Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[Lewis C]

I agree...

But also when Eagle, Lave, Parcelman, PC Smith, Brown, Goldstein, Miss Letchford and the other couple were not there in the street either.

Or within earshot of hearing BS Man shout Lipski


RD

Mortimer saw Goldstein. I believe that the testimony about Miss Letchford was that she was at her door, not in the street.

[GBinOz]

PC Smith initially states he passes at 12.30am, which is even less likely based on his being at the top of Berner Street circa 1.07am/1.08am

His beat took 25 to 30 minutes

That places him seeing Parcelman sometime between 12.37am to 12.42am

But PC Smith doesn't see Eagle or Lave, so PC Smith walks down Berner Street at 12.41am, goes to the end, and sees Stride and Parcelman at 12.41am, BUT he then turns around, passes Parcelman and Stride again at 12.42am and then walks north.

Now, that leaves Stride and Parcelman still in position at 12.42 am...

As Pc Smith walks back, he passes Mortimers door and she hears him pass at 12.42am/12.43am




But, where does Parcelman go?

Hi RD,

An interesting logical progression, but I would like to make some observations.

Smith testified:
I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock.

So from where did you derive "at the top of Berner Street circa 1.07am/1.08am"?

Firstly, while Jeff and Frank have produced some excellent calculations on where Smith may have been based on walking speeds, the fact remains that no one knows the configuration of Smith's beat on that night, except Smith. Furthermore, even if Smith's allocated beat were known, Smith would be the only one that was aware of any contingencies such as stopping to talk to people, walking down an alleyway to investigate something suspicious. The hard fact is that Smith's estimate of the times he was in Berner St are still the best estimates that we can hope to possess.

Secondly, there is a tendency to use the time quoted by Blackwell from his pocket watch as an anchor for all other times which are then adjusted to suite. However, there is a contradiction between Johnson stating that Ayliffe called at "a few minutes past one" and Blackwell testifying that it was 1:10. There is no contradiction between Ayliffe calling at a few minutes past one and Lamb seeing Eagle shortly before or at one.

Thirdly, there is a tendency to adjust the police times in accordance with the claims in the interviews conducted with Fanny Mortimer. The Evening News of 1 Oct had three interviews with women standing at their doors for time intervals varying from 10 minutes to nearly the whole time between 12:30 and 1:00 and one interview with no times mentioned. Most people (not including myself) believe these interviews were all with Fanny Mortimer so, if this were correct, from the same woman we have conflicting reports regarding times and direction of travel of Goldstein, and no indication of whether she was using clock times or the indeterminate synchronisation of such a clock. Mortimer was not called to the inquest, which should be an indication of the opinion of the police regarding her observations, but her massaged times are using to correct those of a trained professional observer. Not by me!

While I was unable to entertain your suspicions regarding Smith, I found your contemplations on Eagle's possible dual role to be interesting. I recall that Andrew (NBFN) recently went down a similar path. I find the use of Eagle's times to establish a time of discovery to be unconvincing.
He testified:
"between half-past eleven and a quarter to twelve o'clock, I left the club to take my young lady home, going out through the front door. I returned about twenty minutes to one.".

His starting point is variable by 15 minutes, so was not based on a clock observation, and he returned about an hour later, and he stated that he did not look at "the clock" then either. His young lady (who he married on 23 Dec 1888) was Kate Kopelansky, and she lived at 183 Whitechapel Road, which is about a 2 minute walk from where Polly Nichols lost her life. The round trip to her house from the Yard is about 22 minutes, or 26 minutes via Eagle's dwelling at 4 New Road, the latter being about 7 minutes walk from the yard. So it appears that Eagle was engaged in other activities in that time - an extended "saying goodnight" ritual at Kate's home, some other ritual at Eagle's home, or a session in one of the pubs between these locations? No one knows, but if Eagle was returning to the yard from his home he would have turned left into Berner St from Commercial Road. I pass this information to you without further opinion.

That said, in all contexts I find your question "But, where does Parcelman go?" to be very relevant.

Cheers, George

Edit: Yikes, so many posts while I was composing this post. With regard to the quality of Mortimer as a witness - a red letter day... Herlock and I agreeing on something

[GBinOz]

why do people think that Fanny is a good witness? We don’t know when she was on her doorstep and when she wasn’t. We have no way of knowing her times. We have no way of knowing how long she spent on her doorstep. We might as well just say - at some point in that evening Fanny Mortimer spent an unknown amount of time on her doorstep. What good is that?

And finally let’s add another one….what if Fanny was just an old busybody trying to make herself seem important? After all, Lave didn’t see her on her doorstep, Eagle walked passed her door and didn’t see her on her doorstep. And yes, Schwartz didn’t see her. I don’t get why Fanny is treated as a star witness? I never have.

Particularly when her evidence amounts to "I didn't see anything". Difficult for anyone to contradict.

Cheers, George

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

An interesting logical progression, but I would like to make some observations.

Smith testified:
I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock.

So from where did you derive "at the top of Berner Street circa 1.07am/1.08am"?

Firstly, while Jeff and Frank have produced some excellent calculations on where Smith may have been based on walking speeds, the fact remains that no one knows the configuration of Smith's beat on that night, except Smith. Furthermore, even if Smith's allocated beat were known, Smith would be the only one that was aware of any contingencies such as stopping to talk to people, walking down an alleyway to investigate something suspicious. The hard fact is that Smith's estimate of the times he was in Berner St are still the best estimates that we can hope to possess.

Secondly, there is a tendency to use the time quoted by Blackwell from his pocket watch as an anchor for all other times which are then adjusted to suite. However, there is a contradiction between Johnson stating that Ayliffe called at "a few minutes past one" and Blackwell testifying that it was 1:10. There is no contradiction between Ayliffe calling at a few minutes past one and Lamb seeing Eagle shortly before or at one.

Thirdly, there is a tendency to adjust the police times in accordance with the claims in the interviews conducted with Fanny Mortimer. The Evening News of 1 Oct had three interviews with women standing at their doors for time intervals varying from 10 minutes to nearly the whole time between 12:30 and 1:00 and one interview with no times mentioned. Most people (not including myself) believe these interviews were all with Fanny Mortimer so, if this were correct, from the same woman we have conflicting reports regarding times and direction of travel of Goldstein, and no indication of whether she was using clock times or the indeterminate synchronisation of such a clock. Mortimer was not called to the inquest, which should be an indication of the opinion of the police regarding her observations, but her massaged times are using to correct those of a trained professional observer. Not by me!

While I was unable to entertain your suspicions regarding Smith, I found your contemplations on Eagle's possible dual role to be interesting. I recall that Andrew (NBFN) recently went down a similar path. I find the use of Eagle's times to establish a time of discovery to be unconvincing.
He testified:
"between half-past eleven and a quarter to twelve o'clock, I left the club to take my young lady home, going out through the front door. I returned about twenty minutes to one.".

His starting point is variable by 15 minutes, so was not based on a clock observation, and he returned about an hour later, and he stated that he did not look at "the clock" then either. His young lady (who he married on 23 Dec 1888) was Kate Kopelansky, and she lived at 183 Whitechapel Road, which is about a 2 minute walk from where Polly Nichols lost her life. The round trip to her house from the Yard is about 22 minutes, or 26 minutes via Eagle's dwelling at 4 New Road, the latter being about 7 minutes walk from the yard. So it appears that Eagle was engaged in other activities in that time - an extended "saying goodnight" ritual at Kate's home, some other ritual at Eagle's home, or a session in one of the pubs between these locations? No one knows, but if Eagle was returning to the yard from his home he would have turned left into Berner St from Commercial Road. I pass this information to you without further opinion.

That said, in all contexts I find your question "But, where does Parcelman go?" to be very relevant.

Cheers, George

Edit: Yikes, so many posts while I was composing this post. With regard to the quality of Mortimer as a witness - a red letter day... Herlock and I agreeing on something

What can I say George; you make some excellent points with your usual balanced, measured and well thought out approach.

The one thing I love about your posts George is that you always have something constructive to say; no matter where a thread goes, you have a way of steadying the ship and bringing a feeling of calmness to the table.

The perfect moderator.

I can count on one hand those on this forum who share your qualities and I am very much in awe of the way you conduct yourself.

I can't argue with any of your points...

Because they are ALL logical and make sense

I am not necessarily in agreement with you on some of your views, but that doesn't matter, it's the fact that no matter how certain I believe I am on certain aspects of the case, you have an uncanny way of making me rethink things.

And that's a quality I admire immensely.


Essentially, you've never written a bad or negative post and you don't have an ounce of a derogatory nature about you.

Unlike some who condescend and patronize, you always maintain your integrity and dignity and I have the utmost respect for everything you have to say.


Kind regards


RD

[GBinOz]

Hi RD,

Thank you for your kind remarks, but you do me too much honour. We all have our own opinions, and I admire your out of the box thinking. I try to bear in mind that we are all here voluntarily to discuss subjects of mutual interest, and as Jeff says, it is the collaborative effort in discussing divergent ideas that makes our participation worthwhile. Keep up the good work.

Cheers, George

[Robert St Devil]

Secondly, there is a tendency to use the time quoted by Blackwell from his pocket watch as an anchor for all other times which are then adjusted to suite. However, there is a contradiction between Johnson stating that Ayliffe called at "a few minutes past one" and Blackwell testifying that it was 1:10.

i’d like to add to the discussion the relevance of which source material the Ripperologist is referencing - the Daily Telegraph, the Morning Advertiser, The Times, &c.

hello george, the conversation has been an interesting one for the past several days.

NOW regarding my opening sentence YES the Daily Telegraph and the Morning Advertiser quote Mr. E. Johnson as stating that he received a call from Constable 436H “a few minutes past one o’clock” [which lends towards the contradiction between Johnson and Dr. Blackwell] HOWEVER The Times have Mr. Johnson down in print as stating that call from Constable 436H arrived at “About five or ten minutes past 1” [which aligns with Dr. Blackwell’s statement of 1:10a].

To some degree The Times appears the most verbose in relating the events of the inquest STILL i struggle with the variances between the periodicals. Take for instance the following manners in which each periodical relates PC Lamb’s statement of the fixed-duty constable accompanying him to Dutfield Yard:

Daily Telegraph
A constable named Smith was on the Berner-street beat. He did not accompany me, but the constable who was on fixed-point duty between Grove-street and Christian-street in Commercial-road. Constables at fixed-points leave duty at one in the morning. I believe that is the practice nearly all over London.

Morning Advertiser
Police-constable Smith is on the Berner-street beat. There is a constable on fixed-point duty at the corner of Grove-street, Commercial-road, and he came off duty at one a.m. The man on the beat then has to do his duty.

The Times
Constable Smith is on the Berner-street beat. The constable who followed me down is on fixed-point duty from 9 to 5 at the end of Grove-street. All the fixed-point men ceased their duty at 1 a.m., and then the men on the beats did the whole duty.

I am subject to my share of oversights SO MAYBE i am complicating a fairly simple thing HOWEVER it reads to me that the constable had come off of fixed-point duty at 1am… or am I wrong?



all emphasis my own

[FrankO]

Why do you have Smith covering Berner Street twice?

Hi Mike,

If I may?... RD is correct.

When Smith was asked: "When you saw them talking, which way did you go?", his answer was: "Straight up Berner-street into the Commercial-road. In the centre of Berner-street were some courts which led into Backchurch-lane."

And then, when he'd almost gone around his beat after seeing the couple, he stated "I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock."

So, we have him going north on Berner Street when he saw Stride & companion and we have him on the verge of turning into Berner Street and going south on it at one o'clock. From this we might 'conclude' that Smith's usual way of conducting his beat (as far as Berner Street is concerned) was to enter it from Commercial Road, go down on one side and then go up again on the other side.

Cheers,
Frank

[GBinOz]

i’d like to add to the discussion the relevance of which source material the Ripperologist is referencing - the Daily Telegraph, the Morning Advertiser, The Times, &c.

hello george, the conversation has been an interesting one for the past several days.

NOW regarding my opening sentence YES the Daily Telegraph and the Morning Advertiser quote Mr. E. Johnson as stating that he received a call from Constable 436H “a few minutes past one o’clock” [which lends towards the contradiction between Johnson and Dr. Blackwell] HOWEVER The Times have Mr. Johnson down in print as stating that call from Constable 436H arrived at “About five or ten minutes past 1” [which aligns with Dr. Blackwell’s statement of 1:10a].

To some degree The Times appears the most verbose in relating the events of the inquest STILL i struggle with the variances between the periodicals. Take for instance the following manners in which each periodical relates PC Lamb’s statement of the fixed-duty constable accompanying him to Dutfield Yard:

Daily Telegraph
A constable named Smith was on the Berner-street beat. He did not accompany me, but the constable who was on fixed-point duty between Grove-street and Christian-street in Commercial-road. Constables at fixed-points leave duty at one in the morning. I believe that is the practice nearly all over London.

Morning Advertiser
Police-constable Smith is on the Berner-street beat. There is a constable on fixed-point duty at the corner of Grove-street, Commercial-road, and he came off duty at one a.m. The man on the beat then has to do his duty.

The Times
Constable Smith is on the Berner-street beat. The constable who followed me down is on fixed-point duty from 9 to 5 at the end of Grove-street. All the fixed-point men ceased their duty at 1 a.m., and then the men on the beats did the whole duty.

I am subject to my share of oversights SO MAYBE i am complicating a fairly simple thing HOWEVER it reads to me that the constable had come off of fixed-point duty at 1am… or am I wrong?



all emphasis my own

Hi Robert,

It is the bane of life for the ripperologist that the original transcripts of the inquests have been lost and we are dependant on the divergent interpretations of newspaper journalist's reports of the proceedings. We are forced to examine each version of what was said and try to determine which may have reflected what was actually said. The Times did report the call from Constable 436H arrived at “About five or ten minutes past 1”. However The Times also reported Blackwell as testifying "At 10 minutes past 1 on Sunday morning I was called to 40, Berner-street. I was called by a policeman, and my assistant, Mr. Johnson, went back with him. I followed immediately I had dressed. I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was just 1:10.". In consequence I found myself disinclined to use The Times report over the consistent reports in the other publications.

With regard to the fixed point officer, I read the reports as a statement of function rather than an account of what happened. Lamb testified that he was headed west and between Batty and Christian Streets when he saw Eagle at one o'clock, or shortly before, and that Ayliffe followed him to the yard. My thinking is that if he saw Eagle at around 1:06, as is contended, that Ayliffe would have already departed towards his hearth and home. The other clue that I have observed is Baxter's comment on Lamb's testimony:
The Coroner: I think this is important. The Hanbury-street murder was discovered just as the night police were going off duty.

So to reply to your question, I think that the constable had come off of fixed-point duty at 1am, but that the conclusion of his duty coincided with Lamb's encounter with Eagle. JMO.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

From this we might 'conclude' that Smith's usual way of conducting his beat (as far as Berner Street is concerned) was to enter it from Commercial Road, go down on one side and then go up again on the other side.

Hi Frank,

That is the currently accepted theory, but does that mean that Smith saw Stride with Parcelman as he was headed south and again as he returned to the north (he didn't testify to that)? Or did they move into place from some unknown location while he was making the turn? So many unknowns.

Best regards, George

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

That is the currently accepted theory, but does that mean that Smith saw Stride with Parcelman as he was headed south and again as he returned to the north (he didn't testify to that)? Or did they move into place from some unknown location while he was making the turn? So many unknowns.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

That's, of course, anybody's guess, but mine would be your second suggestion. It seems he was saying that he only really noticed/saw them as he was back on his way to Commercial Road & what would fit with the evidence given by Smith is that the couple either emerged from Hampshire Court after Smith had passed there or that they'd been in the recess at the northern end of the board school when he passed and he just didn't see them then because they were in a somewhat darker area and he didn't have his attention on the east side of the street.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Particularly when her evidence amounts to "I didn't see anything". Difficult for anyone to contradict.

Cheers, George

Exactly George, it’s frustrating for us because she should be a reasonable point for your reconstructions. If she’d said “I came onto my doorstep just before 12.45 (as I’d just asked my husband the time as I couldn’t see the clock) and stayed I there for around 10 minutes (because I looked at the clock when I came back inside)” then we would have something to go on.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

That's, of course, anybody's guess, but mine would be your second suggestion. It seems he was saying that he only really noticed/saw them as he was back on his way to Commercial Road & what would fit with the evidence given by Smith is that the couple either emerged from Hampshire Court after Smith had passed there or that they'd been in the recess at the northern end of the board school when he passed and he just didn't see them then because they were in a somewhat darker area and he didn't have his attention on the east side of the street.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

There is, of course, the possibility that our rendition of Smith's postulated beat is incorrect, and he actually turned into Berner St from Fairclough and headed north. His testimony referred only to the perimeter of his beat, so the fact of the matter is that we are really only guessing at the actual internal configuration of his beat. Only Smith knows the truth.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

Exactly George, it’s frustrating for us because she should be a reasonable point for your reconstructions. If she’d said “I came onto my doorstep just before 12.45 (as I’d just asked my husband the time as I couldn’t see the clock) and stayed I there for around 10 minutes (because I looked at the clock when I came back inside)” then we would have something to go on.

Hi Herlock,

Even had that been the case, we would have no means of assessing the difference in sync between the Mortimer clock and police time. According to Chris McKay, this could have been 10 minutes or more out in either direction.

Cheers, George

[Michael W Richards]

Thats the crux here. Which group, would a reasonable person assume, had no connection with the operation of the club or any responsibility for the premises?
Conversely, which group would suffer consequences perhaps including eviction and job loss if the police were inclined to believe that a club attendee killed Liz Stride?

Bias, self protection, anti establishment values, ...yet the anarchists have been dusted off and given credence OVER the establishment individuals, essentially giving the asylum inmates the keys to the exit door.

Motive (even if it can be established with absolute certainty) in and of itself, has no direct correlation to actions. That has to be proven and I see no evidence of that.

A prosecuting attorney doesn't simply establish motive and then say the prosecution rests.

c.d.

I think that may be whats holding you back from stepping away from the presumed and looking harder at whats actually presented. There is no need to assign any malevolent being here, there is no need to assume that the killing was premeditated, and there is no need to assume that this murder works in conjunction with any others. Any pattern seen here is easily and often repeated. Cut throat. Not all that remarkable at the time. A Mr Brown did it to his Mrs that same night.

Stride may have been perceived as a threat by someone who could well have been intoxicated and in less control of his impulses than desirable. Thats all this murder may involve. Sure, it could be more complicated than that....but with men known to be there at the time, and none seen on the street by any witnesses with that view that last half hour, so its highly probable her killer was on the property before she was.

[Michael W Richards]

Apologies for butting in (and memory fading) but has the apron piece been categorically proven to be from Eddowes?

The piece matched the missing section she still wore exactly..including an earlier repaired section. Its a safe bet it was from that apron, and its removal and subsequent staining suggest it was most likely for cartage of his stolen parts.