Whistling on Berner Street

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Andrew,

When you raise a series of questions, to which no one knows the answers, and I respond with a scenario that I label as speculation, you want to examine and contest every detail of my conjectures. I have in my mind what I currently consider to be a reasonable assessment of what happened and have laid it out for peer comment and criticism. I accept that others have different views and believe I profit from hearing them even if I don't concur. Despite several attempts to persuade you to present your overall theory, you continue to snipe from the shadows so that no one knows which dots you are trying to connect to which. Perhaps you could give us all the benefit of your answers to the questions that you have posed to me in your post?

Cheers, George

George,
could you let me know the difference between sniping from the shadows, and peer comment and criticism? Regarding me asking impossible to answer questions, isn't that what speculation is for? So why not answer these questions with further speculation? For example, why did Harris return home rather than go to the yard? A: He couldn't stand the sight of blood. Why did take so long to return home? A: He stopped and began speaking to the board school couple. That sort of thing.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If you place such significance in the use of single words like ‘up’ as opposed to the word ‘down’ in the case of FM and Goldstein, I can’t think why you place no significance in the word ‘I?’

The words 'up' and 'down' were used in context, as you well know. As for Spooner's repeated use of the word 'I', rather than 'we', actually I do place significance on it. So along with other evidence, of the following possibilities I heavily favour the second as being the most likely.

* On hearing of the murder, Spooner left his woman stranded on the street, alone, in the middle of the Autumn of Terror

* There was no woman with Spooner, and Spooner's reason for being on the street was not what he claimed it to be

[NotBlamedForNothing]

More complicated?

Why don’t you tell us what you think really happened? We’ll all assemble in the drawing room…..over to you Monsieur Poirot.

That is actually quite funny. I presume you refer to your own drawing room? You can presume I've arrived when you see the silver Aston Martin.

[JeffHamm]

The words 'up' and 'down' were used in context, as you well know. As for Spooner's repeated use of the word 'I', rather than 'we', actually I do place significance on it. So along with other evidence, of the following possibilities I heavily favour the second as being the most likely.

* On hearing of the murder, Spooner left his woman stranded on the street, alone, in the middle of the Autumn of Terror

* There was no woman with Spooner, and Spooner's reason for being on the street was not what he claimed it to be

Why not include:

The woman with Spooner lived beside the pub they were talking in front of, explaining why they were there, and she went inside when he went to assist.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why not include:

The woman with Spooner lived beside the pub they were talking in front of, explaining why they were there, and she went inside when he went to assist.

- Jeff

Edward Spooner, in reply to the coroner, said: I live at No. 26, Fairclough-street, and am a horse-keeper with Messrs. Meredith, biscuit bakers. On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Public-house, at the corner of Christian-street, with my young woman. We had left a public-house in Commercial-road at closing time, midnight, and walked quietly to the point named. We stood outside the Beehive about twenty-five minutes, when two Jews came running along, calling out "Murder" and "Police."

That would mean they both lived on Fairclough street, but chose to stand outside a closed pub for half an hour. Spooner was 25 at the time. Why not her invite inside? Presumably he'd managed that feat (of getting her inside), by the time he and Catherine had a son in 1890. Perhaps he did try though (that night), and she said, "No, not to-night, some other night."

By the way, the public house on Commercial Road, was actually "a beershop at the corner of Settles-street, Commercial-road". Settles street was were Stride had been seen by the labourers, at around 11pm.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The words 'up' and 'down' were used in context, as you well know. As for Spooner's repeated use of the word 'I', rather than 'we', actually I do place significance on it. So along with other evidence, of the following possibilities I heavily favour the second as being the most likely.

* On hearing of the murder, Spooner left his woman stranded on the street, alone, in the middle of the Autumn of Terror

* There was no woman with Spooner, and Spooner's reason for being on the street was not what he claimed it to be

And this is exactly what I mean. There’s absolutely no basis for believing this. It’s a perfect example of what I mean when I say that you see the sinister in everything. Just because he didn’t mention the irrelevant piece of information about what had happened to the woman doesn’t mean that he was lying. Maybe he did but the reporter didn’t bother to write it up from his notes? “Stranded?” How do you know that she didn’t live a few feet away and he’d just was just talking to him before she went inside?

Edit: I just noticed that Jeff has made this point in post#544

[JeffHamm]

Edward Spooner, in reply to the coroner, said: I live at No. 26, Fairclough-street, and am a horse-keeper with Messrs. Meredith, biscuit bakers. On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Public-house, at the corner of Christian-street, with my young woman. We had left a public-house in Commercial-road at closing time, midnight, and walked quietly to the point named. We stood outside the Beehive about twenty-five minutes, when two Jews came running along, calling out "Murder" and "Police."

That would mean they both lived on Fairclough street, but chose to stand outside a closed pub for half an hour. Spooner was 25 at the time. Why not her invite inside? Presumably he'd managed that feat (of getting her inside), by the time he and Catherine had a son in 1890. Perhaps he did try though (that night), and she said, "No, not to-night, some other night."

By the way, the public house on Commercial Road, was actually "a beershop at the corner of Settles-street, Commercial-road". Settles street was were Stride had been seen by the labourers, at around 11pm.

Where does it say the young woman lived on Fairclough? I see it says Spooner did, but there's no mention of her address. Why can't she live next to the pub, and they were chatting there, spending a bit more time together, before she went inside. It's possible that Spooner was trying to get invited in, as you suggest.

And how can we be certain that the young woman was Catherine, with whom he had a son? As you say, he was 25, romances can change fairly quickly at that age. As you say, maybe they were the "no not tonight" couple, but even if they were, that doesn't change the possibility that she lived next to the pub.

And so to me, of the three options, the:

The woman with Spooner lived beside the pub they were talking in front of, explaining why they were there, and she went inside when he went to assist.

seems to make the most sense. It accounts for why they were standing outside a closed pub (because she lived about there), they were chatting there because she was going inside and they were extending their time together, and when Spooner decides to go assist, she could safely go inside.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Neither in the Swanson version or in The Star interview does Schwartz mention ‘stopping.’

I don't think that is correct.

... having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street ...

The assault occurs while Schwartz is at the gateway. Then he crosses the road. It is by stopping that Schwartz is able to observe what he claimed to observe. However, this is somewhat beside the point, as this was from Swanson's summary of the statement taken by Abberline. Abberline explicitly stated that Schwartz stopped to watch. There can be no argument on this point.

Abberline says it but was he right? Schwartz sounds a bit of a coward. Is he really going to stop and stare? Or look as he was passing? The latter is very obviously the more likely.

As if to prove my point that Schwartz's story can only be made sense of, by changing it, you go ahead and change it. Has it even occurred to you that the reason Abberline stated that Schwartz stopped to look, was because that is what Schwartz told him he did? Anything Abberline said that Schwartz did or witnessed, was because Schwartz told him so (via an interpreter). The only exception to this, is Abberline giving his opinion on who 'Lipski' was addressed to. When doing so, Abberline made it clear that this was his opinion, and thus not necessarily the opinion of Schwartz. In other words, it was not what Schwartz had told him had occurred.

It's fascinating to me that you claim the authenticity of Schwartz's story, partly based on Abberline extensive knowledge and experience, and his reputation as a policemen, and yet you're happy to casually conclude that Abberline must have been guessing, and guessing wrong at that, when he claimed that Schwartz had stopped to watch. So no, the later is not obviously the more likely. What is obvious is that you're not going to accept all of the story given by Schwartz as recorded by Abberline, if any of it doesn't make sense or sound right to you. Instead, you're going to 'fix' the parts that need 'fixing', and apparently without complaint from anyone except myself. By doing so, however, you're no longer dealing with the events of 1888, but just some fictionalised version of those events.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And this is exactly what I mean. There’s absolutely no basis for believing this. It’s a perfect example of what I mean when I say that you see the sinister in everything. Just because he didn’t mention the irrelevant piece of information about what had happened to the woman doesn’t mean that he was lying.

And this is exactly what I mean about there being an orthodoxy, that regards any deviation from accepted stories as virtual heresy. I've argued that Spooner was actually WVC. There would be nothing sinister about that, and he may have had good reason for not mentioning it. In fact it may have been a committee policy not to disclose the names of it's patrolmen to the public or the press, for safety or other reasons. Consequently, Spooner would have had to come up with another reason for being on the street at that time. It is even possible that Baxter knew what the situation was.

Maybe he did but the reporter didn’t bother to write it up from his notes?

The reporter? There were lots of reporters. This has been pointed out to you before.

“Stranded?” How do you know that she didn’t live a few feet away and he’d just was just talking to him before she went inside?

Now wouldn't that be fortunate? So Spooner's story would now seem to precariously hang on the supposition that his lady friend - probably his soon to be wife Catherine - was literally the girl the next door.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hello George,

At this particular time I think that everyone’s first thought would have been that this was another ripper murder, whether it actually was or wasn’t so it’s difficult, to say the least, to see why they would have believed that the police might have believed that the ripper had killed ‘on his own doorstep’ so to speak. I just can’t see this being in their minds especially faced with the shock of the situation.

To follow on, and I recognise your ‘leaving aside any conspiracy theories’ point, would this thought have been so immediate and so terrifying to club members that in such a short space of time they decided to take such an enormous step as lying to the police with the very obvious risks of discovery. Risks that they had absolutely no control over?

So in a way the fact that they were in the middle of a massively publicised series of murders actually worked in their favour. If this had been an isolated murder they ‘might’ have thought that the police would have seen this as indicative of what kind of club the IWMEC actually was. I still don’t think that they would have come up with this kind of plot though because it was far too risky and easy to unravel.

So no I don’t think that they would have thought that the situation merited lying to the Police.

Just a quick question. What do you mean by "would this thought have been so immediate"? Schwartz didn't go to Leman street station until late in the afternoon, or early evening. That is not exactly what I would call an immediate response. How do you know that the man who had the appearance of being in the theatrical line, didn't spend the afternoon learning his lines?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't think that is correct.

... having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street ...

The assault occurs while Schwartz is at the gateway. Then he crosses the road. It is by stopping that Schwartz is able to observe what he claimed to observe. However, this is somewhat beside the point, as this was from Swanson's summary of the statement taken by Abberline. Abberline explicitly stated that Schwartz stopped to watch. There can be no argument on this point.



As if to prove my point that Schwartz's story can only be made sense of, by changing it, you go ahead and change it. Has it even occurred to you that the reason Abberline stated that Schwartz stopped to look, was because that is what Schwartz told him he did? Anything Abberline said that Schwartz did or witnessed, was because Schwartz told him so (via an interpreter). The only exception to this, is Abberline giving his opinion on who 'Lipski' was addressed to. When doing so, Abberline made it clear that this was his opinion, and thus not necessarily the opinion of Schwartz. In other words, it was not what Schwartz had told him had occurred.

It's fascinating to me that you claim the authenticity of Schwartz's story, partly based on Abberline extensive knowledge and experience, and his reputation as a policemen, and yet you're happy to casually conclude that Abberline must have been guessing, and guessing wrong at that, when he claimed that Schwartz had stopped to watch. So no, the later is not obviously the more likely. What is obvious is that you're not going to accept all of the story given by Schwartz as recorded by Abberline, if any of it doesn't make sense or sound right to you. Instead, you're going to 'fix' the parts that need 'fixing', and apparently without complaint from anyone except myself. By doing so, however, you're no longer dealing with the events of 1888, but just some fictionalised version of those events.

Nothing changes the fact that The Star interview doesn’t mention him stopping.

“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 a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off,‘

In fact it has him looking back to see what was going on so clearly in this version Schwartz was in motion.

And in Swanson’s version:

“The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite 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’ & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.”

No mention of him stopping. In fact he saw the second man ‘on crossing’ the road.

So ok, we have 3 versions. One of which mentions stopping. Take your pick. The point about stopping or not isn’t a particularly important one so isn’t it possible that Abberline just assumed this? I don’t know which one is correct. You appear to be confident.

I don’t base the authenticity of Schwartz on anything particular. Witnesses usually tell the truth but can be mistaken of course. Why would he lie? How could he have been anything like confident that he wouldn’t be exposed as a liar? So…..

a) part of a plot?
b) seeking his 15 minutes of fame?
or
c) honest but with understandable errors and maybe a bit of exaggeration on his part or by the Press?

Id say

a) not a chance
b) unlikely and fraught with risks out of his control

therefore

c)

[Herlock Sholmes]

And this is exactly what I mean about there being an orthodoxy, that regards any deviation from accepted stories as virtual heresy. I've argued that Spooner was actually WVC. There would be nothing sinister about that, and he may have had good reason for not mentioning it. In fact it may have been a committee policy not to disclose the names of it's patrolmen to the public or the press, for safety or other reasons. Consequently, Spooner would have had to come up with another reason for being on the street at that time. It is even possible that Baxter knew what the situation was.

Its possible but we have no evidence for it and we’re never likely to have evidence for it unless some WVC membership list surfaces so what can be gained by an unverifiable suggestion?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The reporter? There were lots of reporters. This has been pointed out to you before.

I don’t need this to be patronisingly ‘pointed out’ to me and I’ll repeat “why must they have noted it?”

More likely he just didn’t mention something that wasn’t germane to events that evening.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a quick question. What do you mean by "would this thought have been so immediate"? Schwartz didn't go to Leman street station until late in the afternoon, or early evening. That is not exactly what I would call an immediate response. How do you know that the man who had the appearance of being in the theatrical line, didn't spend the afternoon learning his lines?

Yes but if there was a plot (and there wasn’t) then they (the plotters) would have had to have come up with it in the time between the body being found and the start of the search for a Constable. So if for eg it’s being suggested that the body was found at 12.40 and Eagle went for a Constable at 12.55 say then that means that they saw the motive, came up with the plot and executed it all in the space of 15 minutes or so. I’m not saying that they would have had Schwartz specifically in mind as a false witness but they would have had to have had the idea about a false witness. Unless the Schwartz plan was a plan B of course.

[Michael W Richards]

There was a time years ago when I discussed these very same topics with members like Sam, Ben, Glenn, George, Simon Wood, AP Wolf, occasionally Stewart Evans, and many others who I wont all mention, but were certainly important and informative regardless of the specific topic. Some things remained present in all the discussions. Respect for the historical documentation, not necessarily any acceptance at face value of any opinion be it modern or contemporary, but a shared distaste for falsehoods and absolutes being used. There are in fact few absolutes in this topic in general, beginning with the Canonical proposition itself. Everyone who decides to post about these issues should be clear about what is opinion vs fact, and be historically accurate when doing so. It seems like back then we all readily accepted the higher standard for the discussions when approaching them academically. Should anyone overstep those boundaries they were quickly reminded of the "facts" by any one of these reputable members, and the poster taking liberties with the truth was humbled. Often politely, but not always.

That is not what happens anymore, just like in most social media platforms, the inaccurate, intentionally misleading or deceptive, or downright false posts get left out there for anyone to believe or disbelieve. This kind of anonymity draws out the weak because they can just assume a posture of strength, many of the people who regularly mislead would have never attempted to do what they do had they had to face a well informed group of people in person. A feeling of safety enables the falsehoods, and I hope that can change.

Ive been challenged to remain polite by posters like Herlock who continually post inaccurate and misleading information, and consistently accuse others of doing just that when they provably did not do so. People who think that opinion is gospel. Well, I failed many of those manners challenges and resorted to name calling and insults to try and point out the misinformation he and others put out there, thinking in my own mind that we all have the reputation of the venue to protect, its integrity and accuracy. When it was smaller, admin could watch every post and jump in themselves when posters took liberty with truth, but they cant be expected to do that when the membership has grown so much and the number of people visiting the site has as well. Every poster here now has to take responsibility to ensure that the quality of the information and the accuracy of stated historical "fact" is still alive and well. There are many people who hope to learn from others better informed, dont let the ones that arent take anything away from that experience. I used Herlock as an example because if anyone should be so inclined they can fact check every post he has made and see for themselves. Hes an obvious, others are not so obvious. Some are selling books or trying to make a buck out of the worldwide interest in these cases and have those goals as their reason for posting what they do. I have academic reasons for coming here and staying here, and I believe many others do too.

Ive been very fortunate to have been able to use such wonderful resources and talk with such informed and well mannered folks. I hope future users will have that same experience, as long as everyone shuts down the falsehoods and does their research it should stay relevant and the information will continue to have integrity and accuracy.