response to Andrew’s claim that I’m a ‘hobbyist’ whilst he’s somehow a more ‘serious’ student of the case. When we look at the Berner Street aspects of the case he’s seen suspicion in Schwartz, Diemschutz, Letchford, Goldstein and others. So unless we accept that Berner Street was hosting the annual conference of The Society For People Who Act Deviously then we surel have to conclude that there’s an element of intention here. I call this conspiracist thinking. I don’t mean that we shouldn’t look into things and explore every idea but we have to bear foremost in our minds that humans make errors, that humans don’t all speak textbook English (even English ones) that the Press can make errors or even exaggerate to sell papers. And so, although Andrew appears to find this approach ‘boring,’ we have to apply caution and put the brakes on our imagination’s. It’s certainly not that I don’t want the case solved or that I’m somehow sentimentally attached to an official ‘version’ of events. The ‘up’ ‘down’ thing is a case in point. Especially when we add ‘passed along’ into the mix. It’s fairly obvious to me that the transcription by different reporters is the source of this. It’s the danger of reading between the lines.

…..

Another spineless performance from England but that’s taking nothing away from an excellent performance by the Aussies. In talent there’s probably not a huge difference between the teams. In fight, backbone and discipline there’s a cavern. Time and time again we buckle when a bit of fight is required. I honestly can’t see us winning a test and god help us when the time comes for Root to have a spell of poor form. Geoffrey Boycott is only 80 and Ian Botham is only 66, I wonder if they’re up for a comeback?

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

Nice to see you back.

Hi George,

Thanks, but as I said it was/would be just a quick visit, seeing that the discussions haven't changed.

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.

I read it in a different way. I think he came forward because he was seen returning from Spectacle Alley, carrying a black bag and wanted to clear himself of any possible suspicion. To me, Swanson's report makes this also quite clear as he wrote "called at Leman Street and stated that he was the man that passed down Berner Street with a black bag at that hour".

In this regard, the following snippets are also of interest.

Morning Advertiser,
3 October 1888
W. Wess, secretary of the International Club, Berner-street, called at our office at midnight, and stated that, it having come to his knowledge that the man who was seen by Mrs. Mortimer, of 36, Berner-street, passing her house with a black, shiny bag, and walking very fast down the street from the Commercial-road at about the time of the murder, was a member of the club, he persuaded him last night, between ten and eleven o'clock, to accompany him to the Leman-street station, where he made a statement as to his whereabouts on Saturday evening, which was entirely satisfactory. The young man's name is Leon Goldstein, and he is a traveller.

Lloyds Weekly
7 October 1888
Reports have been ciculated this week of a man having been seen in the streets with a black bag about the time of the murders; but suspicion was removed by a young traveller named Goldstein coming forward and stating that he was in Berner Street.

As to his trip to Spectacle Alley, I find it a bit hard to understand why he would come forward but then not tell the whole truth. If he'd decided to come forward, why then not tell about his trip to Spectacle Alley as well - be it from the club or from his home - if he did take it at an hour relevant to the murder? After all, so what if he had come from the club? Proofwise for the police, it would mean nothing and he wouldn't be more interesting than Eagle or Lave or Wess.

Cheers,
Frank

[JeffHamm]

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

Hi George,

I'm not sure one should go so far as to say the evidence is against her seeing Goldstein only once. Rather, one possible interpretation of the two news reports can been seen that way. However, as Wickerman pointed out, the directional information contained in "up" and "down" is not exactly unambiguous. Personally, I think I use them interchangeably, and if I were telling the same story twice I could very easily see me using up the street on one occasion and down the street on another.

To add to Wickerman's two usages (up meaning towards the major area, which would be Commerical, or up meaning as the house numbers go, which means towards Fairclough), the terms can also be used relative to the observer; a person is coming "up" the road if they walking towards them, but once they pass and are heading away, they are going down the road. Doesn't matter which end of the street, just whether they are coming towards or heading away. So, if FM is telling her story on two occasions, and she's seen Goldstein traverse the entire street, for part of his journey he is coming up the road then he passed her, and is going down the road. The previously also reads to me as others have suggested, rather than indicating a second time of sighting she's indicating her previous time on the step at that point.

So the interpretation of two sightings, while it can be made, is based upon having found an ambiguity between two different tellings, in neither of which does she actually explicitly say she saw him on two occasions, rather that's an alternative interpretation of how the reporter presented he story (which, of course, then makes us have to be cautious about whose words are we interpreting here?)

I have a vague memory of a police report indicating they did check on Goldstein's story and it checked out, but often those vague memories turn out to be false. If anyone knows of a report where the police do state they verified his whereabouts (at the teahouse, or whatever it was), that would be great to know.

As for the "he may have come from the club" (I forget the exact phrasing, but that one), it's a pretty unsure statement even as it is and can't be said to indicate she saw him come from there. Rather, given the context, it sounds much more like a response to a question from the reporter (along the lines of "Do you think he could have come out of the club?"...."Well, he looked foreign, so I suppose he could have", which the reporter paraphrases as "he may have come from the club". It's always difficult with news stories to separate out what is spontaneous and what is prompted to "get the story".

If we step back, though, and look at everything, we see the police cleared Goldstein and do indicate he's not of interest to them. While we don't have a description of what they did and how, those types of notes are long gone, we do have the result of their check. And if he had been spotted twice, then I would think we should see that in the police reports, where they clear him for both journeys. However, I'm pretty sure they too just indicate he was coming from the pub/teahouse/whatever it was and they never mention him going to, though clearly he must have at some point.

While it's an interesting spin on things, it's simply reinterpreting a news presentation to show it could be read differently. So we can't say it's evidence against the single journey, at most it's a viable alternative. The rest of the evidence we have, though, shows no evidence or mention of a 2nd journey, and tends to suggest a single one. Therefore, the weight of the evidence still favours the single journey.

- Jeff

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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.