Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[Herlock Sholmes]

It may be a taboo area or perhaps the problem is that some members have a fixed idea of what happened on Berner St that night, and the story of the man with the black bag walking north, just doesn't fit. Therefore, it has to be rejected.

Looking forward to the new thread.

This is the same old criticism used by Trevor. It’s the old ‘defending the old established theories’ mantra.

Perhaps you should look at it the other way for once Andrew and realise that most people prefer to take a more cautious approach where we don’t just take anything in…like a pawn shop. Why is it a more responsible approach to assume that every minor discrepancy is an open door to some massive, convoluted theory/plot? Sadly this is the approach taken by some over the years and it’s what’s led to Black Magic Ritual theories, Freemasonry theories, false witness theories, theories involving anagrams, planets and all manner of nonsense like a series of throat-cutting mutilation murders occurring over a short time and in a small area but they aren’t connected! This kind of stuff should be left in the pages of mystery novels.

Back to Mrs X…..has anyone explained yet why she and Fanny appear to live in the same house?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi RD,

There are some odd things attached to this, for me.

Why wasn’t it clear to either the woman or the reporter and informant that this man was likely the Ripper? If it’s clear to us, why wouldn’t it be clear to them? And for a reporter, with a nose for bringing 'news' and how, it seems all the stranger that he wouldn't have picked up on it.

In Fanny's case, I can suggest two reasons. One is that she was not sure where the man had come from. The other is that she believed the murderer had been disturbed by Diemschitz.

FM: He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart.

Perhaps she did not suspect black bag man because she did not associate his passing with any screams.

As for the reporter, he clearly was intrigued.

EN: I wonder will the detectives think it worth while to satisfy themselves about that black bag?

You seem to state it as fact that she said he was coming from the club, but in reality she didn't. She stated that he “might have been” coming from the Socialist Club. It seems she's guessing to me. Why was that? Why wasn’t she sure of it?

After all, she lived close enough to the Club to claim that she must have heard the poor creature scream and that there was music & dancing going on there, so why wouldn’t she have actually seen him coming from either the yard or the front door of the Club?

Perhaps she was momentarily distracted or was looking toward Commercial Rd when he left the yard.

If they actually were one and the same man & Leon Goldstein, then he first seems to have returned home, then he went to the club and minutes before one o’clock he left the club and went north, past a witness, towards Commercial Road.

If he was supposed to be the killer, then, of course, that’s at odds with all this:

Morning Advertiser of 3 October 1888:
“W. Wess, secretary of the International Club, Berner-street, called at our office at midnight, and stated that, it having come to his knowledge that the man who was seen by Mrs. Mortimer, of 36, Berner-street, passing her house with a black, shiny bag, and walking very fast down the street from the Commercial-road at about the time of the murder, was a member of the club, he persuaded him last night, between ten and eleven o'clock, to accompany him to the Leman-street station, where he made a statement as to his whereabouts on Saturday evening, which was entirely satisfactory. The young man's name is Leon Goldstein, and he is a traveller.”

Lloyds Weekly News of 7 October 1888:
“Reports have been circulated this week of a man having been seen in the streets with a black bag about the time of the murders; but suspicion was removed by a young traveller named Goldstein coming forward and stating that he was in Berner Street.”

The police report of Goldstein's visit to the police reads as follows:
“About 1 a.m. 30th. Leon Goldstein of 22 Christian Street, Commercial Road, called at Leman Street and stated that he was the man that passed down Berner Street with a black bag at that hour, that the bag contained empty cigarette boxes and that he had left a coffe house in Spectale Alley a short time before.”

Of course, Goldstein may have lied, but the thing that would remain very odd indeed is that nobody thought the man who’d been seen coming from the Club a couple of minutes before Stride’s body was discovered and who’d, oddly, passed a possible witness wasn’t suspected in the least by Mortimer or ‘artisan woman’, the informant who passed the story on to the reporter, the reporter himself or the police. Or that, other than through the ‘astisan woman’’s story, we know nothing of the trip of ‘shiny bag man’ from the club in the direction of Commercial Road and at a time very close to one 'o clock.

Note that the Morning Advertiser report suggests (owing to Wess) that the man was "walking very fast down the street from the Commercial-road at about the time of the murder". Yet, Mortimer never stated as such (that we know of). She only refers to the man walking down Berner St, previously. That is not time specific. By claiming that this passing was at about the time of the murder, Wess was taking a liberty. Why did he do that?

As for the police, well didn't they have reason to doubt the truth of the man's story? At that point there was no reason for the police to assume that Schwartz and black bag man were not one and the same. It wasn't until a man calling himself Goldstein came forward, that the police had the additional facts they required. Then it was a question of BS man or an interrupted murderer being the culprit. Goldstein rescued Schwartz and Schwartz saved Goldstein.

The most credible thing to me would be that either ‘artisan woman’ lied about when she saw this man or the informant or the reporter changed her timing of seeing him close to one o’clock. And that, thus, in reality it was Leon Goldstein who first went from the Club to the coffee house in Spectacle Alley (then seen by ‘artisan woman’) and later returned home, passing the Club when Mortimer saw him.

Cheers,
Frank

Interesting how we often conclude that someone must have lied.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I do find it interesting that among the people who had some view of the street that last half hour....particularly with 3 Fannys now being contemplated, none of them saw Israel Schwartz, Broadshouldered Man, Pipeman or Liz Stride on the street.

One is enough for me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Did all of these 3 women at 36 Berner Street?

[GBinOz]

Back to Mrs X…..has anyone explained yet why she and Fanny appear to live in the same house?

Another easy question. Answer is that you didn't give the whole quote from the report on Mrs Artisan.

"Some three doors from the gateway where the body of the first victim was discovered, I saw a clean, respectable-looking woman chatting with one or two neighbours."

Mrs Artisan did not live three doors from the gateway. She was standing there chatting. But Mortimer did not live three doors from the gateway either

"Mrs. Mortimer, living at 36, Berner-street, four doors from the scene of the tragedy".

And neither did the other woman interviewed:

"A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement."

You referred to a common statement, that Stride had her throat cut, which would necessarily have to be a common statement, but did not mention that when Mrs Artisan noted this fact there were only two or three people present, including "Mr Lewis", and when Mortimer arrived at the yard a man was touching Stride's face. Was this Spooner, or was Diemshitz lying about not touching the body?

Then there's the 10 minutes vs nearly the whole of half and hour, and Goldstein's opposite directions.

IMO there were three women interviewed, but I am puzzled why non of the three (nor Letchford's sister) make mention of seeing Schwartz. Did that two minute incident fit between when these women were at their doors, or was Jon correct in his hypothesis that the Schwartz incident took place in Batty St rather than Berner St.

Cheers, George

[FrankO]

In Fanny's case, I can suggest two reasons. One is that she was not sure where the man had come from. The other is that she believed the murderer had been disturbed by Diemschitz.

FM: He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart.

Perhaps she did not suspect black bag man because she did not associate his passing with any screams.

Sorry, I think I wasn’t clear about something. When I wrote what I wrote I was presuming that there were 2 women, who’d spent time on their doorstep: Mortimer and ‘artisan woman’. As it was the latter who allegedly saw ‘bag man’ that ‘might have been coming’ from the Club and not Mortimer, your suggestions above don’t apply.

As for the reporter, he clearly was intrigued.

EN: I wonder will the detectives think it worth while to satisfy themselves about that black bag?

I’ll give you that, although he could have done much better than just this one phrase.

Perhaps she was momentarily distracted or was looking toward Commercial Rd when he left the yard.

Possibly, but I don’t find it particularly convincing. The added ‘A good many young men goes there, of a Saturday night especially’ directly after ‘he might ha’ been coming from the Socialist Club’ suggests that she was just guessing rather than anything else, including being momentarily distracted or looking in another direction.

Note that the Morning Advertiser report suggests (owing to Wess) that the man was "walking very fast down the street from the Commercial-road at about the time of the murder". Yet, Mortimer never stated as such (that we know of). She only refers to the man walking down Berner St, previously. That is not time specific. By claiming that this passing was at about the time of the murder, Wess was taking a liberty. Why did he do that?

Indeed, Mortimer did not specify the ‘previously’. Other than that it was on the previous occasion that she was at her door, previously to going out again soon after one o’clock, that is.
The thing is, if we consider Mortimer and ‘artisan woman’ to be two different women, then Mortimer wasn’t at her door until shortly before one o’clock. Or ‘artisan woman’ wasn’t. It’s ‘either or’ for them, not both.

‘Artisan woman’ claimed “I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police.” That was just after one o’ clock. Then she claimed “for I hadn't long come in from the door when I was roused, as I tell you, by that call for the police.” That tells us that she went in, perhaps, a few minutes before one o’clock. Then she claimed “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."
So, she saw ‘bag man’ a few minutes before one o’clock.

If we look at what Mortimer said, then we immediately see that she also claimed “I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by.” So, she had also gone indoors a few minutes before she was roused and went outside again to see what was the matter.

Yet, these two women didn’t see each other, or so it seems, and one of them only saw a man with a bag coming from the club and going towards Commercial Road, while the other only saw the same or a very similar man going in the opposite direction. Of course, it may have been that ‘artisan woman’ wasn’t at her doorstep yet when ‘bag man’ came down Berner Street and turned right on Fairclough, but it’s odd that Mortimer didn’t see the man coming from the club and passing her by.

As to why Wess was taking a liberty: we don't know that he was, that's only your assumption. What if Mortimer and Goldstein told the truth?

I'm glad you find it interesting that I think the most credible solution to this is that one of the two didn’t tell the truth or that the journalists or informant changed something. Good for you, I say.

As for the police, well didn't they have reason to doubt the truth of the man's story?

If the police would put stock in the story of the ‘artisan woman’, then yes. If not, they wouldn’t. Then a man with a bag had passed the club on his way from Commercial Road to Fairclough Street, where he turned right. And that would be it.

At that point there was no reason for the police to assume that Schwartz and black bag man were not one and the same. It wasn't until a man calling himself Goldstein came forward, that the police had the additional facts they required. Then it was a question of BS man or an interrupted murderer being the culprit. Goldstein rescued Schwartz and Schwartz saved Goldstein.

Why must the police have thought Schwartz and ‘bag man’ to have been the same? What evidence is there to suggest that they did or would or should?

[FrankO]

"Mrs. Mortimer, living at 36, Berner-street, four doors from the scene of the tragedy".

And neither did the other woman interviewed:

"A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement."

Hi George,

The thing that I've been wondering about, is why was 36, Berner Street described as 'four doors from the scene of the the tragedy'? Wouldn't it, in reality, have been just two, or three at most, if the front door of the club was included?

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another easy question. Answer is that you didn't give the whole quote from the report on Mrs Artisan.

"Some three doors from the gateway where the body of the first victim was discovered, I saw a clean, respectable-looking woman chatting with one or two neighbours."

Mrs Artisan did not live three doors from the gateway. She was standing there chatting. But Mortimer did not live three doors from the gateway either

"Mrs. Mortimer, living at 36, Berner-street, four doors from the scene of the tragedy".

And neither did the other woman interviewed:

"A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement."

You referred to a common statement, that Stride had her throat cut, which would necessarily have to be a common statement, but did not mention that when Mrs Artisan noted this fact there were only two or three people present, including "Mr Lewis", and when Mortimer arrived at the yard a man was touching Stride's face. Was this Spooner, or was Diemshitz lying about not touching the body?

Then there's the 10 minutes vs nearly the whole of half and hour, and Goldstein's opposite directions.

IMO there were three women interviewed, but I am puzzled why non of the three (nor Letchford's sister) make mention of seeing Schwartz. Did that two minute incident fit between when these women were at their doors, or was Jon correct in his hypothesis that the Schwartz incident took place in Batty St rather than Berner St.

Cheers, George

First point accepted George, she was standing outside Fanny’s house.



Number 36 is 3 doors down from the gateway. Apologies that the pic is so small. It’s blurry when enlarged.

About the 2 or 3 people, they were only ones that were “…standing in the gateway.” There were others inside the yard.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can see where this thread is heading again. Set sail for Fantasy Island.

When will we ever rid this subject of waffle?

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

The thing that I've been wondering about, is why was 36, Berner Street described as 'four doors from the scene of the the tragedy'? Wouldn't it, in reality, have been just two, or three at most, if the front door of the club was included?

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

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. It places the subject of the second interview as living at No 36, unless that door count was also in error, as was the statement "The house which adjoins the yard on the south side, No. 38, is tenanted by Barnett Kentorrich".

Mrs TwoDoors stated that she went to her door after hearing footsteps in the street, and stayed there ten minutes before retiring to her bedroom. About six minutes later she heard the alarm raised (four minutes after hearing Diemshitz pass plus two minutes before the search parties departed).

Mrs Mortimer stated that she was at her door for most of half an hour and had just gone to prepare for bed when she heard the commotion. Her reference to Diemshitz was hearsay: "I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart".

I suppose we could reconcile the two interviews as being from the same person if we consider one an abridged version, and that "just" encompasses a period of six minutes.

Then we have Mrs Artisan (an odd description for the wife of a car man) chatting to other women in front of the Mortimer residence. She made three relevant statements:
"I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police".
"I hadn't long come in from the door when I was roused, as I tell you, by that call for the police".
"I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in".

If we apply the meaning of "Just" as including six minutes, we have her turning in six minutes before the alarm was raised, and seeing the the person passing six minutes before that. Was Mrs Artisan seeing the man that Mrs TwoDoors heard passing?

A round trip to the Spectacle Cafe was, including a brief time for establishing presence, about twelve minutes. The police checked his alibi, which might have proceeded something like this:
Police: Was Mr Goldstein here in the early hours of 1 October?
Cafe Owner: Yes, he called in to pick up some cigarette tins.
Police: What time was that, and how long was he here?
Cafe Owner: That was a busy night and I was fully occupied serving customers, but I think it was about 1am. I didn't notice how long he was here.

That concludes my speculative statements of "Waffle" on this topic. I can hear Herlock (among others) breathing a sigh of relief.

Best regards, George

[Lewis C]

Contrast this with the Schwartz police vs press account. It wouldn't be controversial to suggest that those reports seem to be inconsistent with each other. So, we might say...

It must be that either Schwartz changed his story, or what I think is more likely, at least one of the interviewers didn't record exactly what he said.

Yet, that is not what is normally said. We normally blame the Star for the inconsistencies. Are Mortimer and Schwartz being held to different standards?

The situations are different from one another in that in Schwartz' case, it's a police report vs. a newspaper report, where in Mortimer's case, it's 2 different newspaper versions. However, in both cases, I think it's more likely that the paper got it wrong than that that the witness changed his/her story.

What did the journalist who interviewed Mortimer on the day of the murder know, that didn't seem quite right? Why would he prefer to put words in Mortimer's mouth, rather than reveal a contradiction in witness accounts?

I don't know what the journalist would have known or what his motivations would have been. I was talking about that as a possibility to consider, not a theory to promote.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Possibly, but I don’t find it particularly convincing. The added ‘A good many young men goes there, of a Saturday night especially’ directly after ‘he might ha’ been coming from the Socialist Club’ suggests that she was just guessing rather than anything else, including being momentarily distracted or looking in another direction.

The photo in the linked post suggests that anyone standing on their doorstep would still have been inside, strictly speaking. Looking hard right, they would have seen ... bricks.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/11438-36-berner-street#post11438

Indeed, Mortimer did not specify the ‘previously’. Other than that it was on the previous occasion that she was at her door, previously to going out again soon after one o’clock, that is.
The thing is, if we consider Mortimer and ‘artisan woman’ to be two different women, then Mortimer wasn’t at her door until shortly before one o’clock. Or ‘artisan woman’ wasn’t. It’s ‘either or’ for them, not both.

‘Artisan woman’ claimed “I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police.” That was just after one o’ clock. Then she claimed “for I hadn't long come in from the door when I was roused, as I tell you, by that call for the police.” That tells us that she went in, perhaps, a few minutes before one o’clock. Then she claimed “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."
So, she saw ‘bag man’ a few minutes before one o’clock.

If we look at what Mortimer said, then we immediately see that she also claimed “I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by.” So, she had also gone indoors a few minutes before she was roused and went outside again to see what was the matter.

If the two women are one and the same, then 'previously' cannot refer to 'just before', because the direction of travel is reversed. Therefore, unless Fanny lied or a reporter made something up, 'previously' must refer to some earlier point in the evening. That earlier point could be any time, including prior to 12:30. We have no quote from Fanny or a Fanny candidate, that suggests she saw bag man walking south just before she locks up.

Yet, these two women didn’t see each other, or so it seems, and one of them only saw a man with a bag coming from the club and going towards Commercial Road, while the other only saw the same or a very similar man going in the opposite direction. Of course, it may have been that ‘artisan woman’ wasn’t at her doorstep yet when ‘bag man’ came down Berner Street and turned right on Fairclough, but it’s odd that Mortimer didn’t see the man coming from the club and passing her by.

I think it was the same woman. A fairly subtle tweak of the (named) press quote might explain the up/down discrepancy...

It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen who had passed through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial road.

As to why Wess was taking a liberty: we don't know that he was, that's only your assumption. What if Mortimer and Goldstein told the truth?

Wess can't claim that bag man walked down the street at about the time of the murder, because Mortimer did not specify when 'previously' was. His implicit equating of 'about the time of the murder' with 'previously', is not justified.

Why must the police have thought Schwartz and ‘bag man’ to have been the same? What evidence is there to suggest that they did or would or should?

This will require a longer answer. For now, I'll just say that I think "additional facts", refers to 'hard' facts, like identities, not 'soft' facts, like interpretations of what happened on the street.

[New Waterloo]

There are some excellent posters on this site who rightly advise to look at the evidence and although because of the lack of some we need to come up with some theories we should at least look at what we have got. I think it was Mrs X who says shiny bag man came from the direction of Commercial Road but confusingly she says maybe he had come from the socialist club and that she believed young men went there especially on Saturday nights. This is what a witness is saying.

Do many young men go to the club at 40 Berner Street on Saturday nights or does it attract an older clientele. How do we find this out? Age of members. This is probably not achievable but maybe as I am aware many of you have been at this for years, perhaps there are lists of members

Is there a Socialist club nearby on Commercial Road. I seem to recall this being mentioned before. I mean if its just around the corner then just maybe its that club being referred to.

I will also have a look to see how many people use the term 'The Socialist Club' when speaking of 40 Berner Street.

I know the Nathan Shine story is a little far fetched but the story was that he had just been to a club on Commercial Road I think.

I dont know. This is all very confusing to a relative newbie

NW

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The situations are different from one another in that in Schwartz' case, it's a police report vs. a newspaper report, where in Mortimer's case, it's 2 different newspaper versions. However, in both cases, I think it's more likely that the paper got it wrong than that that the witness changed his/her story.


I don't know what the journalist would have known or what his motivations would have been. I was talking about that as a possibility to consider, not a theory to promote.

Okay, fine. I'll just say that I don't find the idea of the Star making mistakes or deliberately amping-up the story, to be convincing explanations for the differences in the accounts. Simply put, Thuggish Man becomes Quarrelling Man, and Frightened Man becomes Aggressive Man. Something seems to have caused "the Hungarian" to play down the first man and play up the second man.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Do many young men go to the club at 40 Berner Street on Saturday nights or does it attract an older clientele. How do we find this out? Age of members. This is probably not achievable but maybe as I am aware many of you have been at this for years, perhaps there are lists of members

Try the wiki for the ages of club members.

Is there a Socialist club nearby on Commercial Road. I seem to recall this being mentioned before. I mean if its just around the corner then just maybe its that club being referred to.

Are you thinking of this?