Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

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

  • Hi Jeff, yes I had considered using the same clock-type representation for other witness statements. After some examples I decided while it would clarify the discrepancies, it wouldn't help resolve the problems.
    Some witness statements are clearly out by as much as a quarter-hour which a clock-type comparison can not resolve why.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      Personally, I don’t really see what can be gained by looking over the same evidence. I believe that we pretty much know what happened in Berner Street. The least likely thing for me is that Schwartz lied. This would make him an attention seeking idiot and yet the experienced, well-respected Abberline felt he was telling the truth. Could Abberline have been duped? Yes, no one is infallible but the likelihood has to be strongly against it. And with all of the anti-Jewish feeling at the time Schwartz might have been playing with fire in placing himself at the scene of the murder with three other people; one of whom died and the other two who couldn’t be traced because they didn’t exist.
      Could Abberline have been duped? That is the wrong way of looking at the situation. It is also wrong to suggest that Abberline and the police in general, believed Schwartz to have told the truth. The police did not believe Schwartz. Dis/belief is for juries, whereas the police deal with sufficient plausibility. When the police decided to publish Dear Boss and saucy jacky, it was on the basis that a connection between the murderer and the author of that letter and postcard was sufficiently plausible, that it was worthwhile making the content available to the public. The police 'believed' Schwartz in the same sense that they 'believed' the red ink author.

      The ‘solution’ might simply be that Schwartz got his time wrong and an actually saw an incident earlier. Perhaps it involved Stride and by the time that Smoth passed she’d crossed the road and was with the man that Smith saw. Maybe this guy was Pipeman?
      The solution to what? You just said, "I believe that we pretty much know what happened in Berner Street".
      Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

        The report indicates she went to her doorstep immediately on hearing the passing boots. There is no mention of her first going to her doorstep at that point, and the reference to shooting the bolts hardly suggests she had been inside for hours.

        I don’t understand that point. All that we can infer from her intention to shoot the bolts is that she had no intention to go back onto her doorstep after her 12.45 stint.

        I agree though that it doesn’t specifically say that 12.45 was the first time that she had been on her doorstep. The alternatives would appear to be that she had been on her doorstep but had gone back inside prior to PC Smith passing only to return almost immediately to her doorstep on hearing him pass or else at 12.45 when she heard someone else pass. Even less likely is that she went onto her doorstep after Smith passed going back inside almost straight away only to return at 12.45.


        What would 'first' mean in this context? First time that morning? First time since the club event ended, or started? First time that night?

        The first time in the period between 12.30 and 1.00 which is the period that Fanny claimed to have been on her doorstep for most of the time.

        In contrast to your ultra-literal interpretation, I believe it likely that Mortimer had been at her doorstep at different points throughout the evening. That's what people did back then. Today they might watch TV instead. If I watched a half-hour show, made tea midway through, and said "I was watching TV nearly the whole time between 12:30 and 1 o'clock", would it be safe to conclude that I was not watching TV at 11pm? Not really.
        That point isn’t particularly relevant to the specific point that I was talking about. We are talking about one time period only, from 12.30-1.00, which is the period that Fanny claimed to have been on her door for ‘nearly the whole time.’

        She first mentions going onto her doorstep at 12.45 so that leaves the period between 12.30 and 12.45 unexplained. During that period we know that PC Smith passed at some point and that Fanny didn’t see him and that he hadn’t seen her. We also know that Smith saw the couple across the road and that Fanny didn’t see them. This makes it difficult to get Fanny onto her doorstep unless she was on her doorstep until before 12.35ish, she goes indoors, the couple arrive then Smith passes, then Fanny comes back out with the intention of shooting the bolts when she could have shot them 10 minutes earlier.

        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

          Brown appears to only witness the couple on his return home and not while on his way to the chandler's shop.
          Which would support them still being opposite the club or walking toward to corner as Brown passed.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

          Comment


          • I thought that we had already established that you can construct your speculative timeline and . ​details any way you like, but that does in no way affect the statements of the remaining witnesses that you omit in your scenarios. Fanny is quoted as saying this..."If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him​." So your wheel of truth should adjust Fannys time, she was at her door until 1, not 12:55. Either way though, did Louis somehow have his cart and horse on a rooftop...because Fanny did not see a single thing other than Goldstein at around 12:55...when you suggest she went in. Unless Louis could fly across the rooftops or suddenly become visible at the gates he was not approaching those gates via the street between 12:50 and 1am. Fanny would HAVE TO have seen that, and we know she was there. Leons statement Tuesday leaves no doubt.

            If you made a "wheel" with the remaining statements, would they match your wheel? No. What does that tell you, if anything? Thats right....there are 2 sides to this story, as there almost always is, and whomever you root for there is a timeline that supports some or all of their claims.

            I support the ones who have no visible bias or benefit at stake, ones from other than the men who would be handcuffed if the police believed the murderer was still among them....(they did check them all too, inside and outside... The building.... Checked the stables, the office with the broken lock....seems they were entertaining the notion of finding some clues on the property or the men there), ...statements whose details are repeated in detail in other witness accounts with no connection to each other, and statements from the authorities, beat police and first responders. Thats my presumed unbiased bunch.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              I don’t understand that point. All that we can infer from her intention to shoot the bolts is that she had no intention to go back onto her doorstep after her 12.45 stint.​
              I mean that if she hadn't already spent time on her doorstep after midnight, she probably would have already locked-up. I think she has gone inside at some point in the last half-hour before the discovery, done whatever, then decided she might go to bed, gone to the door to bolt it, then changed her mind. I wonder if something caught her ear?

              I agree though that it doesn’t specifically say that 12.45 was the first time that she had been on her doorstep. The alternatives would appear to be that she had been on her doorstep but had gone back inside prior to PC Smith passing only to return almost immediately to her doorstep on hearing him pass or else at 12.45 when she heard someone else pass. Even less likely is that she went onto her doorstep after Smith passed going back inside almost straight away only to return at 12.45.
              Maybe she ducked in and out a few times, to check on her husband. I don't remember what he died of, but perhaps he had breathing problems.​

              That point isn’t particularly relevant to the specific point that I was talking about. We are talking about one time period only, from 12.30-1.00, which is the period that Fanny claimed to have been on her door for ‘nearly the whole time.’

              She first mentions going onto her doorstep at 12.45 so that leaves the period between 12.30 and 12.45 unexplained. During that period we know that PC Smith passed at some point and that Fanny didn’t see him and that he hadn’t seen her. We also know that Smith saw the couple across the road and that Fanny didn’t see them. This makes it difficult to get Fanny onto her doorstep unless she was on her doorstep until before 12.35ish, she goes indoors, the couple arrive then Smith passes, then Fanny comes back out with the intention of shooting the bolts when she could have shot them 10 minutes earlier.
              My impression of the timeline is that Smith was about 5 minutes 'before time', and Mortimer was about 5 minutes 'after time'. What she thinks was 12:30 was more like 12:25, and what Smith claimed was 12:35, was more like 12:40. Smith's times just seem a bit too early when compared to Blackwell's watch. So, with those corrections, Mortimer could be at her doorstep for 5 or 10 minutes before Stride arrives on the scene with Parcelman, who cannot arrive on the scene more than about 5 mins before Smith. How I can claim to know that last bit, is based on the press statement of Charles Letchford.

              I passed through the street at half past 12, and everything seemed to me to be going on as usual...

              If Diemschitz arrives at 12:55 GMT, Fanny might have been on her step from 12:25 to 12:35, then 12:42 to 12:52. This gives Stride and companion a few minutes to arrive on the scene before Smith, but very little time to depart, once Smith leaves them behind. If you want to give them more time to leave, then Fanny must be made to lockup, virtually at the moment the pony and cart turn into the street. That would give you a ten-minute period - 12:35 to 12:45, in which to bring in Schwartz. The problem is that Smith is right in the middle of that period, and Eagle is probably at one end or the other of that range. Even without Schwartz, it's difficult to fit everything in.
              Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 03-25-2024, 01:24 PM.
              Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                I thought that we had already established that you can construct your speculative timeline and . ​details any way you like, but that does in no way affect the statements of the remaining witnesses that you omit in your scenarios. Fanny is quoted as saying this..."If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him​." So your wheel of truth should adjust Fannys time, she was at her door until 1, not 12:55. Either way though, did Louis somehow have his cart and horse on a rooftop...because Fanny did not see a single thing other than Goldstein at around 12:55...when you suggest she went in. Unless Louis could fly across the rooftops or suddenly become visible at the gates he was not approaching those gates via the street between 12:50 and 1am. Fanny would HAVE TO have seen that, and we know she was there. Leons statement Tuesday leaves no doubt.

                If you made a "wheel" with the remaining statements, would they match your wheel? No. What does that tell you, if anything? Thats right....there are 2 sides to this story, as there almost always is, and whomever you root for there is a timeline that supports some or all of their claims.

                I support the ones who have no visible bias or benefit at stake, ones from other than the men who would be handcuffed if the police believed the murderer was still among them....(they did check them all too, inside and outside... The building.... Checked the stables, the office with the broken lock....seems they were entertaining the notion of finding some clues on the property or the men there), ...statements whose details are repeated in detail in other witness accounts with no connection to each other, and statements from the authorities, beat police and first responders. Thats my presumed unbiased bunch.
                I haven’t omitted any witnesses in my original posts. I went through each one.

                Fanny wouldn’t have had to have seen anything because we don’t know when she went onto her doorstep. And as we also can’t assess the accuracy of Schwartz time you are attempting to use an unknown to dismiss an unknown. Which is an impossibility.

                Then to use Fanny to dismiss Louis is yet another example of using an unknown to dismiss an unknown. You cherrypick the ‘if a man had come out of the yard before 1.00’ quote but you ignore where she said that she went onto her doorstep and 12.45 for 10 minutes. This would have her going back inside at 12.55 where she then heard Louis pass….corroborating what he’d said.

                Life would be much simpler if we avoided cherrypicking and looked at the witnesses as a whole…accepting the obvious possibility for simple human error and clock discrepancies.

                And on the subject of Louis, as you appear to be interested in knowing how Fanny could have missed seeing him, I have to point out one of many questions that has been avoided - why did Fanny see Louis arrive earlier in the evening as you believe that he did?
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                  I mean that if she hadn't already spent time on her doorstep after midnight, she probably would have already locked-up. I think she has gone inside at some point in the last half-hour before the discovery, done whatever, then decided she might go to bed, gone to the door to bolt it, then changed her mind. I wonder if something caught her ear?



                  Maybe she ducked in and out a few times, to check on her husband. I don't remember what he died of, but perhaps he had breathing problems.​



                  My impression of the timeline is that Smith was about 5 minutes 'before time', and Mortimer was about 5 minutes 'after time'. What she thinks was 12:30 was more like 12:25, and what Smith claimed was 12:35, was more like 12:40. Smith's times just seem a bit too early when compared to Blackwell's watch. So, with those corrections, Mortimer could be at her doorstep for 5 or 10 minutes before Stride arrives on the scene with Parcelman, who cannot arrive on the scene more than about 5 mins before Smith. How I can claim to know that last bit, is based on the press statement of Charles Letchford.

                  I passed through the street at half past 12, and everything seemed to me to be going on as usual...

                  If Diemschitz arrives at 12:55 GMT, Fanny might have been on her step from 12:25 to 12:35, then 12:42 to 12:52. This gives Stride and companion a few minutes to arrive on the scene before Smith, but very little time to depart, once Smith leaves them behind. If you want to give them more time to leave, then Fanny must be made to lockup, virtually at the moment the pony and cart turn into the street. That would give you a ten-minute period - 12:35 to 12:45, in which to bring in Schwartz. The problem is that Smith is right in the middle of that period, and Eagle is probably at one end or the other of that range. Even without Schwartz, it's difficult to fit everything in.
                  But surely you can see that with all of these questioned times and disputed orders of events we can’t assume an issue with what gets called the official version. I don’t see a single issue.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                  “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    But surely you can see that with all of these questioned times and disputed orders of events we can’t assume an issue with what gets called the official version. I don’t see a single issue.
                    Whereas I can see an issue just with this...

                    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Which would support them still being opposite the club or walking toward to corner as Brown passed.
                    ​You're own model doesn't have Stride at the gateway, where she's 'supposed' to be.
                    Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                      Some people put a lot of weight on a single ambiguous sentence.

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

                      It's often presented as meaning the police did not trust Schwartz' statement. But "the man" could be referring to the man who was arrested, not Schwartz. And the doubts expressed could be those of the reporter, not the police. The sentence is vague.

                      To research this issue, I've begun reading the thread linked above. As yet I don't see anyone arguing for the position you claim is often presented. As I'm keen to read various points of view, would you mind linking to an example or two of the interpretation you refer to?
                      Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                        Whereas I can see an issue just with this...

                        ​You're own model doesn't have Stride at the gateway, where she's 'supposed' to be.
                        Because I never mentioned what happened next. Stride and the man part company as he finally gets the message. He walks off (perhaps along Fairclough Street) and she crosses the road to the gateway.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Because I never mentioned what happened next. Stride and the man part company as he finally gets the message. He walks off (perhaps along Fairclough Street) and she crosses the road to the gateway.
                          Did the man continue to carry the parcel when the two of them decide to walk to the board school corner, to continue their conversation?
                          Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            Did the man continue to carry the parcel when the two of them decide to walk to the board school corner, to continue their conversation?
                            I don’t know. Maybe he put it into an inside coat pocket? Maybe he put it under his arm and Brown didn’t notice it as he passed? He did have his back to Brown as he passed after all.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                            “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              I don’t know. Maybe he put it into an inside coat pocket? Maybe he put it under his arm and Brown didn’t notice it as he passed? He did have his back to Brown as he passed after all.
                              So, you think the parcel was pretty much empty?
                              Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                                So, you think the parcel was pretty much empty?
                                Why? He could have held it in his hand against the front of his body out of sight of Brown passing behind him. Some overcoats also have large inside pockets so why couldn’t he have put it in one of them?
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X