Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

If it was possible to formulate odds then I don’t think that we could particular increase the level of likelihood of the killer coming from the club based on location whether ripper or not. Especially if we’re basing it on the involvement of Wess. I think that Andrew might have already answered this question but I can’t recall his answer - do we know for a fact that Goldstein was a club member? If Goldstein was a club member then I can’t see any mystery about a young man taking someone to the station for a bit of moral support. Another question that I would ask is - are we certain that Goldstein spoke English, or at least, do we know how good his English was?

The club ‘closing ranks’ is too close to ‘plot’ territory for me and there’s just no evidence for that.

[The Rookie Detective]

If it was possible to formulate odds then I don’t think that we could particular increase the level of likelihood of the killer coming from the club based on location whether ripper or not. Especially if we’re basing it on the involvement of Wess. I think that Andrew might have already answered this question but I can’t recall his answer - do we know for a fact that Goldstein was a club member? If Goldstein was a club member then I can’t see any mystery about a young man taking someone to the station for a bit of moral support. Another question that I would ask is - are we certain that Goldstein spoke English, or at least, do we know how good his English was?

The club ‘closing ranks’ is too close to ‘plot’ territory for me and there’s just no evidence for that.

That's a fair point and I agree there's no evidence to suggest the club was involved in any way.


On that basis, I am swayed more to the idea that Stride was a Ripper victim, and murdered by the man who accompanied her from the Bricklayer's Arms.

That would then make the man seen with Stride outside the Bricklayer's Arm the real Ripper.


I don't believe he was a club member, but I do think he chose to murder Stride outside of the Jewish club for a reason.


Of all the witnesses at the Stride murder, I believe that Schwartz was the Ripper incognito and he made the entire story up in true Bachert style.


I don't have a main suspect for the killings, but I do believe he was a man who could play a part and switch persona rather easily; a bit like Charles Reeves of WVC fame who was known for his extraordinary ability to play a diverse set of characters and age ranges.


Again, I am not suggesting that Reeves or Bachert were the Ripper, but their connection with Lusk makes things more interesting.



I think Stride's murder is pivotal to the entire timeline of the Ripper murders because there is a strong argument to suggest she wasn't even killed by the Ripper in the first place.

I believe now that she was indeed a Ripper victim.


I believe that Marshall was the one witness who saw Stride with the Ripper and that the man seen by PC Smith was simply a member of the club; either Eagle or Lave.


I may be wrong; and usually I am... but I like to challenge everything to see what happens regardless.



RD

[GBinOz]

If it was possible to formulate odds then I don’t think that we could particular increase the level of likelihood of the killer coming from the club based on location whether ripper or not. Especially if we’re basing it on the involvement of Wess. I think that Andrew might have already answered this question but I can’t recall his answer - do we know for a fact that Goldstein was a club member? If Goldstein was a club member then I can’t see any mystery about a young man taking someone to the station for a bit of moral support. Another question that I would ask is - are we certain that Goldstein spoke English, or at least, do we know how good his English was?

The club ‘closing ranks’ is too close to ‘plot’ territory for me and there’s just no evidence for that.

Hi Herlock,

I recall seeing a printed document from the time which listed Goldstein as the Vice President, but I can't, for the life of me, relocate that actual post.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's a fair point and I agree there's no evidence to suggest the club was involved in any way.


On that basis, I am swayed more to the idea that Stride was a Ripper victim, and murdered by the man who accompanied her from the Bricklayer's Arms.

That would then make the man seen with Stride outside the Bricklayer's Arm the real Ripper.


I don't believe he was a club member, but I do think he chose to murder Stride outside of the Jewish club for a reason.


Of all the witnesses at the Stride murder, I believe that Schwartz was the Ripper incognito and he made the entire story up in true Bachert style.


I don't have a main suspect for the killings, but I do believe he was a man who could play a part and switch persona rather easily; a bit like Charles Reeves of WVC fame who was known for his extraordinary ability to play a diverse set of characters and age ranges.


Again, I am not suggesting that Reeves or Bachert were the Ripper, but their connection with Lusk makes things more interesting.



I think Stride's murder is pivotal to the entire timeline of the Ripper murders because there is a strong argument to suggest she wasn't even killed by the Ripper in the first place.

I believe now that she was indeed a Ripper victim.


I believe that Marshall was the one witness who saw Stride with the Ripper and that the man seen by PC Smith was simply a member of the club; either Eagle or Lave.


I may be wrong; and usually I am... but I like to challenge everything to see what happens regardless.



RD

It’s good to challenge RD and I certainly wouldn’t say that you’re usually wrong. Keep researching and keep throwing up suggestions. I don’t think that Bachert was the killer either but he does a good job of making himself suspicious. He’s certainly an interesting character and who knows?

We have 5 potential sightings of Stride and none of them are certain to have been them but all of them might have been her and we have no way of strengthening or weakening their validity as far as I can see considering how witnesses can be mistaken.

Best and Gardner at around 11.00 The Bricklayer’s Arms. Best was ‘almost certain’ that the woman that he saw in the mortuary was Stride. Man - 5ft 5 inches, black suit and black coat, thick black moustache, bowler hat, collar and with weak/ sore looking eyes (no lashes) Woman - poorly dressed, same build/height as the body in the mortuary.

It’s strange that after ‘billycock hat’ he says ‘rather tall.’ You couldn’t describe a bowler hat as being tall so he could only have been talking about the man but he’d already described him at 5ft 5 inches which I believe was about average at that time for a man.

Marshall at 11.45 near to his home in Berner Street. Recognised Stride at the mortuary (i don't think that we know how confident he was though?) Man - Middle aged, stout, respectably dressed, dark trousers, small black cutaway coat, small peaked sailor-type cap. Looked like a clerk. He couldn’t see his face because of the lack of lighting. Woman - black jacket, black skirt, black crepe bonnet. Saw no flower.

Smith at 12.30/12.35 opposite the gateway. Woman - ID’d at the mortuary but no description apart from having a flower on her jacket. He was certain that it was Stride. Man - about 28, 5ft 7 inches, dark overcoat and trousers, hard felt deerstalker, respectable looking. Carrying an 18 by 8 or 6 inch newspaper parcel.

Brown at around 12.45. Man - 5ft 7 inches, stoutly built, overcoat almost to his heels, unable to describe the man’s hat. Woman - ‘almost certain’ that the woman was the one that he’d seen in the mortuary. It was dark and he couldn’t tell if she was wearing a flower or not. They appeared sober.

Schwartz at around 12.45. Woman - Identified at the mortuary. Man - age about 30, height 5 ft. 5 in., complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered; dress, dark jacket & trousers, black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

It looks like Best and Marshall were probably describing different men as it’s difficult to see how we could align a small peaked cap with a bowler (although Marshall could see the face due to poor lighting so is it possible that he mistook a hat in silhouette perhaps? Best and Gardner didn’t mention the man being stout and they had a better look at him due to the lighting.

Then Smith. Hard felt deerstalker is a strange description but I’m no expert on hats (though I do own a deerstalker) Height ok with other descriptions and the parcel is no issue if acquired after 11.45.

Brown’s stout man matches Marshall’s and maybe Schwartz BS man. But his extra long coat could be an issue.

These could all have been different men and I wouldn’t be totally confident that any of the women were Stride. With Smith’s woman being the likeliest.

[The Rookie Detective]

I was recently (and thankfully) corrected when I spoke of Eagle on his return to the club; by stating he hadn't seen anyone.

The truth is that Eagle DID see someone when he returned to the club.


We know this because when asked if he had seen anyone he replied...

"I dare say I did..."


The expression "Dare say" is used to exaggerate the point in a roundabout way.

It's important to note that he doesn't say he DIDN'T see anyone; he says "I dare say I did"

This use of syntax is indicative of someone who is being awkward and/or withholding something.

When you strip away the expressive part of the phrasing, he is actually telling us "I DID" see someone.


That proves that when he returned to the club, he did notice there was at least one person on Berner Street.

It's unlikely it was PC Smith, because he would have surely said he had seen a policeman.

Other than Pc Smith, who else was in the vicinity when Eagle returned to the club?


Eagle by his own admission; albeit in a roundabout way, confirms he saw a person or persons in the vicinity of the club as he returned around 12.40am



But that said, he seemed certain that Stride was not in Dutfield's Yard when he walked to the side door.



RD

[The Rookie Detective]

It’s good to challenge RD and I certainly wouldn’t say that you’re usually wrong. Keep researching and keep throwing up suggestions. I don’t think that Bachert was the killer either but he does a good job of making himself suspicious. He’s certainly an interesting character and who knows?

We have 5 potential sightings of Stride and none of them are certain to have been them but all of them might have been her and we have no way of strengthening or weakening their validity as far as I can see considering how witnesses can be mistaken.

Best and Gardner at around 11.00 The Bricklayer’s Arms. Best was ‘almost certain’ that the woman that he saw in the mortuary was Stride. Man - 5ft 5 inches, black suit and black coat, thick black moustache, bowler hat, collar and with weak/ sore looking eyes (no lashes) Woman - poorly dressed, same build/height as the body in the mortuary.

It’s strange that after ‘billycock hat’ he says ‘rather tall.’ You couldn’t describe a bowler hat as being tall so he could only have been talking about the man but he’d already described him at 5ft 5 inches which I believe was about average at that time for a man.

Marshall at 11.45 near to his home in Berner Street. Recognised Stride at the mortuary (i don't think that we know how confident he was though?) Man - Middle aged, stout, respectably dressed, dark trousers, small black cutaway coat, small peaked sailor-type cap. Looked like a clerk. He couldn’t see his face because of the lack of lighting. Woman - black jacket, black skirt, black crepe bonnet. Saw no flower.

Smith at 12.30/12.35 opposite the gateway. Woman - ID’d at the mortuary but no description apart from having a flower on her jacket. He was certain that it was Stride. Man - about 28, 5ft 7 inches, dark overcoat and trousers, hard felt deerstalker, respectable looking. Carrying an 18 by 8 or 6 inch newspaper parcel.

Brown at around 12.45. Man - 5ft 7 inches, stoutly built, overcoat almost to his heels, unable to describe the man’s hat. Woman - ‘almost certain’ that the woman was the one that he’d seen in the mortuary. It was dark and he couldn’t tell if she was wearing a flower or not. They appeared sober.

Schwartz at around 12.45. Woman - Identified at the mortuary. Man - age about 30, height 5 ft. 5 in., complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered; dress, dark jacket & trousers, black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

It looks like Best and Marshall were probably describing different men as it’s difficult to see how we could align a small peaked cap with a bowler (although Marshall could see the face due to poor lighting so is it possible that he mistook a hat in silhouette perhaps? Best and Gardner didn’t mention the man being stout and they had a better look at him due to the lighting.

Then Smith. Hard felt deerstalker is a strange description but I’m no expert on hats (though I do own a deerstalker) Height ok with other descriptions and the parcel is no issue if acquired after 11.45.

Brown’s stout man matches Marshall’s and maybe Schwartz BS man. But his extra long coat could be an issue.

These could all have been different men and I wouldn’t be totally confident that any of the women were Stride. With Smith’s woman being the likeliest.

Just another brilliant and well-thought-out post Herlock.

There is a lot to think about from your excellent summary


RD

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Walter Dew: Not a single suspicious sound was heard by any of the men inside the building, but it is more than probable that a woman living in one of the cottages on the other side of the court was the only person ever to see the Ripper in the vicinity of one of his crimes.

This woman was a Mrs. Mortimer. After the main meeting at the clubhouse had broken up some thirty or forty members who formed the choir, remained behind to sing. Mrs. Mortimer, as she had done on many previous occasions, came out to her gate the better to hear them. For ten minutes she remained there, seeing and hearing nothing which made her at all suspicious.

Just as she was about to re-enter her cottage the woman heard the approach of a pony and cart. She knew this would be Lewis Dienschitz, the steward of the club. He went every Saturday to the market, returning about this hour of the early morning.

At the same moment Mrs. Mortimer observed something else, silent and sinister. A man, whom she judged to be about thirty, dressed in black, and carrying a small, shiny black bag, hurried furtively along the opposite side of the court.

The woman was a little startled. The man's movements had been so quiet that she had not seen him until he was abreast of her. His head was turned away, as though he did not wish to be seen. A second later he had vanished round the corner leading to Commercial Road.


It's interesting that the comments on the murders by Walter Dew are usually dismissed out of hand, owing to him making mistakes and doubts about his memory of the events. Yet, with the benefit of all the resources on Casebook and the Internet, we see people in this forum making mistakes and forgetting points that have been posted many times, on nearly every page of every thread. How then, should the outside world perceive the quality of debate in this forum?

[New Waterloo]

Sorry folks but I am going off piste again but;

According to Nathan Shine�s own oral statement first told to his parents and later his children, on 30th September 1888, Nathan Shine alleges that he left a working mans social club in Commercial Street, Whitechapel, London, England heading for his home. On turning into Berner Street from Commercial Street at approx 1.00am he saw a man holding a large narrow bladed knife standing over a woman who was lying on the ground, motionless.

The man stared straight into the face of Nathan and then turned and made a swift retreat from the scene. At the same time, Nathan ran away in the opposite direction and took another route to his home fearing for his life. It appears that Nathan disturbed the man seconds after the woman had been killed. Nathan Shine told of his experience to his parents but the episode was not mentioned again for many years, as for fears of reprisals, either from the murderer or from anti Semitic gangs.

Would Nathan being a genuine witness solve the problem of somebody being reported as walking in different directions in Berner Street at around 1.00am. In other words walks one way, see something and walks quickly the other way.

His story also talks of a large narrow bladed knife.

We have mention of a 10 inches of steel. A found 9-10inch knife and Shines large narrow bladed knife.

Although I have to admit fitting Nathan Shine into all these comings and goings is a bit of a task to say the least. Witnesses seem to say all was quiet on the street well all I can suggest is that they were all wearing invisibility cloaks because to me there seems quite a lot of activity!!

Just a thought about Shine. Probably been debated enough. Thought I would just throw it into the mix.

NW

[The Rookie Detective]

Sorry folks but I am going off piste again but;

According to Nathan Shine�s own oral statement first told to his parents and later his children, on 30th September 1888, Nathan Shine alleges that he left a working mans social club in Commercial Street, Whitechapel, London, England heading for his home. On turning into Berner Street from Commercial Street at approx 1.00am he saw a man holding a large narrow bladed knife standing over a woman who was lying on the ground, motionless.

The man stared straight into the face of Nathan and then turned and made a swift retreat from the scene. At the same time, Nathan ran away in the opposite direction and took another route to his home fearing for his life. It appears that Nathan disturbed the man seconds after the woman had been killed. Nathan Shine told of his experience to his parents but the episode was not mentioned again for many years, as for fears of reprisals, either from the murderer or from anti Semitic gangs.

Would Nathan being a genuine witness solve the problem of somebody being reported as walking in different directions in Berner Street at around 1.00am. In other words walks one way, see something and walks quickly the other way.

His story also talks of a large narrow bladed knife.

We have mention of a 10 inches of steel. A found 9-10inch knife and Shines large narrow bladed knife.

Although I have to admit fitting Nathan Shine into all these comings and goings is a bit of a task to say the least. Witnesses seem to say all was quiet on the street well all I can suggest is that they were all wearing invisibility cloaks because to me there seems quite a lot of activity!!

Just a thought about Shine. Probably been debated enough. Thought I would just throw it into the mix.

NW

What makes Nathan Shine's account relevant is that his mother's 2nd husband married an Isaac Van Gelder.

However, there were TWO DIFFERENT Isaac Van Gelder individuals who were prominent at the time.

The first who WASN'T the man who married Nathan Shine's mother, was a prominent tradesman and freemason and local businessman who was at one time in business with a man named Woolf who was well known in the Whitechapel Road.
They eventually parted ways in a business sense.
This Isaac Van Gelder owned one of the building opposite the murder site at Bucks Row; POSSIBLY the same building in which one of the nightwatchman was located.



The OTHER Van Gelder was older and had moved from the north west. THIS Van Gelder married Nathan Shine's mother, making Nathan his Step-son.

Now...
It has been assumed that THIS Van Gelder was the one who was one of the committee members of the WVC.

However, I have been unable thus far to prove conclusively which of the 2 Van Gelder's was the correct member of the WVC.


I do believe it is the 2nd Van Gelder though, due to his older age and if so, then Nathan Shine's step dad was a member of the WVC run by George Lusk.

But why is this significant?

Well...

We know for certain that the WVC hired 2 men to investigate the Stride murder,; Batchelor and Le Grand; the latter being a convicted career criminal with a history of violence.

Packer only changed his story AFTER Le Grand got to him and so the obvious question would be...

Why?

Well...

It's all about the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee...


An organisation comprising several local tradesman that hired a violent convicted criminal to investigate Stride's murder without the police; the organisation that was set up in the aftermath of the Chapman murder, run by a man who received a kidney alleged to have come from Eddowes, the primary recipient of the Ripper letters and former member of the Board of Works. (Which has other links to the Ripper AND torso murders) ... the WVC an organisation that also consisted of Charles Reeves, an accomplished character actor who once lived yards from Bucks Row, and a man called Van Gelder who married the mother of Nathan Shine; the man claimed privately to have seen the man who murdered Stride. An organisation that was taken over by Albert Bachert; a proven Ripper fantasist, who went by many aliases, including a Mr Charrington; the leader of the Skeleton Army who were anti-socialist militant group opposed to the closing of pubs, theatre's, lodging houses and brothels.

I mean...

If anyone wanted to claim that the Ripper murders were carried out by more than one man, then the WVC are the perfect fit and are connected to the murders in multiple ways.


But I digress...


Did Nathan Shine keep quiet and not speak publicly about what he has seen because he saw someone he recognized from the WVC?

Interestingly, at the time of the murder of Stride it would appear that Van Gelder wasn't yet his step dad; ergo, his mother married Van Gelder AFTER the murder of Stride.


I am 99% certain of that but would need to check my notes.


So, as you can see...there's potentially so much more to the Ripper case than some realize.



RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

Walter Dew: Not a single suspicious sound was heard by any of the men inside the building, but it is more than probable that a woman living in one of the cottages on the other side of the court was the only person ever to see the Ripper in the vicinity of one of his crimes.

This woman was a Mrs. Mortimer. After the main meeting at the clubhouse had broken up some thirty or forty members who formed the choir, remained behind to sing. Mrs. Mortimer, as she had done on many previous occasions, came out to her gate the better to hear them. For ten minutes she remained there, seeing and hearing nothing which made her at all suspicious.

Just as she was about to re-enter her cottage the woman heard the approach of a pony and cart. She knew this would be Lewis Dienschitz, the steward of the club. He went every Saturday to the market, returning about this hour of the early morning.

At the same moment Mrs. Mortimer observed something else, silent and sinister. A man, whom she judged to be about thirty, dressed in black, and carrying a small, shiny black bag, hurried furtively along the opposite side of the court.

The woman was a little startled. The man's movements had been so quiet that she had not seen him until he was abreast of her. His head was turned away, as though he did not wish to be seen. A second later he had vanished round the corner leading to Commercial Road.


It's interesting that the comments on the murders by Walter Dew are usually dismissed out of hand, owing to him making mistakes and doubts about his memory of the events. Yet, with the benefit of all the resources on Casebook and the Internet, we see people in this forum making mistakes and forgetting points that have been posted many times, on nearly every page of every thread. How then, should the outside world perceive the quality of debate in this forum?

I take it that you’ve made this long post simply to try and score a point because I couldn’t remember whether Goldstein was a club member or not and I didn’t have time to look into it at that point as I was about to head out. If you’re worried about how the outside world perceives the debates I’m wondering how many ‘outsiders’ would look in and say ‘hold on, Andrew has answered this previously.’ Do you have perfect recall?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I recall seeing a printed document from the time which listed Goldstein as the Vice President, but I can't, for the life of me, relocate that actual post.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Thanks for that. I might have to look into it after Andrew’s little dig, although he could simply have posted an answer. I seem to recall seeing something with the name Goldstein and I wondered at the time if this was the source of the claim of membership and that it might have been someone else called Goldstein. My memory of this is hazy though as it wasn’t particularly important at the time.

Apologies for the slightly late response. I responded to RD lateish last night and your post must have arrived just as I logged off.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry folks but I am going off piste again but;

According to Nathan Shine�s own oral statement first told to his parents and later his children, on 30th September 1888, Nathan Shine alleges that he left a working mans social club in Commercial Street, Whitechapel, London, England heading for his home. On turning into Berner Street from Commercial Street at approx 1.00am he saw a man holding a large narrow bladed knife standing over a woman who was lying on the ground, motionless.

The man stared straight into the face of Nathan and then turned and made a swift retreat from the scene. At the same time, Nathan ran away in the opposite direction and took another route to his home fearing for his life. It appears that Nathan disturbed the man seconds after the woman had been killed. Nathan Shine told of his experience to his parents but the episode was not mentioned again for many years, as for fears of reprisals, either from the murderer or from anti Semitic gangs.

Would Nathan being a genuine witness solve the problem of somebody being reported as walking in different directions in Berner Street at around 1.00am. In other words walks one way, see something and walks quickly the other way.

His story also talks of a large narrow bladed knife.

We have mention of a 10 inches of steel. A found 9-10inch knife and Shines large narrow bladed knife.

Although I have to admit fitting Nathan Shine into all these comings and goings is a bit of a task to say the least. Witnesses seem to say all was quiet on the street well all I can suggest is that they were all wearing invisibility cloaks because to me there seems quite a lot of activity!!

Just a thought about Shine. Probably been debated enough. Thought I would just throw it into the mix.

NW

Hi NW,

No need to apologise for mentioning Shine (who I recall first reading about on JtRForums before I decided to join) Family oral traditions are interesting and can certainly be true or at least contain a kernel of truth but they can also come from a family member who wants to be ‘Mr. Interesting’ of course. There’s just no way of assessing whether there’s any truth in it or not. If it had been suggested that he’d kept quiet because he recognised the killer I’d have been more dismissive due to the size of the knife but ‘fear of reprisals’ is an impossible reason to refute.

If Fanny was on her doorstep from around 12.45 to 12.55 it leaves little time though it’s not impossible.

Seance anyone?

[JeffHamm]

Sorry folks but I am going off piste again but;

According to Nathan Shine�s own oral statement first told to his parents and later his children, on 30th September 1888, Nathan Shine alleges that he left a working mans social club in Commercial Street, Whitechapel, London, England heading for his home. On turning into Berner Street from Commercial Street at approx 1.00am he saw a man holding a large narrow bladed knife standing over a woman who was lying on the ground, motionless.

The man stared straight into the face of Nathan and then turned and made a swift retreat from the scene. At the same time, Nathan ran away in the opposite direction and took another route to his home fearing for his life. It appears that Nathan disturbed the man seconds after the woman had been killed. Nathan Shine told of his experience to his parents but the episode was not mentioned again for many years, as for fears of reprisals, either from the murderer or from anti Semitic gangs.

Would Nathan being a genuine witness solve the problem of somebody being reported as walking in different directions in Berner Street at around 1.00am. In other words walks one way, see something and walks quickly the other way.

His story also talks of a large narrow bladed knife.

We have mention of a 10 inches of steel. A found 9-10inch knife and Shines large narrow bladed knife.

Although I have to admit fitting Nathan Shine into all these comings and goings is a bit of a task to say the least. Witnesses seem to say all was quiet on the street well all I can suggest is that they were all wearing invisibility cloaks because to me there seems quite a lot of activity!!

Just a thought about Shine. Probably been debated enough. Thought I would just throw it into the mix.

NW

Interesting, I don't recall Nathan Shine's story. One thing, though, is that in the recounting of it above, Nathan appears to have turned back towards Commercial, which would have Stride's murderer hearing towards Fairclough (as Nathan turns and heads in the opposite direction the man fled, which indicates Nathan turned back towards from where he came, which was Commercial Street).

As such, the "10 inches of steel" comment could not have been made to Fanny by the murderer as he left the scene heading away from her address. Moreover, it wasn't made by Nathan as Fanny's telling of it places the club members outside around the body at that time, so Nathan's story would have to occur prior to the club members discovering Stride. That would indicate that if the "10 inches of steel" comment is not simply an embellishment, it was probably made by a club member heading towards Commercial looking for the police. And if so, then the "10 inches" comment and the later finding of a 9-10 inch is simply a coincidence since the club member would have no idea of the actual size of the knife used (barring him being Stride's killer of course; but according to Nathan the killer had already fled south, so that doesn't work without having the killer then returning to the club and getting indoors before the body is found, etc).

As Herlock points out, if Fanny has gone back inside around 12:55, and Deimshutz shows up around 1:00, that only leaves a small time window for Nathan's story to occur. And if the Schwartz event happens in that interval as well, using up about 2 minutes of time, the suggestion would be that the Schwartz event occurs shortly after 12:55, and Schwartz and Pipeman have left the scene somewhere around 12:57-12:58 type thing, and B.S. kills Stride somewhere around that point. Let's say, while B.S. is distracted watching what Schwartz and Pipeman do, Stride gets up and is retreating into the ally to perhaps try and get inside the club to get away from B.S. He then turns his attention back to Stride, who being unsettled has taken out her Cachous, and for whatever reason grabs her scarf, gets her to the ground again, kills here, and then low and behold, along comes Shines. B.S. flees south, Shines flees north, and a minute or two later, Deimshutz arrives in his pony cart and it all kicks off.

Hmmm, I mean, there is sufficient time for all of that to happen, but things would have to go very very close to that sequence as there's not a lot of room for error. I'm certainly not saying this "had" to happen, only that if we try and chain together things like the Schwartz event, Fanny's vigil, and now Nathan Shine, we can fit them all in. When we do "fit them all in", our story becomes very precise as it starts to use up all of the time that we have to explain. That makes it a very specific "theory", and so would make it easier to prove wrong if it is wrong (all we need to do is show evidence that precludes something in that very specific sequence - note, not just hypothesize that maybe one of our estimates is wrong, etc, alternative hypotheses are not evidence, they are just an alternative theory). More specific theories are more sensitive to evidence and if they are wrong become easier to refute because evidence that demonstrates how it is wrong is easier to find - but if they are true, despite that there are "possible findings that could show it was wrong", those evidential findings will not arise if our theory is, in fact, the right one. (And no, I'm not saying I think the above "is the right one", but it is a very testable one).

Now, my musings aside, I'm presuming that there may be some information already available that puts Nathan Shine's story in doubt? Or is it not widely mentioned simply because apart from its telling, there is simply no way to evaluate it's validity as so it is viewed as a curiosity only?

- Jeff

P.S. Following the links above eventually took me to an old thread started by AP Wolf in 2004, where he more or less suggested the exact same idea, so I don't feel quite so bad in suggesting it. Interestingly, in the old thread there is also a description given of Shine's man, which includes the "broad shoulders" description:

"Nathan had described the man who was standing over the woman as: age, about 30; height, approx 5 ft 6 in; of pale complexion, dark hair; small dark brown moustache, full roundish face, broad shouldered; dressed in a dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak but could see hair on both sides of head, and holding a long thin bladed knife in his right hand." Again, this information was passed down through the family, and who knows how much it has modified over the years, perhaps to correspond to other publicly available descriptions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Nathan had described the man who was standing over the woman as: age, about 30; height, approx 5 ft 6 in; of pale complexion, dark hair; small dark brown moustache, full roundish face, broad shouldered; dressed in a dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak but could see hair on both sides of head, and holding a long thin bladed knife in his right hand." Again, this information was passed down through the family, and who knows how much it has modified over the years, perhaps to correspond to other publicly available descriptions.

Hi Jeff,

This seems a suspiciously detailed description given that it would have been the briefest of looks into a yard that was so dark that witnesses said that it would have been possible to have missed seeing a corpse on the ground. It’s impossible to entirely discount the story of course, no matter how unlikely, but I have to say that my Spidey-Senses are shouting ‘attention seeking fantasist’ when I think of Mr. Shine.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

This seems a suspiciously detailed description given that it would have been the briefest of looks into a yard that was so dark that witnesses said that it would have been possible to have missed seeing a corpse on the ground. It’s impossible to entirely discount the story of course, no matter how unlikely, but I have to say that my Spidey-Senses are shouting ‘attention seeking fantasist’ when I think of Mr. Shine.

Hi Herlock,

Yah, I am also suspicious, but ran with it just to see what it might mean if it were, in fact, true (as in, is it even possible for it to be true - and timewise, it could fit it, so if it is true it fills in a lot of the missing time between Fanny's departure and Deimshutz's arrival). But "could be true" and "is true", are not the same thing!

I think in the 2003 thread, Wolfe did say that Shine claimed to have gotten a fairly good, close, look at the fellow (as presumably to see anything he had to reach the gate and so would be right next to the murderer), but I find it hard to believe that he could have gotten such a description under those circumstances. I would suspect the shock value alone would have resulted in a very limited viewing, and a very quick retreat as well. With the description looking very much like press reports (and the suspicious inclusions of "broad shoulders"), makes me wonder if the description got modified over the years, perhaps including some influences from fairly recent (i.e. last 30-40 years type thing) bits, like the Schwartz event. It might be more convincing if, for example, Shines had written down his encounter at the time and we could see his actual words. As it is, there's just a lot of time for the family lore to "improve with the telling" over the years, and the original story has long since been corrupted beyond recognition. And that isn't even taking into consideration the validity of the original story.

- Jeff