Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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".

[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, 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