Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that we have to acknowledge the unknowns in the events that occurred between 12.30 and 1.00 that night. Apologies to all for the repetition but we have - Smith passing at an estimated time of 12.30/12.35. Fanny saying that she went onto her doorstep after hearing him (had she actually heard someone else, Eagle for example?) but how long after is an unknown, so we don’t what time. - It’s usually stated that she was there for 10 minutes but Jeff has showed us how far out humans can be in our estimations; so how long was she actually on her doorstep? It’s far from impossible that it could have been just 5 or 6 minutes, we just don’t know. - We don’t know how the Brewer’s clock was synchronised with the clocks used by Lamb and Smith. - Exactly what time did Eagle return? - How long was Lave in the yard? - How can we be sure of what time Letchford’s sister went onto her doorstep and how long was she there for? - Exactly what time did Goldstein pass?

If we looked down on any street from a drone for a random 30 minutes we would see all manner of people coming and going and all manner of events. We would see people standing and waiting for something then moving on; people chatting with each other; people arguing; someone stealing a woman’s bag and then running away; people falling, people just missing each other by seconds. All would be perfectly normal, but if we asked those involved what they had done we would get people saying that they did something at ‘around x’ when it was actually 10 minutes or more later; if we asked the two people talking to each other how long they had talked for, we might get one saying 5 minutes but the other saying 10 or more. We would get two people giving the exact same time for something and yet they didn’t see each other. We would get people saying that they heard one thing and yet they didn’t hear another thing. It would often result in an unsuccessful attempt to recreate events by simply using the given times and yet those events certainly would have occurred and no one would have lied. (Not that people couldn’t have lied of course)

The only difference in Berner Street is that a woman was murdered and so that 30 minutes receives more focus. The same kind of unknowns occurred in my scenario that occurred in Berner Street (without the murder of course) but we wouldn’t consider the scenario suspicious in any way. When we describe events in Scenario Street no one would suggest that we would be engaging in manipulation by allowing for times, inaccurate estimates, people narrowly missing each other etc but when we do this in Berner Street this tends to be the way some see attempts to describe events.

Apart from the murder these were all normal events involving normal people. They occur every minute of every day. I just think that we shouldn’t consider the events in Berner Street as if they were in any way extraordinary. As of a series of inexplicable events occurred and that they can’t have happened. These things occurred but we just can’t reconstruct them with exact timings.

[FISHY1118]

Plus we have Charles Letchford's sister who was standing at the street door around 12.50am.

The Letchford's lived at no.30 if I recall

No.30 was on the same side of the street just north of Fanny Mortimer. The house being on the corner of the alleyway that led West from Berner Street.

Letchford's statement is usually forgotten about, but it also needs to be considered.


It places Miss Letchford at the door of no.30 just a few minutes after the alleged Schwartz story.


I know researchers try to rationalize everything by trying to cram everything in, but it just cant be done.


The question is...Why?



RD

Easy, Miss Lectchford missed the assault on Stride by 5 mins, an eternity in this case .

There is no "Alleged" Schwartz "story" as you put it , it was his sworn statement given to the police at the time which they had no issue with .

If Schwartz is to be labeled "Alleged" so must all other witnesses .

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Jeff,

But we also have to fit in the observed and confirmed journey of Leon Goldstein headed south down the same path at about that time, and an unconfirmed story of him being seen headed north at some unspecified time.

So we have four men turning into Berner St from Commerial Road, BSman, Schwartz, Goldstein and Shine, not to mention Parcelman and Pipeman coming from the south, and Eagle and Lave in the vicinity of the yard. Quite a cast of characters that were, bar one, not reported to have been seen by our doorstop snoopers. We have no indication in which direction BSMan departed the scene unless it is assumed that he was the man seen by Shine or heard by Mortimer. We know that Schwartz stated that he departed to the south, as did Shine's reported killer. Shine stated that he himself departed to the north towards Commercial Road, and there is another report, of disputed content, that Goldstein was observed headed north, maybe from the club, towards Commercial Road. It seems to me that Shine's story may add some weight to the sighting by the woman I call Mrs Artisan, and to Water Dew's account of Mrs Mortimer's sighting, seeing a man headed north towards the Commercial Road.

If it is to be accepted that Mrs Mortimer and Mrs TwoDoors were the same person, we need to accept that there were gaps in the "nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock", one of which was immediately before the final ten minute vigil. She categorically stated "During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact" But Mrs Artisan stated "I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club." She also defined to which Socialist Club she was referring with "I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway. Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife". From this we might deduce that Mrs Artisan's sighting was in a gap prior to Mortimer's final 10 minute vigil.

So where does the Schwartz incident fit? Before 12:30, not at all, in Batty St as in Jon's hypothesis, or in one of the doorsnoop gaps? All alternatives but the latter remove Schwartz and BSMan from the equation. Blackwell estimated a TOD range starting at 12:46, but also stated that she would have bled out for several minutes, placing the actual throat cut a little earlier....about the time Mortimer heard footsteps in the street, and perhaps when Mrs Artisan saw a man with a black bag proceeding north. That would mean that Mrs Artisan came to her door just after the Schwartz incident, and saw the killer with a black bag headed north, just before Mrs Mortimer came to her door after hearing footsteps, which could have been BSMan departing, or the killer, if a separate entity. Ten to twelve minutes later Mortimer sees a man with a black bag return headed south, and look into the yard .... to check if the body had been discovered?

I'm having trouble fitting fitting the Shine story into all this. He wasn't the man with the black bag that Mortimer saw walk south and turn left into Fairclough. That had to have been Goldstein. He could have walked south during a doorsnoop gap, and been heard retreating up Berner St, but I don't think his retreat would have been in any way "measured", and the man Mrs Artisan saw, and was reported by Dew, had a black bag, like Goldstein, and it would be highly unlikely to have been anyone but Goldstein.

That concludes my latest rendition of waffle (), but a thought just occurred to me (the odds makers take another beating)....could Goldstein have actually been Parcelman?

Best regards,
George

Plus we have Charles Letchford's sister who was standing at the street door around 12.50am.

The Letchford's lived at no.30 if I recall

No.30 was on the same side of the street just north of Fanny Mortimer. The house being on the corner of the alleyway that led West from Berner Street.

Letchford's statement is usually forgotten about, but it also needs to be considered.


It places Miss Letchford at the door of no.30 just a few minutes after the alleged Schwartz story.


I know researchers try to rationalize everything by trying to cram everything in, but it just cant be done.


The question is...Why?



RD

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Jeff,

But we also have to fit in the observed and confirmed journey of Leon Goldstein headed south down the same path at about that time, and an unconfirmed story of him being seen headed north at some unspecified time.

So we have four men turning into Berner St from Commerial Road, BSman, Schwartz, Goldstein and Shine, not to mention Parcelman and Pipeman coming from the south, and Eagle and Lave in the vicinity of the yard. Quite a cast of characters that were, bar one, not reported to have been seen by our doorstop snoopers. We have no indication in which direction BSMan departed the scene unless it is assumed that he was the man seen by Shine or heard by Mortimer. We know that Schwartz stated that he departed to the south, as did Shine's reported killer. Shine stated that he himself departed to the north towards Commercial Road, and there is another report, of disputed content, that Goldstein was observed headed north, maybe from the club, towards Commercial Road. It seems to me that Shine's story may add some weight to the sighting by the woman I call Mrs Artisan, and to Water Dew's account of Mrs Mortimer's sighting, seeing a man headed north towards the Commercial Road.

If it is to be accepted that Mrs Mortimer and Mrs TwoDoors were the same person, we need to accept that there were gaps in the "nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock", one of which was immediately before the final ten minute vigil. She categorically stated "During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact" But Mrs Artisan stated "I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club." She also defined to which Socialist Club she was referring with "I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway. Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife". From this we might deduce that Mrs Artisan's sighting was in a gap prior to Mortimer's final 10 minute vigil.

So where does the Schwartz incident fit? Before 12:30, not at all, in Batty St as in Jon's hypothesis, or in one of the doorsnoop gaps? All alternatives but the latter remove Schwartz and BSMan from the equation. Blackwell estimated a TOD range starting at 12:46, but also stated that she would have bled out for several minutes, placing the actual throat cut a little earlier....about the time Mortimer heard footsteps in the street, and perhaps when Mrs Artisan saw a man with a black bag proceeding north. That would mean that Mrs Artisan came to her door just after the Schwartz incident, and saw the killer with a black bag headed north, just before Mrs Mortimer came to her door after hearing footsteps, which could have been BSMan departing, or the killer, if a separate entity. Ten to twelve minutes later Mortimer sees a man with a black bag return headed south, and look into the yard .... to check if the body had been discovered?

I'm having trouble fitting fitting the Shine story into all this. He wasn't the man with the black bag that Mortimer saw walk south and turn left into Fairclough. That had to have been Goldstein. He could have walked south during a doorsnoop gap, and been heard retreating up Berner St, but I don't think his retreat would have been in any way "measured", and the man Mrs Artisan saw, and was reported by Dew, had a black bag, like Goldstein, and it would be highly unlikely to have been anyone but Goldstein.

That concludes my latest rendition of waffle (), but a thought just occurred to me (the odds makers take another beating)....could Goldstein have actually been Parcelman?

Best regards,
George

[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

[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]

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]

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?

[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]

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?

[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

[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

[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?

[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

[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