Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[Mark J D]

That is a most excellent point

You are too kind!

No.58 was across the road to his left looking north
No.68 was across the road to his right looking south.

Across the road? How so, if he was standing outside his house at No. 64? What's the actual geography here? I'm baffled...

It would also mean that when Marshall states he saw them walking off; presumably towards Outfields yard, then IF he saw Stride outside no.68 (George IV pub on the corner) then Stride would of had to walk past Marshall on the other side of the road.

[...]

When Marshall sees them walk off, it is presumably north toward the eventual murder site.

That would then indicate that they were continuing northward from a previous location, ergo, from the direction of the George IV pub.

But doesn't his inquest testimony say "When they went away they went towards Helen Street. They walked in the middle of the road. They would not pass No. 40 (the International club) on their way." (https://www.jack-the-ripper.org/william-marshall.htm)

I'm sorry, but I think we need to look at a few more sources... Something isn't making sense here...

Bests,

Mark D.

[Wickerman]

No. 64 Berner St. was a house - note the Dark Blue dot.

[Wickerman]

No. 68 on the corner - George IV.
1888 London Post Office Business Directory.

[Wickerman]

Interesting that the Post Office Directory for 1888 above, does not show Boyd St., but the 1895 P.O. directory does.
Yet, Marshall's testimony refers to Boyd St. which ran between Nos. 68-70 Berner St.

1895 P.O. directory.

Note the Kozminski family at No.70.

[Mark J D]

Thanks for these, Wick.

So the possible Liz Stride and her man-friend were on the far side of the road (odd numbers), opposite side to Marshall, but aligned with no.58?

Bests,

Mark D.

[Wickerman]

Thanks for these, Wick.

So the possible Liz Stride and her man-friend were on the far side of the road (odd numbers), opposite side to Marshall, but aligned with no.58?

Bests,

Mark D.

Hi Mark.

Actually, no.
This issue came up over a decade ago when Schwartz referred to the man "opposite".
It seems the word "opposite", in the 19th century also meant "in front of". Meaning, for example, I could walk down the street and stop opposite No.6, and then knock on the door.
Today we, as you think, would take "opposite" to mean "on the other side", but that is not the case. The word had two meanings back then.

Marshall saw this couple stand in front of No.58, as he says "three doors from my house" - Marshall was at 64, next door was 62, then 60, the couple stood in front of 58.
Marshall then says the couple walked towards Ellen Street, which is past Marshall's house, heading south.
Insp. Reid asked if they passed him (Marshall), he replied "yes".

[Mark J D]

Hi Mark.

Actually, no.
This issue came up over a decade ago when Schwartz referred to the man "opposite".
It seems the word "opposite", in the 19th century also meant "in front of". Meaning, for example, I could walk down the street and stop opposite No.6, and then knock on the door.
Today we, as you think, would take "opposite" to mean "on the other side", but that is not the case. The word had two meanings back then.

Marshall saw this couple stand in front of No.58, as he says "three doors from my house" - Marshall was at 64, next door was 62, then 60, the couple stood in front of 58.
Marshall then says the couple walked towards Ellen Street, which is past Marshall's house, heading south.
Insp. Reid asked if they passed him (Marshall), he replied "yes".

Thanks for that, squire! Terrific stuff! That's why I'm here!

I had imagined that the way-out numbering of the houses on the east side had made Marshall refer to his own side's numbering in preference. But what you say has great plausibility. And that's how he heard what the man said!

Thanks again!

:-)

Bests,

Mark D.

[The Rookie Detective]

Jon, thank you so much for clarifying that, once again you bring the data into context with your excellent approach.


Based on the corrections, that does therefore mean that Marshall saw Stride and her companion walk past him toward the pub on the corner; no.68 Berner Street i.e. George IV public house.

So I had it all in complete reverse and rather than being at no.58 and walking northward toward the murder site, they walked south from No. 58 and directly away from the murder site, past Marshall, and toward the pub on the corner just 2 doors from Marshall's house.

That then begs the question; did they go into pub or walk past the pub and head toward the street that Schwartz lived in?


And IF Marshall did indeed see Stride and her companion, at what point did they walk back past Marshall's house? and if not via Berner Street, which route could Stride have taken to get to Dutfields Yard?

It would seem likely that if Marshall's account is correct and he did indeed see Stride, then it supports the idea that that Stride must have arrived at the location of her murder very soon before she was killed, ergo, both Marshall and Packer can't both be correct in their observations because their respective timings can't both work.


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Interesting that the Post Office Directory for 1888 above, does not show Boyd St., but the 1895 P.O. directory does.
Yet, Marshall's testimony refers to Boyd St. which ran between Nos. 68-70 Berner St.

1895 P.O. directory.

Note the Kozminski family at No.70.

The only query I have with this is that they appear to have East and West the wrong way around.

Marshall's house was on the West side of Berner Street, but according to the Post Office directories, the numbers are on the opposite side of the road.


How is this possible?


RD

[Wickerman]

The only query I have with this is that they appear to have East and West the wrong way around.

Marshall's house was on the West side of Berner Street, but according to the Post Office directories, the numbers are on the opposite side of the road.


How is this possible?


RD

Well spotted

[Mark J D]

The only query I have with this is that they appear to have East and West the wrong way around.

[...]

How is this possible? RD

Screw-up in the compositing department...

Looks like the club has folded, and two small businesses have taken over the building...

Bests,

M.

[Wickerman]

For what it's worth, I don't think Marshall or Brown saw Stride that night.
Neither of them were in a position to see the all important flower on her breast.
In my view both witnesses saw two different couples.
After Stride was seen at the Bricklayers Arms in Settles St. about 11:00pm, the next time she was seen was by Packer coming up from the south end of Berner st., about 11:45pm.
I know both Marshall & Brown identified the body, but so did Mary Malcom, who saw the body three times, because she initially had doubts, but finally swore she had "not the slightest doubt" the body was her sister Elizabeth Watts.
So how much confidence should we have in any witness who swears to identify the body?

[JeffHamm]

For what it's worth, I don't think Marshall or Brown saw Stride that night.
Neither of them were in a position to see the all important flower on her breast.
In my view both witnesses saw two different couples.
After Stride was seen at the Bricklayers Arms in Settles St. about 11:00pm, the next time she was seen was by Packer coming up from the south end of Berner st., about 11:45pm.
I know both Marshall & Brown identified the body, but so did Mary Malcom, who saw the body three times, because she initially had doubts, but finally swore she had "not the slightest doubt" the body was her sister Elizabeth Watts.
So how much confidence should we have in any witness who swears to identify the body?

Hi Wickerman,

Just to be clear, in the end I'm going to concede we don't actually have the critical information in order to make a call, but I've looked into studies on the accuracies of eye-witness identifications and what sort of things increase or decrease our confidence in the accuracy.

The short version is, if the eye-witness, at the time of the identification, shows high confidence in their identification then the identification tends to be highly accurate. If the eye-witness makes an identification, but indicates some doubts, then the accuracy drops off a great deal.

Now the longer version.

The thing to note is that the confidence they may show later, as in "at trial", is not a good indicator. Once an eye-witness makes even a tentative identification, their confidence will grow if that person is subsequently charged, and their memory for how confident they were at the time of the identification will also alter so they recall themselves being more confident than they really were.

This change in confidence can occur quite rapidly, as in, given a tentative identification and the police conducting the lineup indicate (directly or indirectly) that "you got it right", can be all it takes to cement that change.

Now, we don't have those initial reports, other than for Mary Malcom, whom we know had to go back multiple times. So we know she was unsure, and it took her awhile to finally decide on her identification. That's exactly the sort of identification that tends to be unreliable.

What we don't know, though, is how confident Brown or Marshall were in their identification (or, to expand things, Long's and Lawende's for example). We know Long testifies she is sure the woman she saw was Chapman (the woman in the morgue), but unfortunately we don't know how confident she was at the time she viewed the body in the morgue. Lawende, for example, was not confident of identifying Eddowes the person, but seemed to think the clothing matched, so there is good reason to be cautious of his identification of Eddowes.

Brown and Marshall do not appear to have required multiple viewings and they both identify Stride the person, but that still doesn't mean we can be sure they were highly confident in their identifications at the morgue. And even if they later appear confident at the inquest, by that time their confidence levels are uninformative to us.

As such, I think there is a difference between Brown and Marshall compared to Mary Malcom. The latter we know was unsure, and remained so for some time, which is a huge red flag when it comes to the reliability of her identification (which, we know, was indeed wrong). Brown and Marshall, however, remain in a situation where they could have been initially very confident, and therefore, be in the group who tend to be highly accurate in their identifications (over 90% correct type thing). So while we don't know if they are in the high accurate group, we also do not know they are not - both are viable options, so both should be considered. Meaning Brown and Marshall would be "still possibly in the high accurate group", while we knew Mary was already in the dubious group.

Wrongful convictions based upon faulty eye-witness identifications are rarely based upon identifications made with initial high confidence, and tend to arise from identifications that were initially of lower confidence (remember, though, the confidence levels displayed at trial are meaningless, it is only the confidence level at the time of identification that matters).

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

...
What we don't know, though, is how confident Brown or Marshall were in their identification (or, to expand things, Long's and Lawende's for example). We know Long testifies she is sure the woman she saw was Chapman (the woman in the morgue), but unfortunately we don't know how confident she was at the time she viewed the body in the morgue. Lawende, for example, was not confident of identifying Eddowes the person, but seemed to think the clothing matched, so there is good reason to be cautious of his identification of Eddowes.
- Jeff

Thankyou Jeff.

I had read that Lawende was not shown the body because he claimed to not see her face. He was only shown the pile of clothes.
I wish I could remember my source, but it does make sense.

As for the general implication of your post, Sadly I feel more reserved on the point you are making, than you are.
I cannot in good faith try to argue Stride was at the corner by the Board School (witnessed by Brown) when we have a witness that states the couple were not Stride & her man.
As for Marshall, that is a 50/50 choice, but the hat & coat are very different from the earlier man Stride was with at 11:00pm, and the later man Stride was with by the club.
This would entail Stride being with three different men, I'm not in favor of that possibility.
If Marshall was stood at his door until about 12:00am, the couple he saw must have walked around the block to arrive back at Berner St. near the club, he makes no claim to have seen anyone else.

[JeffHamm]

Thankyou Jeff.

I had read that Lawende was not shown the body because he claimed to not see her face. He was only shown the pile of clothes.
I wish I could remember my source, but it does make sense.

As for the general implication of your post, Sadly I feel more reserved on the point you are making, than you are.
I cannot in good faith try to argue Stride was at the corner by the Board School (witnessed by Brown) when we have a witness that states the couple were not Stride & her man.
As for Marshall, that is a 50/50 choice, but the hat & coat are very different from the earlier man Stride was with at 11:00pm, and the later man Stride was with by the club.
This would entail Stride being with three different men, I'm not in favor of that possibility.
If Marshall was stood at his door until about 12:00am, the couple he saw must have walked around the block to arrive back at Berner St. near the club, he makes no claim to have seen anyone else.

Hi Wickerman,
I phrased the Lawende example poorly, he wasn't confident of identifying Eddowes because he hadn't seen her face is what I should have said, and I think you are correct in that no attempt was made for him to identify the body, just the clothes. The point, though, is we know he wasn't confident - and we know he had good reason not to be. I suppose, though, what we do not know there is his confidence with regards to the clothing identification.

And, to be clear, I am not arguing their identification should be viewed as a confident/reliable one (reliable here just means high probability of being correct, not a guarantee of being correct), only that unlike Mrs. Malcolm whom we know is low confident and so unreliable (and we even know she is shown to be wrong), Brown and Marshal remain of "undetermined reliability".

Other evidence and arguments may help guide our interpretations, but we can't state we know their identification may be wrong because Malcolm was wrong. We know details of how unsure she was during the identification process, but we do not know the confidence of Brown or Marshall, so we cannot place them in the same group of low confidence/low reliability as Malcolm. They could be, but they need not be, because we do not know. To me, that makes Malcolm an unsuitable example to use to draw a conclusion about either Brown or Marshall.

That all said, I also agree that it would be an equal though opposite error to view them as being reliable too! We do not know that any more than we know they are unreliable! We must, therefore, be aware that either is possible. (And also remember that being reliable does still leave open the possibility of them being mistaken of course).

Anyway, I wasn't arguing their sightings should be viewed as solid sightings, but really just separating Brown and Marshall from Malcolm, the latter showed every sign of being an unreliable identification even before her sister was brought in, alive and well.

- Jeff