Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wilson vs Bierman - A Victorian Rashomon

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

  • Wilson vs Bierman - A Victorian Rashomon

    Hello everyone,

    As I looked at Rose Bierman's account again, I thought we don't only have a different set of information on what happened that night, but also possibly about the relationship of these two women.
    So I felt compelled to write this little musing I've attached.

    Tell me what you think,
    have a good weekend
    Attached Files

  • #2
    My Two Cents

    Note also that Miss
    Biermanís presence is altogether absent in Mrs. Wilsonís version.


    While it is possible Wilson simply forgot to mention Bierman, it is likely
    that she'd fear Bierman would divulge or insinuate details of an unflattering nature ...which, of course, she did.


    Besides acting as witness to the attack she clearly likes to talk about the victim herself. And,
    as good gossip will have it, sex is featuring big time


    Possibly chattering away because she was fearful. She did say she'd look for
    an alternative lodging at the end of the interview.

    I tend to agree with you, Daniel....that the man who assaulted Wilson was
    already in the house and that she appeared to have been in the habit of
    bringing men to her room. This would, to me, explain why the suggestion
    of Wilson bringing men on a regular basis to her room was never countered
    publicly ( press) or legally ( as in a suit for libel ), because it would further stain Wilson's name when more came out about her lifestyle.
    .
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Daniel Cazard View Post
      Hello everyone,

      As I looked at Rose Bierman's account again, I thought we don't only have a different set of information on what happened that night, but also possibly about the relationship of these two women.
      So I felt compelled to write this little musing I've attached.

      Tell me what you think,
      have a good weekend
      Welcome Daniel- If my recently posted ID is correct I'd say I agree with all you wrote but if Mark Ripper's ID is correct, then it could be a different scenario.If she was neither woman then it's anyone's guess!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post

        While it is possible Wilson simply forgot to mention Bierman, it is likely
        that she'd fear Bierman would divulge or insinuate details of an unflattering nature ...which, of course, she did.

        Possibly chattering away because she was fearful. She did say she'd look for
        an alternative lodging at the end of the interview.

        I tend to agree with you, Daniel....that the man who assaulted Wilson was
        already in the house and that she appeared to have been in the habit of
        bringing men to her room. This would, to me, explain why the suggestion
        of Wilson bringing men on a regular basis to her room was never countered
        publicly ( press) or legally ( as in a suit for libel ), because it would further stain Wilson's name when more came out about her lifestyle.
        .
        Wilson not mentioning Bierman: Yes, that could be a good reason indeed, especially if the relationship was indeed a little shaky.
        It is also possible, that she might have mentioned her, and it got lost on the editing table or in the reporter's head - although not likely.

        Fear-chatter: Good point! I didn't consider that (aaalways something...)

        Perp in the house: All in all I find that scenario more convincing, for reasons given. I don't know how easily people tended to get into law-suits back then, or how easily they could.

        I think we should also consider that Bierman's account appeared 3 days later.
        Although the attack thus found it thus into several papers - which should be kept in mind when we're thinking about how common such attacks were - the news-factor would have slowly started to die down.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
          Welcome Daniel- If my recently posted ID is correct I'd say I agree with all you wrote but if Mark Ripper's ID is correct, then it could be a different scenario.If she was neither woman then it's anyone's guess!
          Hello Debra, thank you
          Also for all the good work over the years!

          Your ID-piece is on my virtual bedside table, getting to it in a few, before I'll catch a few hours (this is coming from Europe).

          Comment


          • #6
            Mrs. Bierman was likely interviewed by police before the reporter got her story. Many of us have been highly critical of informants like Hutchinson, re: Mary Kelly. There are miles of discussions on this subject in various places online. But we have some experts on police procedure here and there were (and are) certain procedures used to elicit the most accurate information possible. If Mrs. Bierman had been through this procedure it could account for the quality of her information.

            Mrs. Bierman says she is "keeping the feast". Bierman sounds Jewish. It was the time of Lent for Christians but I am unfamiliar with this term. If Good Friday was about April 8 in 1888 (Mary met Joe Barnett on Good Friaday), Mrs. Bierman may have been observing Passover. My point being, she may have been an observant Jew and if her mind was on G-d, perhaps she was as careful as possible about what she said.

            If Ada had a longstanding habit of obnoxious visits with men she brought home, perhaps noise, fights, drunkenness, Mrs. Bierman could have actually held back the worst of what she could have said.

            The detail about the door sounds like something the police interrogation could have elicited originally.

            Ada Wilson was severely wounded and passed out in a pool of blood. I don't think it was unusual that she did not remember Mrs. Bierman being present.

            The differences in descriptions of the alleged perpetrator is not unusual if one reads many of the court cases of the day. Different people protected other people for various reasons. Maybe Ada didn't want to really name the assailant or possibly she did see the man in the way she described him. Witnesses vary in how they see and remember things. I also wonder if there would have been retaliation if Ada had accurately named some tough from the streets? Or perhaps she had attempted to rob him. A number of cases cover that sort of activity.

            HOWEVER, now that the facts are getting sorted out a bit, could Ada's guest have been JtR who bumbled an early killing? Maybe. Some witnesses described a fair man with light moustache, appearance of a sailor, etc. However that is we are more or less left with the idea Jack looked like Hutchinson's description of a dark "foreigner".
            The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
              Mrs. Bierman was likely interviewed by police before the reporter got her story. Many of us have been highly critical of informants like Hutchinson, re: Mary Kelly. There are miles of discussions on this subject in various places online. But we have some experts on police procedure here and there were (and are) certain procedures used to elicit the most accurate information possible. If Mrs. Bierman had been through this procedure it could account for the quality of her information.

              Mrs. Bierman says she is "keeping the feast". Bierman sounds Jewish. It was the time of Lent for Christians but I am unfamiliar with this term. If Good Friday was about April 8 in 1888 (Mary met Joe Barnett on Good Friaday), Mrs. Bierman may have been observing Passover. My point being, she may have been an observant Jew and if her mind was on G-d, perhaps she was as careful as possible about what she said.

              If Ada had a longstanding habit of obnoxious visits with men she brought home, perhaps noise, fights, drunkenness, Mrs. Bierman could have actually held back the worst of what she could have said.

              The detail about the door sounds like something the police interrogation could have elicited originally.

              Ada Wilson was severely wounded and passed out in a pool of blood. I don't think it was unusual that she did not remember Mrs. Bierman being present.

              The differences in descriptions of the alleged perpetrator is not unusual if one reads many of the court cases of the day. Different people protected other people for various reasons. Maybe Ada didn't want to really name the assailant or possibly she did see the man in the way she described him. Witnesses vary in how they see and remember things. I also wonder if there would have been retaliation if Ada had accurately named some tough from the streets? Or perhaps she had attempted to rob him. A number of cases cover that sort of activity.

              HOWEVER, now that the facts are getting sorted out a bit, could Ada's guest have been JtR who bumbled an early killing? Maybe. Some witnesses described a fair man with light moustache, appearance of a sailor, etc. However that is we are more or less left with the idea Jack looked like Hutchinson's description of a dark "foreigner".

              I'm so sorry for not replying earlier, Anna, I'd forgotten to subscribe to this thread, and I was caught up on another...

              Some very good points you made.

              Eliciting:
              yes, that's very much possible, probably likely.
              I still can't help noticing just how much information about Ada she managed to squeeze into what would become the reporter's 1st paragraph...

              The Feast:
              Yes, I believe she was Jewish, and her family name seems to support this.

              Obnoxious men:
              She could have. She also could have held back even more...

              Door latch:
              Absolutely. In the whole situation one is to wonder how the impression of someone being used to a particular door latch could be standing out over everything else.
              I'm not too bothered by the remark, it sounds, well, like an impression, I don't think we have the means to conclude much from it.

              Ada not recalling Rose's presence:
              Not so sure. She was in big danger, even if she hadn't been aware about Rose's presence in the house, her whole organism must have been scanning for help.
              Not a positive, of course, and I take your point.
              But I'm having troubles to believe that with Ada walking on bleeding Rose would have kept this much back, at least at the point when Ada was collapsing. If she had, it would have been yet another indication for a frosty relationship.

              Different versions, possible reasons:
              Oh yeah, absolutely! But even with effort I can imagine a higher number of reasons for an altered version for Ada than I can for Rose.
              As for 'truthfully' remembering 2 different versions, both being convinced they were telling the truth - yes. Strange things have I seen The sheer incredulence in the face of the recording of what one remembered very differently.
              I would think, though, that this particular difference, here a man knocking at the door, demanding money and attacking Ada with a knife, there Ada bringing the man home with her - is a little too large. Kind of tipping a toe over the border to what cannot really be believed.
              And the difference is so significant, both for Ada Wilson, and, in a wider context, for us, because -

              Bumble-JtR:
              which is what I suggested at the end. Cannot know, of course.
              Not only is the description one that would have fit thousands of men, the whole sequence when compared with Mary Kelly could as well fit a lot of others, unrelated ones.
              On the other hand, we can compare it: man meets woman with a urgent need for money. Woman takes man home.

              Sorry again for the late reply.

              Comment


              • #8
                Hi, Daniel:

                No time frame on replies here. I have been gone a couple days anyway. (The first major post I did here, I absented myself for a long time afterward for fear I had made some big mistake in my thinking. )

                Like I said here or on another thread I was very surprised at Old Bailey cases where women claimed to have been attacked by "strangers" yet the cases really had to do with prostitution/clients/robbery/theft.

                When we understand the effect of the police interrogation and recording we can better evaluate what people told the press or inquests. That is another surprise in Ripper studies. I had previously thought some witnesses just made up stuff to get attention. Like Hutchinson. Maybe he was trying to implicate a "foreigner" to cover for someone else. I think now it is more likely careful police procedure helped him recall intense details.
                The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                  Hi, Daniel:

                  No time frame on replies here. I have been gone a couple days anyway. (The first major post I did here, I absented myself for a long time afterward for fear I had made some big mistake in my thinking. )

                  Like I said here or on another thread I was very surprised at Old Bailey cases where women claimed to have been attacked by "strangers" yet the cases really had to do with prostitution/clients/robbery/theft.

                  When we understand the effect of the police interrogation and recording we can better evaluate what people told the press or inquests. That is another surprise in Ripper studies. I had previously thought some witnesses just made up stuff to get attention. Like Hutchinson. Maybe he was trying to implicate a "foreigner" to cover for someone else. I think now it is more likely careful police procedure helped him recall intense details.
                  Oh yes, I know this feeling, the big Duh! in the mirror, but those are inescapable at times, only standing proud in the admission of one's error can be the answer
                  What would it be with you, the thing you deem to be a blunder, I must wonder.

                  Yes, the big reaping, that what is and that what seemed.
                  Here, we have 2 claims about 1 incident, and I think in this case the decision whom to believe might be supported by both, albeit by one side inadvertently.

                  There is some danger in the questioning the police conducts, when it is becoming too suggestive. It can be enough to become an implant, the memory not being as much remembered but narrated; what people can come to believe that they have seen or done this way can be remarkable.
                  But I do not think that Astracan was a creation of the interviewing policemen, no the details that made him.
                  Either way it's not impossible. The 1st thing we must remind ourselves of, lacking information and evidence, that what we accuse Hutchinson of is in the end having a good memory. Whether that is true or not...

                  I think he had some reasons there. More than Mr. Astracan I want this strange vigil explained to satisfaction, this wait to no avail, broken off and achieving nothing. And how he answered the question to Abberline.

                  I do not think him to be the murderer. But it's such an intriguing story in itself.

                  Here, a little something different:

                  http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....d=1#post304554

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Interesting.

                    My problem with Hutch's man is that Mr. A. is over dressed in preparation to commit a gory murder in a small room. He must have taken off a number of articles of clothing. Did he count them to make sure he put them all back on again and left nothing behind? Or we can argue that Mr. A. could not have been Jack, except the police seemed to be looking for someone like Mr. A. and they seemed to reject Blotchy's description. Our idea of what Jack looked like is basically Mr. A.
                    The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                      Interesting.

                      My problem with Hutch's man is that Mr. A. is over dressed in preparation to commit a gory murder in a small room. He must have taken off a number of articles of clothing. Did he count them to make sure he put them all back on again and left nothing behind? Or we can argue that Mr. A. could not have been Jack, except the police seemed to be looking for someone like Mr. A. and they seemed to reject Blotchy's description. Our idea of what Jack looked like is basically Mr. A.
                      Not my idea, especially not since recently...

                      Yeah, most people have problems with this description, and it entails this being so nearly festive outfit as being, shall we say inappropriate for murder (I'm leaving those from beyond these realms, who believe it was Ian Holm in a tuxedo, out).
                      My take on doubting a witness statement is that even if we doubt we should start with going through the scenario as per description. Then we can rule out, disect the problems. The 1st realisation we'd have to begin with is, that whatever Hutch seems to or wants to imply, he doesn't actually say Astracan Man is the murderer (that would also be not exactly smart).
                      Whether or not we think that something's fishy here, whether we think he came forward because he'd been seen, his long wait opposite the passage must have been weighing on his mind. I can indeed imagine a scenario of how someone is perfectly innocent, but knows that his actions that night so close to the crime scene can only look suspicious, without a way for him make it look plausible, and hence him making stuff up, to make it look just a little more acceptable.

                      Consider someone in the docks, fictitious example now, who is asked, 'why did you choose to walk this way that evening, we have established that you always walked that other way, and that evening, the evening of the murder, you walked this way.'
                      And the defendent's truthful answer being, 'because I felt like it.'
                      To most people that would not sound exactly satisfying.
                      For me it is actually a sound and solid explanation. But I can see how this would never buy him points from a jury. It may be a truthful answer. But it isn't a good answer.

                      I have once been in a situation where I could have been accused of a murder. Believe me, you're innocent, but you'll instantly observe yourself trying to appear even more inncocent.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        p.s.

                        Originally posted by Daniel Cazard View Post
                        Not my idea, especially not since recently...

                        Yeah, most people have problems with this description, and it entails this being so nearly festive outfit as being, shall we say inappropriate for murder (I'm leaving those from beyond these realms, who believe it was Ian Holm in a tuxedo, out).
                        My take on doubting a witness statement is that even if we doubt we should start with going through the scenario as per description. Then we can rule out, disect the problems. The 1st realisation we'd have to begin with is, that whatever Hutch seems to or wants to imply, he doesn't actually say Astracan Man is the murderer (that would also be not exactly smart).
                        Whether or not we think that something's fishy here, whether we think he came forward because he'd been seen, his long wait opposite the passage must have been weighing on his mind. I can indeed imagine a scenario of how someone is perfectly innocent, but knows that his actions that night so close to the crime scene can only look suspicious, without a way for him make it look plausible, and hence him making stuff up, to make it look just a little more acceptable.

                        Consider someone in the docks, fictitious example now, who is asked, 'why did you choose to walk this way that evening, we have established that you always walked that other way, and that evening, the evening of the murder, you walked this way.'
                        And the defendent's truthful answer being, 'because I felt like it.'
                        To most people that would not sound exactly satisfying.
                        For me it is actually a sound and solid explanation. But I can see how this would never buy him points from a jury. It may be a truthful answer. But it isn't a good answer.
                        I have once been in a situation where I could have been accused of a murder. Believe me, you're innocent, but you'll instantly observe yourself trying to appear even more inncocent.

                        The whole 45 min. vigil-story is so intriguing, and to me much more of interest than Hutch's Mr. Astracan. But to play The Hutch's Advocate -

                        I won't dare trying all the possibilities, but let's try on one for size.
                        Of the many attempts on pages such as this to find an explanation for this long wait, one suggested he might have considered mugging Mary's customer.
                        Just for the sake of play, let's take Astracan Man for real. A seemingly wealthy man, judging by his clothes, his pin, his heavy golden watch and, why not, the smell of expensive wax to keep his moustache and long eyelashes in shape. His appearance blown up a little, made more sinister for the purpose of diversion, or simply by the fancy nature of memory (or, as per your suggestion, help in calling back all this details).
                        So Hutch, freshly out of money, exposed to a somewhat grizzly night, with many hours still to go, sees value walking the streets and straight through this passage towards Mary Kelly's bed. Perhaps one might wait for him to return, to offer lifting some of his load's weight to make the walk home an easier one for Mr. Astracan.
                        But the Astracan just wouldn't show. Seems the man had cash enough to spend the night. Bugger me.

                        I cannot help thinking that a seasoned policeman such as Abberline would ask, 'three quarters of an hour? Blimey! What on earth for, to what avail, what did you expect, and since it didn't happen, why not waiting even longer?'
                        To which Hutch, as it appears, gave an answer that seemed to satisfy the inspector.

                        Try and combine the fiction of a possible plot for robbery with the high probability of Abberline probing the question and the fact that he later stated he believed Hutch.
                        It would not be a reason easily stated to a policeman. But since the crime had been in his head only and remained as not committed, a few serious words from a police inspector would have been mighty preferable to a suspicion of murder.
                        And for a reason, admitting to a baddy's thoughts could have been convincing.

                        Only one of many possible solutions.
                        But I kinda like the thought

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I have some doubts as to whether Kelly was a Ripper victim. Its possible that whoever killed her dressed it up to look like a Ripper killing. If it wasn't the Ripper the most likely suspect is Barnett, with the help of Hutchinson who helped him by laying a false trail. The Ripper himself could even have been dead by November 1888. This is only my theory and I put the possibility of it at no more than 20%.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Phillip Walton View Post
                            I have some doubts as to whether Kelly was a Ripper victim. Its possible that whoever killed her dressed it up to look like a Ripper killing. If it wasn't the Ripper the most likely suspect is Barnett, with the help of Hutchinson who helped him by laying a false trail. The Ripper himself could even have been dead by November 1888. This is only my theory and I put the possibility of it at no more than 20%.
                            Hello Philip Walton,

                            I need to ask you for the reason why you think that Kelly may have fallen victim to another.
                            The idea is floating around for quite some time, but people have different reasons for suspecting so. So I'm intrigued as for something I may have missed.

                            Is it the difference in location?
                            If so, I'd submit that it itself is incidental, as I'd deem the manner by which the men Miss Kelly met to be the substantial matter; outside, just like the others, her discrete spot where to take them having an inside simply being a difference he wouldn't have refused. What unites the murders is far more significant: the way of approach.

                            The scale of the mutilations?
                            Once offered such seclusion that the other victims couldn't provide, and offered to a man who's cruelties to the lifeless bodies had increased steadily already, and who's ways had also changed in detail numerous times (and it would have been stranger had they not), a far larger extent within four protecting walls and with more time to execute it is what would be expected.

                            The murder of Mary Kelly looks perfectly consistent with the series before her, all seeming deviations none really.

                            'Ripper dead by November':
                            So I gather you have somebody in mind?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I like the way every thread is eventually turning from one member of the dramatis personae to another. I'm not complaining. Where I'm part of the discussion I'm always co-responsible

                              I should put my thoughts on Mary Kelly's death together and throw them out on the Kelly forum for the fellow sleuth hounds and lions to either like or tear apart.

                              Bottom-line: no change in MO.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X