Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[FrankO]

The photo in the linked post suggests that anyone standing on their doorstep would still have been inside, strictly speaking. Looking hard right, they would have seen ... bricks.

Well, strictly speaking you’d be right, Andrew. But practically, where would be the fun in watching bricks?

By the way, thanks for the link to that picture of Berner Street. I think I hadn't seen that yet. Beautiful!

If the two women are one and the same, then 'previously' cannot refer to 'just before', because the direction of travel is reversed. Therefore, unless Fanny lied or a reporter made something up, 'previously' must refer to some earlier point in the evening.

Ah, interesting suggestion: someone lied or made something up.

That earlier point could be any time, including prior to 12:30. We have no quote from Fanny or a Fanny candidate, that suggests she saw bag man walking south just before she locks up.

Correct. But that would imply that Goldstein lied about what time he estimated he passed through Berner Street from Settles Street (or that Wess did that). There’s that interesting suggestion again: that someone lied. Or took a liberty. Take your pick.

Wess can't claim that bag man walked down the street at about the time of the murder, because Mortimer did not specify when 'previously' was. His implicit equating of 'about the time of the murder' with 'previously', is not justified.

Wasn’t there somebody with Wess? Ah yes, Goldstein was there. And it would have been he who stated that it was “About 1 a.m.” and that he “was the man that passed down Berner Street with a black bag at that hour”

The best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Do many young men go to the club at 40 Berner Street on Saturday nights or does it attract an older clientele. How do we find this out? Age of members.

Hi NW,

Here's an article from the Times of 26 April 1889, containing the ages of Diemshutz and Kozebrodski at that moment:
"Lewis Diemschitz [Louis Diemschutz], 27, and Isaac Kozebrodski, 19, surrendered to their bail to answer an indictment for making a riot and rout, and for assaulting various persons. A third man, Samuel Friedman, who was indicted with the defendants did not surrender to his bail when called. Mr. Gill and Mr. Partridge prosecuted on behalf of the Commissioner of Police; and Mr. W. M. Thompson represented the defendants. The alleged disturbance occurred on March 16, on which day there had been a procession of the Jewish unemployed in the East-end. After the dispersal of the procession, many of those composing it returned to the International Workmen's Club, Berner-street, Commercial-road, E., of which they were members, and from which the procession had started. A crowd of some 200 or 300 persons, who had been following the procession, assembled outside the club, and began to annoy those inside by throwing stones, hooting, and knocking at the door. The defendant Diemschitz, steward of the club, sent for the police, but when they arrived those inside the club assumed the defensive, and, rushing out in a body, attacked the crowd with broom sticks, walking sticks, and umbrellas. It was stated that the defendants bore a prominent part in the fight, and that Diemschitz struck and kicked plain clothes constable Frost, who interfered. Frost attempted to arrest Diemschitz, but was dragged into the club, where he was beaten and kicked. On the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, Mr. Gill abandoned the count for riot. A number of witnesses were called for the defence, who gave evidence to the effect that the police had made an entirely unprovoked attack on the defendants and their companions. The jury found the defendants Guilty of assaulting two constables, but Acquitted them on the other counts. The Chairman said they had greatly aggravated their offence by the defence they had set up. Diemschitz was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour, and on his liberation to be bound over and to find sureties to keep the peace for 12 months. Kosebrodski was sentenced to pay a fine of £4, or to be imprisoned for one month."

At least they were young.

The best,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

So we have a reporter looking for people who have something to say about the events of earlier that morning. He sees three women chatting outside Fanny Mortimer’s front door and goes over. What’s being suggested is that either Fanny wasn’t one of them (not impossible but it seems a bit of a coincidence that they are standing outside of the front door of a woman who we know has something to say and she’s not out there) or that she was there but kept quiet allowing our Mrs X to talk.

Mrs X then proceeds to tell a story which is rather more than ‘similar’ to Fanny’s. She’d just gone back indoors and was preparing for bed when she heard the commotion and she left her house immediately and went to the gateway. She also mentions Leon Goldstein passing and that she would have heard any screams had they occurred.

The reporter takes notes; goes back to the office and writes up his rough notes. So are the differences such that they can be explained in terms of inaccurate writing up on the part of the reporter?

He writes ‘up Berner Street’ when in Fanny’s interview she says ‘down Berner Street.’ I’d suggest that this would be an easy mistake to make especially for someone that didn’t live in Berner Street.

She said “He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club., A good many young men goes there, of a Saturday night especially." I’d suggest that she’d said something with this gist ‘he might have come from the club as lots of young Jewish men are members,’ meaning that she was just saying that Goldstein might have been a club member which might have explained why he glanced toward the club as he’d passed. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to accept that no mention would previously have been made of a man with a bag exiting the yard close to the time of the murder.

Then we have “She was apparently the wife of a well-to-do artisan..” If he’d asked the woman what her husband had done for a living wouldn’t she have told him exactly (a furniture maker, a watchmaker?) rather than using the general term ‘artisan?’ I think that the reporter, using the word apparently, simply meant that this woman looked to have been of a better class than her neighbours…of the artisan class rather than the labouring classes.

Did someone actually mention the ‘10 inches of steel?’ Fanny certainly never mentioned hearing anyone say it previously and you would be hard pressed to find someone that lived closer to the club that her but maybe she did hear it at some point. Or maybe the reporter was simply adding colour. Or maybe Fanny herself was adding a bit of ‘shock, horror?’ Or to give her the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it was a detail that she just hadn’t mentioned before. To be honest, and it’s probably personal bias, I’m always slightly wary of reports that use the vernacular. It always seems to me to point to a desire for the dramatic. “He might ha’ been…” “..at that time o' night.” I’m almost waiting for the ‘gor blimey guv’nor’ to follow.

Others might disagree of course but for me Mrs X is too similar to Fanny to have been someone else.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That concludes my speculative statements of "Waffle" on this topic. I can hear Herlock (among others) breathing a sigh of relief.

Best regards, George

Hello George,

Not at all. We can certainly agree to disagree. I don’t have any problem with looking at all of the angles but I’m wary of getting carried away. My ‘waffle’ comment was a poor choice of words but it wasn’t directed at you.

[FrankO]

Yes, that is what I would have thought - that No 36 would be three doors from the yard, and two doors from the club. This suggests that the "four doors" was an error which was subsequently perpetuated in the multi-reports in other publications.

Hi George,

Thanks for your reply. I'm glad to read that I'm not alone, then, in believing the counting of doors wasn't done back then as we'd do it now.

As to the question of whether Mrs Mortimer and Mrs Artisan were one and the same or not, my view is that - if we're supposing they were 2 different persons - then something doesn't end up.

They would then both have been at their doors until very shortly before one o' clock, one of them seeing Mr Bag coming from the direction of the club and going north, whilst the other - whom Mr Bag, no less, must have passed - didn’t see him. Even though he wouldn’t have immediately gone out of sight or earshot. Odd too that the women don’t seem to have seen each other, either.

That just doesn’t make sense to me and I don’t see any believable explanation (or, at least, I haven’t seen one yet).

All the best,
Frank

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Wasn’t there somebody with Wess? Ah yes, Goldstein was there. And it would have been he who stated that it was “About 1 a.m.” and that he “was the man that passed down Berner Street with a black bag at that hour”

The best,
Frank

Yes, Goldstein was at the station with Wess (I was referring to Wess's comments to the MA). My point is that Goldstein cannot claim to have been the man that passed down Berner Street with a black bag at that hour, because Mortimer didn't say that a man had done that, at that hour.

[FrankO]

Yes, Goldstein was at the station with Wess (I was referring to Wess's comments to the MA). My point is that Goldstein cannot claim to have been the man that passed down Berner Street with a black bag at that hour, because Mortimer didn't say that a man had done that, at that hour.

Then we plainly disagree, Andrew, because I see absolutely no reason for why he couldn't have.

Mortimer said she saw a man with a bag coming from Commercial Road and passing the club and then turning right on Fairclough Street and this would have been somewhere between 12.30 and 1 am. Since he fitted the description of the man - he was carrying a bag and came from Commercial Road, then passed the club and then turned right on Fairclough during that period - he recognized himself, went to the police and told them that “About 1 a.m.”... “he was the man that passed down Berner Street with a black bag at that hour”, "that hour" being "about 1 a.m."

Of course, all of this means that Goldstein specified Mortimer's "previously" from an unknown time between 12.30 and 1 am into "about 1 a.m".

[GBinOz]

Hello George,

Not at all. We can certainly agree to disagree. I don’t have any problem with looking at all of the angles but I’m wary of getting carried away. My ‘waffle’ comment was a poor choice of words but it wasn’t directed at you.

No problem Herlock. My remark was meant to humorous rather than accusative, and I am not sufficiently insular to not recognise that I waffle at times.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Thanks for your reply. I'm glad to read that I'm not alone, then, in believing the counting of doors wasn't done back then as we'd do it now.

As to the question of whether Mrs Mortimer and Mrs Artisan were one and the same or not, my view is that - if we're supposing they were 2 different persons - then something doesn't end up.

They would then both have been at their doors until very shortly before one o' clock, one of them seeing Mr Bag coming from the direction of the club and going north, whilst the other - whom Mr Bag, no less, must have passed - didn’t see him. Even though he wouldn’t have immediately gone out of sight or earshot. Odd too that the women don’t seem to have seen each other, either.

That just doesn’t make sense to me and I don’t see any believable explanation (or, at least, I haven’t seen one yet).

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Charles Letchford, who lived at No 30 (3 doors north?) testified that "my sister was standing at the door at ten minutes to one", but no-one mentioned seeing her. Mrs Mortimer was quoted in her interview as saying that she "did not notice anything unusual", and I believe that door stoop snooping was so usual that it did not warrant comment.

Best regards,
George

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

Charles Letchford, who lived at No 30 (3 doors north?) testified that "my sister was standing at the door at ten minutes to one", but no-one mentioned seeing her. Mrs Mortimer was quoted in her interview as saying that she "did not notice anything unusual", and I believe that door stoop snooping was so usual that it did not warrant comment.

Best regards,
George

You may very well be right, George - thanks. Although that wouldn't make the 'something not adding up' much less evident, to me.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

No problem Herlock. My remark was meant to humorous rather than accusative, and I am not sufficiently insular to not recognise that I waffle at times.

Cheers, George

I think that the subject guarantees that we all waffle at times George.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Then we plainly disagree, Andrew, because I see absolutely no reason for why he couldn't have.

Mortimer said she saw a man with a bag coming from Commercial Road and passing the club and then turning right on Fairclough Street and this would have been somewhere between 12.30 and 1 am. Since he fitted the description of the man - he was carrying a bag and came from Commercial Road, then passed the club and then turned right on Fairclough during that period - he recognized himself, went to the police and told them that “About 1 a.m.”... “he was the man that passed down Berner Street with a black bag at that hour”, "that hour" being "about 1 a.m."

Of course, all of this means that Goldstein specified Mortimer's "previously" from an unknown time between 12.30 and 1 am into "about 1 a.m".

Goldstein is not in a position to specify a time on behalf of another witness. Furthermore, by stating that he walked south at about 1am, he is implying that the Evening News report is factually incorrect. Goldstein cannot implicitly alter another witness's account. I find it odd that Goldstein, who didn't bother going to the police until Wess dragged him to Leman St late on the Tuesday night, gets to say what another witness witnessed, when it would seem that she said something very different.

As for 'previously' necessarily referring to the 12:30 to 1am period, I don't agree with that either.

As George has pointed out, watching the street from doorsteps was probably a common thing. Fanny only tells us about being on her doorstep nearly the whole time in that period. She does not tell us what she was doing at any hour prior. I believe the 12:30-1am period is a box we can choose to think outside of. I can see Fanny (and others) being at their doorstep's when people were arriving from and then leaving the club. She was obviously familiar with the sight of "Mr & Mrs Lewis". She made of point of stating that bag man was a stranger to her. As Goldstein was a club member, perhaps he was a recent arrival to England. So, possibly similar to Schwartz in that respect.

[FrankO]

Goldstein is not in a position to specify a time on behalf of another witness.

Of course he can. Mortimer doesn’t know or say at what (more) precise time she saw this man pass, the man himself does know/have a more precise time.

Furthermore, the time of the murder as per Mortimer’s account was close to one o’ clock. So, the further away from one o’ clock when Goldstein actually did pass through the street, the less he would have felt the need the come forward and explain his presence. Or that somebody else would feel the need. Why would he, or anybody close to him, feel any need to come forward if he knew it was close to midnight that he passed Mortimer and the club? Why feel any need if he knew he had passed around 12.30?

Furthermore, by stating that he walked south at about 1am, he is implying that the Evening News report is factually incorrect.

He isn’t implying anything. He is just saying that he’s the man that someone saw passing through the street at around a certain time. And neither is the Evening News factually incorrect. It just doesn’t state any exact time for Goldstein passing through Berner Street.

Goldstein cannot implicitly alter another witness's account. I find it odd that Goldstein, who didn't bother going to the police until Wess dragged him to Leman St late on the Tuesday night, gets to say what another witness witnessed, when it would seem that she said something very different.

You can speculate all that you want about why and how Goldstein was ‘dragged’ to the police, but it remains just that: speculation. What we have is the fact that he did go and that he apparently placed the time at which he passed through Berner Street at about 1 a.m..

So, as I said in my previous post, we plainly disagree on this, Andrew.

Let’s invent an example. Let’s say that you were standing at some spot in a street for whatever (innocent) reason and that you would know it was somewhere between 6 and 6.30 pm, nothing more specific. At some point during this interval a man passes. You take note of him because he passes you only yards from where you stand and he’s wearing pink overalls. You notice that he’s checking his watch when he passes you.

Now, let’s say a murder happened somewhere close to where you were standing and that you told the press that you saw this man in pink overalls pass you while you were standing there and that this man was checking his watch. It is then suggested that this man might have been involved in this murder. So, this man recognizes himself in the story. This man is me, I don’t have anything to do with the murder and, so, I decide to come forward to say that it was me and that the time was 6.19 when I passed you.

The best,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

I really can’t understand why Leon Goldstein attracts so much attention? He went to the police and explained what he was carrying and where he’d been immediately prior to passing along Berner Street (allowing the police the option of verifying it) A reporter writes ‘up’ instead of ‘down’ and we suddenly have a double visit. Never mind that if he’d left the club and gone north he’d have been walking away from his destination (home) and then in a very few minutes he apparently turned around and walked back. Is this at all likely? A potential murderer escaping north and then heading back past the scene? Or is it simply the case that he passed sometime between 12.45 and 1.00 on his way home from the cafe carrying a bag and was seen by just one person…Fanny Mortimer and a reporter gave a slightly colourised version of events? Surely this is the likeliest explanation; especially considering that no other paper hint at a second woman?

[The Rookie Detective]

I really can’t understand why Leon Goldstein attracts so much attention? He went to the police and explained what he was carrying and where he’d been immediately prior to passing along Berner Street (allowing the police the option of verifying it) A reporter writes ‘up’ instead of ‘down’ and we suddenly have a double visit. Never mind that if he’d left the club and gone north he’d have been walking away from his destination (home) and then in a very few minutes he apparently turned around and walked back. Is this at all likely? A potential murderer escaping north and then heading back past the scene? Or is it simply the case that he passed sometime between 12.45 and 1.00 on his way home from the cafe carrying a bag and was seen by just one person…Fanny Mortimer and a reporter gave a slightly colourised version of events? Surely this is the likeliest explanation; especially considering that no other paper hint at a second woman?

But if we strip it down to the basic elements of Goldstein...


He passes the murder site shortly before the murder happens and the only verification for him being there at that time is in the form of his coming forward and placing himself at the scene.

Now he may have come forward as a way to explain why he was there

But it think it more likely because he knew he had been spotted and had no choice but to come forward. His hand was forced, but under the protection of Wess who would have had his own interests and that of the club as his primary concern.


Without Mortimer we wouldn't have had Goldstein

A bit like if we didn't have Robert Paul, we wouldn't have had Lechmere come forward either.



I am not suggesting that Goldstein the killer and it would seem rather foolish to deliberately place himself within a stones throw of the murder site just a few minutes before Stride was murdered.

But on the other hand, it's the perfect alibi because if he is spotted in Berner Street, he can just say he was there without any reason to suspect him.


The idea that Goldstein is the killer just doesn't feel right.

I would suggest that IF we believe Stride was a Ripper victim, that's it not likely that the Ripper was a member of the club on Berner Street.

We have 2 key options...

If Stride was a Ripper victim, she wasn't murdered by someone from the club
If Stride wasn't a Ripper victim, then it's much more likely that she was murdered by someone from the club and the club closed ranks to protect their own.


Decisions...decisions...


RD