Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whistling on Berner Street

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Nor indeed the way that the reporter wrote down his notes, Herlock.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Maybe he did it twice Caz?

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    What is your preferred solution regarding the following...?

    Swanson: Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other.

    It sort of seems to me that they were. The next day, Schwartz is telling the Star that one man shouted a warning to the man assaulting the woman. Schwartz also fled the scene, apparently with one man in pursuit. So the two men (or was it three?), do at least seem to know each other, and may have even been accomplices. Yet on the other hand, this scenario just does not sit well. Frankly, it is just not Jack the Ripperish enough for my liking, and therefore I've concluded that while Schwartz might have perceived the two men as having been together, I just know he was wrong about that.
    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.

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    It’s a difference of one word and we can’t even be anything like sure that this wasn’t down to the way that the Reporter wrote up his notes. So how can we read into it? Especially when we consider the situation. The police believed that this was a ripper murder. They were under enormous pressure and so every lead or scrap of info was vital. The man with the bag was of very obvious interest to them. So can we really imagine that Fanny Mortimer, who obviously wasn’t exactly a reluctant witness, wouldn’t have specifically mentioned to the police that she’d seen this suspicious looking bag carrying man twice passing the scene of the crime? How can you think this and all on the strength of one word in a report which would have been written up from notes taken at the scene? Obviously I can’t stop you seeing the sinister in absolutely everything because you have form for it so I’m happy to leave it to others to draw their own conclusions. You might find someone who agrees with you but I suspect that will be a very small minority no doubt comprised of people so sentimentally attached to some kind of orthodoxy that they just can’t bring themselves to question it.
    Nor indeed the way that the reporter wrote down his notes, Herlock.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    It is quite a claim to suggest that Abberline determined that Schwartz didn't know what was going on, especially as you haven't quoted any supporting evidence. Unless Schwartz made up or was told his story, what we do know is:

    * Schwartz was there at the scene
    * Abberline was not at the scene, and other than Schwartz, knew no one who was

    We also know:

    * Schwartz gave a statement
    * Abberline took that statement

    Given the above, how could Abberline determine that Schwartz didn't know what was going on?
    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. That's all you need to know. 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. 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.


    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    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.

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    It’s a difference of one word ...
    As if to prove 'Fanny's' point.

    If you don't mind, can I ask to to answer a few quiz questions? Actually one question with three parts ...

    Relative to Fanny at her doorstep, where were the following situated ...?

    * Commercial Road
    * the board school
    * the IWMEC


    The man with the bag was of very obvious interest to them. So can we really imagine that Fanny Mortimer, who obviously wasn’t exactly a reluctant witness, wouldn’t have specifically mentioned to the police that she’d seen this suspicious looking bag carrying man twice passing the scene of the crime?
    We don't have Fanny's statement, or any references to it (although it could be speculated that Walter Dew was implicitly referring to it in i caught Crippen). Therefore, how can you claim to know what Fanny specifically did or didn't mention, to the police?

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    I didn't mean to touch a nerve, George. But have you heard of the word 'nuance'?

    It's difficult to interpret with 100% certainty anything said by someone who lived so long ago, without knowing how that person used and interpreted the English language.

    When pretty much everything can be read in two or more ways, there is still a limit to how far the language should be stretched to accommodate a particular conclusion. It probably only matters if and when one's preferred conclusion becomes entrenched and is then used to argue for a preferred bigger picture regarding the murder itself.

    In short, if anyone's preferred solution involves Goldstein behaving suspiciously, they should not be relying on their own subjective interpretation of ambiguous witness statements to make their case, or the argument will be a circular one.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    What is your preferred solution regarding the following...?

    Swanson: Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other.

    It sort of seems to me that they were. The next day, Schwartz is telling the Star that one man shouted a warning to the man assaulting the woman. Schwartz also fled the scene, apparently with one man in pursuit. So the two men (or was it three?), do at least seem to know each other, and may have even been accomplices. Yet on the other hand, this scenario just does not sit well. Frankly, it is just not Jack the Ripperish enough for my liking, and therefore I've concluded that while Schwartz might have perceived the two men as having been together, I just know he was wrong about that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    It’s a difference of one word and we can’t even be anything like sure that this wasn’t down to the way that the Reporter wrote up his notes. So how can we read into it? Especially when we consider the situation. The police believed that this was a ripper murder. They were under enormous pressure and so every lead or scrap of info was vital. The man with the bag was of very obvious interest to them. So can we really imagine that Fanny Mortimer, who obviously wasn’t exactly a reluctant witness, wouldn’t have specifically mentioned to the police that she’d seen this suspicious looking bag carrying man twice passing the scene of the crime? How can you think this and all on the strength of one word in a report which would have been written up from notes taken at the scene? Obviously I can’t stop you seeing the sinister in absolutely everything because you have form for it so I’m happy to leave it to others to draw their own conclusions. You might find someone who agrees with you but I suspect that will be a very small minority no doubt comprised of people so sentimentally attached to some kind of orthodoxy that they just can’t bring themselves to question it.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Mortimer clearly and obviously saw Goldstein once. We know that she didn’t see him twice because she didn’t say that she saw him twice so that really should be an end of that one. ‘Up’ or ‘down’ is largely irrelevant especially when you factor in that she wasn’t writing this herself so we have a reporter to filter through. Slip of the pen, scribbled notes written up later, poor memory, mishearing. Take your pick. But if she’s seen someone that the police were undoubtedly interested in twice near the murder spot she’d have said so….but she didn’t.
    This makes no attempt to acknowledge, let alone explain, why the two descriptions of black bag man's direction of travel, were so different. The first time, it ...

    Fanny: ... was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School.

    The second time was very different, yet to speak of it ...

    Fanny: ... is akin to holding up a crucifix to a vampire, so I shall not say it again, as too many people find it distressing to hear.

    Thankyou, Mrs. Mortimer.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Abberline established while closely questioning Schwartz that he didn't know what was going on, precisely because he had no English and the three people he saw - Stride, BS and Pipeman, were all strangers to him. Schwartz was speculating, just like you and others continue to do on this thread, but at least he had some body language to go by. There is no good reason to suspect that Schwartz wasn't simply describing what he thought he may have witnessed - no more, no less.
    It is quite a claim to suggest that Abberline determined that Schwartz didn't know what was going on, especially as you haven't quoted any supporting evidence. Unless Schwartz made up or was told his story, what we do know is:

    * Schwartz was there at the scene
    * Abberline was not at the scene, and other than Schwartz, knew no one who was

    We also know:

    * Schwartz gave a statement
    * Abberline took that statement

    Given the above, how could Abberline determine that Schwartz didn't know what was going on? Schwartz was the only person we know of who had first hand knowledge of the incident. Schwartz believed that 'Lipski' was directed at the second man. Was he wrong about that? Who is speculating now?

    Anyone who can still interpret the English language in such a way as to have two women seeing Goldstein, or to have one of those women seeing Goldstein twice, is not going to impress me much with their speculation on other matters concerning the murder night.
    She is not impressed

    Witnesses with no knowledge of who killed Stride would have been taking an unnecessary risk by putting themselves close to the scene and then proceeding to lie to the police about what they were doing there and who else was around.
    So Schwartz could not have lied, because in theory that would have been too risky, if he had never been at the scene. Does that theory exclude the possibility that Schwartz was at the scene, but lied about some of what went on? You claimed above that there is no reason to suppose Schwartz didn't describe events as he perceived them. So please explain the following...

    The Star, Oct 1: The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

    The Star, Oct 2: In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

    Apparently, Schwartz's story was wholly accepted, until it wasn't. So in theory, Schwartz could not have lied, yet in practice he seems to have done just that. Perhaps Schwartz was at the scene, as was the prisoner mentioned, but they gave very different and more to the point, conflicting statements.

    And I don't believe the killer would have put himself in that position unless he had absolutely no choice.
    Which should remind you of Goldstein, who according to Wess, had to be persuaded to go to the police. Was he given absolutely no choice?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Mortimer clearly and obviously saw Goldstein once. We know that she didn’t see him twice because she didn’t say that she saw him twice so that really should be an end of that one. ‘Up’ or ‘down’ is largely irrelevant especially when you factor in that she wasn’t writing this herself so we have a reporter to filter through. Slip of the pen, scribbled notes written up later, poor memory, mishearing. Take your pick. But if she’s seen someone that the police were undoubtedly interested in twice near the murder spot she’d have said so….but she didn’t.

    Artisan….can someone tell me what an artisan’s wife looks like? Is there an artisans wife’s uniform? Or a badge that they wear? The artisans wife was clearly Mortimer.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    I didn't mean to touch a nerve, George. But have you heard of the word 'nuance'?

    It's difficult to interpret with 100% certainty anything said by someone who lived so long ago, without knowing how that person used and interpreted the English language.

    When pretty much everything can be read in two or more ways, there is still a limit to how far the language should be stretched to accommodate a particular conclusion. It probably only matters if and when one's preferred conclusion becomes entrenched and is then used to argue for a preferred bigger picture regarding the murder itself.

    In short, if anyone's preferred solution involves Goldstein behaving suspiciously, they should not be relying on their own subjective interpretation of ambiguous witness statements to make their case, or the argument will be a circular one.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Anyone who can still interpret the English language in such a way as to have two women seeing Goldstein, or to have one of those women seeing Goldstein twice, is not going to impress me much with their speculation on other matters concerning the murder night.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Hi Caz,

    It is your prerogative to dismiss reports, interpretations and speculations that don't conform to your own particular views. My command of the English language does not allow me to assign the same meaning to the words "up" ( adverb - towards a higher place or position) and "down" (adverb - towards or in a lower place or position, especially to or on the ground or another surface). Nor can I avail myself of the option to include within the definition of "Artisan" (noun - worker in a skilled trade, especially one that involves making things by hand), the occupation of cart driver. While I do not dispute your right to disagree with my "interpretation" (noun - the action of explaining the meaning of something), with all due respect, it is difficult for me to refrain from finding your comments to be somewhat condescending (adjective - having or showing an attitude of patronizing superiority). You may well wish to allocate to words a meaning that, while suiting your purpose, does not appear in the dictionary, but then you are no longer utilising the English language.

    Cheers, George

    P.S. I aint nerly as unejekated as u fink. I nose lotsa big words.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
    How did Schwartz know the shout consisted of a warning at all, let alone who it was directed at? He could not have known if he had zero English.
    Abberline established while closely questioning Schwartz that he didn't know what was going on, precisely because he had no English and the three people he saw - Stride, BS and Pipeman, were all strangers to him. Schwartz was speculating, just like you and others continue to do on this thread, but at least he had some body language to go by. There is no good reason to suspect that Schwartz wasn't simply describing what he thought he may have witnessed - no more, no less.

    Anyone who can still interpret the English language in such a way as to have two women seeing Goldstein, or to have one of those women seeing Goldstein twice, is not going to impress me much with their speculation on other matters concerning the murder night.

    Witnesses with no knowledge of who killed Stride would have been taking an unnecessary risk by putting themselves close to the scene and then proceeding to lie to the police about what they were doing there and who else was around. And I don't believe the killer would have put himself in that position unless he had absolutely no choice.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    Hi Andrew,

    Who is he? I don't know, but Frederick Deeming comes to mind.
    In other words, you think the second man was probably the Ripper, waiting opportunistically. Yet he could not have known the 'half-tipsy' man would come staggering along and start hassling a woman in an area that prostitutes had almost never been seen at (I'm not saying that was what Stride was doing), so evidently he must have been in the habit of hanging around places, waiting for an opportunity to eventuate. Or was it just by chance that he was there that night? Either way, he is not very inconspicuous with that pipe.

    I prefer this explanation:
    1. There seems to have been an early whistle
    2. WVC patrolmen had whistles
    3. A WVC patrolman probably blew the early whistle
    4. Schwartz seemed to believe and/or indicate that the 1st & 2nd men were known to each other
    5. Many of the patrolmen would have been acquainted or known to each other
    6. Therefore, the 1st & 2nd men were likely WVC patrolmen

    A fairly simple join the dots theory. Perhaps these patrolmen were 'bad eggs', or perhaps they were first responders, in which case Schwartz may have been the bad boy. As mentioned in post #1 of this thread, a group of WVC patrolmen were under the control of Grande and Batchelor, so plenty of scope for speculation there. In the other scenario, the use of the word 'Lipski', directed at Schwartz, is probably the best fit for that word as it was used at the time. This is also compatible with with the Echo report, that has Schwartz fleeing the scene as the murderer.

    Schwartz's partial or nil English can explain a lot of anomalies. Was the man at the Nelson shouting a warning to BSman or at BSman. I don't believe Schwartz could have known which. Schwartz was heading south along Berner to his new home and I think he panicked as he stepped of the kerb and that the "chase" was nominal - just enough to see him off.
    How did Schwartz know the shout consisted of a warning at all, let alone who it was directed at? He could not have known if he had zero English. My explanation of this anomaly is: The real name of the man who heard the warning, was Isaac Kozebrodsky.

    Why would the second man want to see Schwartz off, rather than just letting him continue harmlessly on his way? Going after him would seem to be attracting undue attention, plus he is running way from the intended victim, who might not be keen to conveniently hang around.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X