Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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?

So, you think he might have held the bag in front of him with one hand, while his other hand was against the wall. or that he had placed the parcel in a rather large inside pocket of his overcoat. In the latter case, why would he have taken it out in the first place? Was he a cachous salesman, perhaps?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, you think he might have held the bag in front of him with one hand, while his other hand was against the wall. or that he had placed the parcel in a rather large inside pocket of his overcoat. In the latter case, why would he have taken it out in the first place? Was he a cachous salesman, perhaps?

Replace the dog with the package. Remove the items in her right hand/arm. Then have her leaning on a wall with her right hand.

Man walks behind her….not seeing parcel.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Replace the dog with the package. Remove the items in her right hand/arm. Then have her leaning on a wall with her right hand.

Man walks behind her….not seeing parcel.

You mean, he stopped holding the parcel in his hand and decided to clutch it against his chest, with his face just a few inches from Stride?

When Brown heard the woman say "No, not to-night, some other night", what do you think she was referring to?

Btw, you seem to have the relative positions reversed. "The man had his arm up against the wall, and the woman had her back to the wall facing him."

[Herlock Sholmes]

You mean, he stopped holding the parcel in his hand and decided to clutch it against his chest, with his face just a few inches from Stride?

We can’t reverse engineer what a man did with a package. People holding things sometimes change the way they hold them for a variety of reasons.

When Brown heard the woman say "No, not to-night, some other night", what do you think she was referring to?

I just think that he wanted her to go with him; sex probably. It sounds like she’s putting him off. She doesn’t want to give him the impression that she never wants to see him again (possibly to avoid a scene and perhaps ensuring that he goes away and doesn’t hang around.) So she tells him ‘some other night.’ Maybe she hadn’t told him that she was meeting someone else? Perhaps she’d told him that she wasn’t feeling well?

Btw, you seem to have the relative positions reversed. "The man had his arm up against the wall, and the woman had her back to the wall facing him."

I don’t have the positions reversed. The man was facing the wall so he had his back to Brown when he passed.

[Wickerman]

My sarcastic mind is ticking over with the image of Stride on the west side of Berner St. with a client buying a pkg of grapes, and another image of her twin on the east side of the street by the Board school, with a man also carrying a package.
Yet, PC Smith standing opposite the club only saw one Stride accompanied by one man carrying a package.
Hmm.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

We can’t reverse engineer what a man did with a package. People holding things sometimes change the way they hold them for a variety of reasons.

It's just that, similar to Fanny Mortimer, your theory requires moving something out of sight of a witness.

I just think that he wanted her to go with him; sex probably. It sounds like she’s putting him off. She doesn’t want to give him the impression that she never wants to see him again (possibly to avoid a scene and perhaps ensuring that he goes away and doesn’t hang around.) So she tells him ‘some other night.’ Maybe she hadn’t told him that she was meeting someone else? Perhaps she’d told him that she wasn’t feeling well?

So, do those words effectively signal the end of the conversation, or do they remain talking for a few more minutes? There is no hint from Brown that that is where the conversation immediately ends.

I don’t have the positions reversed. The man was facing the wall so he had his back to Brown when he passed.

It's just that you said...

Then have her leaning on a wall with her right hand.

[JeffHamm]

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.

Hi Wickerman,

I agree, it wouldn't resolve the discrepancies, but I think it might be a very efficient way of being able to assess all of the statements simultaneously. When dealing with noisy data like this, one expects discrepancies between individual witnesses. On the other hand, the majority of witnesses will probably not be too far off an underlying objective "truth" (so the time stated will generally be close to some definition of the actual time). When you have a lot of witnesses, though, you would also expect some of them to be quite far off that "objective truth". The difficulty is working out who is which! (apart, of course, seeing if they weigh the same as a duck - but that might be the wrong witch test ). Anyway, if in general a bunch of statements cluster around a similar area of the clock, and then one spots a couple that appear well out of sync, it would tend to suggest those that are out of sync represent a few witnesses who are just off the mark; and we shouldn't be too surprised if there are some given how many different sources we have, and how many different people are involved.

And given the large amount of information to sift through when looking at text only, it can be hard to get that overall sense of what patterns are there in the data. I think your clock representation of the statements, though, might be a good project as one can lay out a series of different clocks and then view them all at the same time. It is a great way to efficiently present a huge amount of testimony in order to try and extract the bigger picture.

As you can tell, you've sparked an interest in me, but that's because I'm very much data driven first before trying to interpret what it tells me. But trying to keep track of all the different individuals, the times and events they describe, and so forth, is complicated and hard to spot discrepancies from the bulk of the statements. It's easy to see how person 1 differs from person 2, but trying to work out if person 1 or 2 is the more/less reliable requires comparing them with all of the other witnesses, and that's where I think this might be a way to do that. It might not, and it might just create a visual clutter, but part of me thinks it could be very useful too. It's an empirical question, and I'm hoping to give it a go. Work is busy at the moment, so not sure how quickly I can get to it, but it is something I've got planned to try at some point.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's just that, similar to Fanny Mortimer, your theory requires moving something out of sight of a witness.


I don’t get this point because if Fanny was telling the truth then the couple must have moved out of sight because she didn’t see them. They were there when Smith passed but not there when Fanny came onto her doorstep or when Eagle returned. And if the woman was Stride then she had to have returned.

Perhaps they went around the corner because Stride didn’t want the guy knowing that she intended to stand outside the gates waiting for someone in case he loitered around making a nuisance of himself?

So, do those words effectively signal the end of the conversation, or do they remain talking for a few more minutes? There is no hint from Brown that that is where the conversation immediately ends.

I don’t know. We have no way of knowing. Perhaps she said “ some other night,” followed by “Look, I really have to go now.” Or perhaps they spoke for a few seconds? All that I’m saying is that the words heard by Brown (possibly said by Stride) sound like a woman trying to get rid of a bloke but not to the extent of never wanting to see him again.

It's just that you said...

I was talking about the woman in the photo standing in for the man. I should have made that clearer.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don’t get this point because if Fanny was telling the truth then the couple must have moved out of sight because she didn’t see them. They were there when Smith passed but not there when Fanny came onto her doorstep or when Eagle returned. And if the woman was Stride then she had to have returned.

The point is that you seem to have constructed a model/timeline that depends amongst other things, on man holding a parcel in a particular manner.

I agree that Fanny could not have been at her door when Stride was on the street. However, not so sure about Eagle. He was thinking about supper and might have glanced at the couple but paid little interest in them. Where Stride went after being seen by Smith, is a big mystery. Perhaps they went into the club through the front door and were assumed to be spies or something.

Perhaps they went around the corner because Stride didn’t want the guy knowing that she intended to stand outside the gates waiting for someone in case he loitered around making a nuisance of himself?

Waiting for someone in the club? A man half her age, perhaps? Then why not wait inside? She could have waited in the kitchen and told the women there about her "work amongst the Jews".

I don’t know. We have no way of knowing. Perhaps she said “ some other night,” followed by “Look, I really have to go now.” Or perhaps they spoke for a few seconds? All that I’m saying is that the words heard by Brown (possibly said by Stride) sound like a woman trying to get rid of a bloke but not to the extent of never wanting to see him again.

So, the conversation may have lasted a few more minutes, or more. Does your timeline allow for that possibility?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The point is that you seem to have constructed a model/timeline that depends amongst other things, on man holding a parcel in a particular manner.

Are we really going to nitpick about how a package was held? Have you never held something for a period of time and altered the way that you held it for reasons of comfort or convenience? It’s a fact that witnesses can’t always be shown to have noticed every detail. Brown didn’t notice what type of hat the man wore for example. What was the lighting like on that corner? Perhaps the package didn’t stand out in shadow against the dark of his coat?

I agree that Fanny could not have been at her door when Stride was on the street. However, not so sure about Eagle. He was thinking about supper and might have glanced at the couple but paid little interest in them. Where Stride went after being seen by Smith, is a big mystery. Perhaps they went into the club through the front door and were assumed to be spies or something.

It’s certainly an unknown but if they walked from opposite the club to the corner it would be less likely, though not impossible, that they then walked back to the gates. Personally I think it likelier that they parted company and the words that Brown heard appear to support this.

Waiting for someone in the club? A man half her age, perhaps? Then why not wait inside? She could have waited in the kitchen and told the women there about her "work amongst the Jews".

Im not assuming that the man that she might have been waiting for was inside the club. They may simply have arranged to meet near the gates of the club.

So, the conversation may have lasted a few more minutes, or more. Does your timeline allow for that possibility?

Its impossible to say as we can’t affix exact times to these events.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A timeline. Times are approximates of course because times in this case can only be approximated. We have no other choice.


12.15 - William Wess leaves the premises with his brother. (He mentions the front entrance door of the club being open but doesn’t mention anything about the side door being open and as he was talking about how light/dark it was in the yard it’s reasonable to assume that the side door was closed at this point) He said that he didn’t ’meet anyone on the street,’ but this doesn’t necessarily mean that he didn’t see anyone on the street.

12.30 - Or before Matthew Packer closes up his shop for the night.

12.30 - Charles Letchford passes along Berner Street and said that everything seemed to be going on as normal. Like Wess, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the street was completely empty - only that he saw nothing that stood out as unusual. He said that his sister was standing on her doorstep at 12.50 and saw no one pass. The wording is unclear but does this mean that she went onto her doorstep at 12.50 for a short time and saw no one? Or did he mean that his sister had been standing on her doorstep for a while when he got there and she stayed there until 12.50? If so, why didn’t she see Goldstein? Letchford certainly couldn’t have arrived at the house at 12.50 to find his sister standing there. So Letchford’s sister is difficult to evaluate. I think that the likeliest explanation is that she went onto her doorstep just after Goldstein passed, stood there for a few minutes, saw nothing, then went back inside before Louis passed at around 1.00.

12.30 - In 6 Press versions we have Joseph Lave going into the yard - 3 times at 12.30 (twice until 12.40 and once until 1.00) and in the other 3 times he went into the yard at 12.40 (twice for 5 minutes, once the duration wasn’t mentioned) We know that Smith saw a couple just across the road when he passed but Levy managed to miss them. How to explain Levy? It’s impossible to do. Did he go into the yard, have a quick look on the street but spent the rest of the time in the yard (including at the back by the printing office)? Is this why he saw nothing or no one?

12.33 - The couple (Stride and Parcelman) arrive and stand opposite the club.

12.33/12.35 - PC Smith passed and notices the couple opposite the club.

12.35 - The couple move on to the corner of Berner Street and Fairclough Street where they stand talking.

12.36 - Morris Eagle returns from taking his girlfriend home. He sees no one at the side of the building as he enters. Lave has possibly already re-entered the club or else he’s still wandering around getting air and when Eagle arrives he inside the yard near to the printer’s, so that he and Eagle don’t see each other. If Lave went back inside at around 12.40 then this would conform to the Press reports which say that he was in the yard from 12.30 to 12.40. Eagle doesn’t see the couple perhaps due to the fact that they are standing just around the corner. in Fairclough Street or that in such a poorly lit area he simply didn’t notice them in the distance.

12.40 - James Brown heads for his supper and sees the couple on the corner and hears the woman saying ‘not tonight’ indicating that she is trying to be rid of him.

12.41/12.42 - Parcelman has left and Stride has moved to the gateway where she has arranged to meet someone.

12.43 - BS man approaches Stride with Isreal Schwartz 20 or 30 yards behind.

12.44 - The incident occurs as Schwartz passes. He has crossed the road to avoid the man and then crosses back to disappear along Fairclough Street.

12.45 - Fanny Mortimer goes onto her doorstep and sees no one apart from Leon Goldstein who is going home after an evening in the cafe in Spectacle Alley.

12.55 - Fanny goes back indoors for the evening.

1.00 - She hears a horse and cart pass by her house; it’s Louis Diemschitz returning to the club. Louis takes his 1.00 time from the Baker’s clock but we can’t judge it’s accuracy. It’s possible therefore that by the clock that Lamb used (for eg) that it was actually 12.55 - we have no way of tying the time down to evaluate it.

1.00 - Louis arrived at the yard and found the body

1.01 - He and Kozebrodski head into Fairclough Street shouting for a Constable. James Brown is just finishing his supper when he hears the shouts.

1.02 - The two men pass Spooner who decides to go with them.

1.02 - Morris Eagle decides to go in the opposite direction to search for a PC.

1.03 - Diemschitz, Kozebrodski and Spooner arrive at the yard. Kozebrodski decides to run in the direction that Eagle has taken.

1.04 - Eagle finds Lamb in Commercial Road.

1.06 - Eagle, Lamb, Ayliffe and Kozebrodski arrive back at the yard. (Spooner says that he arrived around 5 minutes before Lamb arrived - 3 minutes is near enough as we can’t be exact - especially if the Bakers clock was a couple of minutes fast) Also Lamb said that Dr. Blackwell arrived 10 minutes after he’d got there. Blackwell arrived at 1.16 so this backs up Lamb’s arrival time and wipes out Spooner’s clearly mistaken 12.35 estimate; but confirms Spooner’s arrival ‘5 before Lamb’ time.

And as Lamb was definitely the first Constable on the scene any police whistle would have been blown at this point. So Heschberg must have arrived after Lamb therefore clearly not 12.45 as he mistakenly guessed.

1.06 - Ayliffe is sent for a Doctor.

1.10 - (or before) Ayliffe tells Edward Johnston what has happened. Johnston wakes Dr. Blackwell and informs him before returning with Ayliffe.

1.16 - Dr. Blackwell arrives at the yard.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

There ya go Wick, the forest is there when you step back a bit for a look. Its just a matter of perspective..if you believe that the members could have made some decisions based on a self protection premise, decisions that affected how they presented their stories to the authorities, then there is a storyline for you with times that are supported by multiple objective accounts, and are time sequenced viably. All the authority stated times match with these objectively stated times. If on the other hand you believe these poor innocent anarchists are being blasphemed by a suggestion of impropriety and falsehoods, then you can just use their storyline and timings. But you will only have those subjective witnesses for your timeline, their times are contradicted by not only the objective accounts but all the authorities times given as well. As Ive pointed out, clearly PC Lamb could not have heard about this event until 10 or 15 minutes after the discovery was made and people were sent for help. He said he saw Eagle at "just before 1am". If Louis arrived at 1... as he said specifically, Lamb would not be even seeing Eagle until 1:10 to 1:15. Which makes Johnson, Blackwell and Phillips also off by that much time. So why question the authorities times here? We have known anarchists.. with bad reputations with their neighbours and local police before this event,..faced with explaining how a woman came to be found murdered on their property. In the midst of an at large serial killers spree that police felt was connected with Immigrant Jews in that area. While 20 or 30 Immigrant Jews who attended the meeting...the ONLY men known to be anywhere near the crime site at the time of the murder, were still at that club.

As you have pointed out, the 2 varied factions do not work under one storyline with corresponding times that are viable. But only 1 of the above has stated times that agree with multiple objective witnesses and with all the relevant police and medical authority times, just as they were given. You can suggest changing those corroborated stated times, including the authorities times given, to make both perspectives work reasonably smoothly. Or you can select the stories that give times that are in keeping with the timelines established by the authorities stated timings. You need to change none of those times any more than by just 5 minutes....(Spooners 25 to 1 "at the gates" guess being the obstinate one among the objective accounts).

I find it ironic that the people who seem unable to accept a very reasonable and demonstrable defensive posturing by the anarchists are more than willing to accept simply discarding the times given by the authorities and multiple corroborative witnesses. Sounds more like a prejudice towards the authorities or a consensus, rather than a reasonable,viable ,functional premise.

Perhaps not all are finished looking up close at the individual trees here, and not at the forest as a whole.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Are we really going to nitpick about how a package was held?

No, I'm going to encourage you to take the 'risk' that Brown missed both the flower and the parcel.

Im not assuming that the man that she might have been waiting for was inside the club. They may simply have arranged to meet near the gates of the club.

You mean, she might have been waiting for the BS man?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

12.33/12.35 - PC Smith passed and notices the couple opposite the club.

1.06 - Eagle, Lamb, Ayliffe and Kozebrodski arrive back at the yard.

As Smith did not hear the calls for police and proceeded along Commercial Rd and then down Berner St at regulation pace, he would arrive at the yard at about 1:10, given the 1:06 time above. That means he is back after 35-37 minutes, yet he tells us that his beat takes 25-30 minutes. This should be a clue to everyone that something is not right.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, I'm going to encourage you to take the 'risk' that Brown missed both the flower and the parcel.

It wouldn’t really have been difficult for Brown to have missed a flower on the woman with a man standing between her and him.


You mean, she might have been waiting for the BS man?

No, someone else. BS man just arrived before he got there.