Mile End Vigilance Committee

[mariab]

Hello Adam,
I've already told you that Barnett is more of a gut feeling and an indulgence of mine, a pet project that cannot be further pursued.

As for the witness descriptions, have you ever seen the modern composite image of Jack the Ripper made from the witness descriptions? He is the spitting image of Klosowski - in other words, nothing remotely close to Barnett. I'm not saying that I put any faith in such an image, of course, just making the point that Barnett doesn't even really match the descriptions, unless it's just for his moustache....

Just like you, I wouldn't buy any stock either into that composite image, and the idea that it matches Klosowski is laughable.

YOU said serious.

Yes, as in serious knife inflicted wounds, Ripper-like. Where is your problem? I told you a few times already that I'd still consider Klosowski at the bottom of my suspects list.

If you had taken the time to read my letter response in Rip #115 (which, I might add, Tom never bothered responding to either), you would see that I have gone through and named and quoted several of the newspapers who carried Mrs. Mortimer's

I've already told you that I read your LTE in Rip 115 and I know about the press reports mentioning Ms Mortimer having spent half an hour at her doorstep.
Pertaining to the press report (The Daily News of October 1st, 1888) quoted by Chris mentioning a woman having spent just 10'min. outside her doorstep, a VERY interesting fact is that the same Daily News report quotes this a little further down:
Mrs. Mortimer, living at 36, Berner-street, four doors from the scene of the tragedy, says: I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual.
This possible “double quote“ of Ms Mortimer in The Daily News of October 1, 1888 shows how inaccurate the journalists quoted from the same source – were we to accept that the first neighbour with the just 10'min. statement was Ms. Mortimer, as it makes total sense to accept this fact. There's obviously the possibility that Ms. Mortimer exaggerated the time spent outside during a second statement to the press, as in, she started with 10'min., then made half an hour out of it. But a thorough journalist/newspaper editor should have picked on that and clear it out.

Can you point out to me where the press report Chris quoted mentions anything about 12.46 - 12.56? Especially since PC Smith himself gave his time of passing through the street as 12.30 - 12.35 AM?

The 00.46-00.56 time frame is Tom's interpretation. PC Smith could have exaggerated the accuracy of his rounds, although I'm not saying that he did.

To return to the thread's subject (after a long hiatus), the Daily News of October 1, 1888 quoted by Chris also printed this letter from the WCV, asking for a reward and mentioning Phoenix Park:
To the Editor of The Daily News:
SIR,-As Chairman of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, who communicated without result with the Home Secretary with the view of obtaining, on behalf of the public at large, the offer of a Government reward for the apprehension and conviction of the assassin or assassins in the recent East-end atrocities, we shall be glad if you will allow us to state that the committee do not for one moment doubt the sincerity of the Home Secretary in refusing the said offer, as he apparently believes that it would not meet with a successful result. If he would, however, consider that in the case of the Phœnix Park murders the man Carey, who was surrounded by, we may say, a whole society steeped in crime, the money tempted him to betray his associates. In our opinion, if Mr. Matthews could see his way clear to coincide with our views, the Government offer would be successful. The reward should be ample for securing the informer from revenge, which would be a very great inducement in the matter, in addition to which such offer would convince the poor and humble residents of our East-end that the Government authorities are as much anxious to avenge the blood of these unfortunate victims as they were the assassination of Lord F. Cavendish and Mr. Burke.-Apologising for troubling you, believe us to be, faithfully yours.
GEORGE LUSK.
JOSEPH AARONS.
1, 2, and 3, Alderney-road, Mile-end, E., Sept. 29.

[Adam Went]

Maria:

Barnett was just unfortunate enough to be the wrong man at the wrong time - if he hadn't been in a relationship with MJK, his name would never have even been mentioned in relation to the JTR case, as a suspect or otherwise. Klosowski, on the other hand, is a known multiple murderer who had police officers suspect him of being the killer. There is a major gulf between the likelihood of Barnett and Klosowski as being the killer.

And again, I can only re-iterate that Klosowski has been, and continues to be my preferred suspect out of the current field. He is not the be all and end all of my suspect list and there may well be a day down the track when he is eliminated completely, or somebody I deem to be a better option comes up.

Just like you, I wouldn't buy any stock either into that composite image, and the idea that it matches Klosowski is laughable.

Have you seen the composite image and compared it to photos of Klosowski? If you actually have and still think the resemblance is "laughable", I would advise you to take a trip to your local optometrist.

Yes, as in serious knife inflicted wounds, Ripper-like. Where is your problem? I told you a few times already that I'd still consider Klosowski at the bottom of my suspects list.

So threatening to kill his pregnant wife with a concealed knife isn't enough, he has to actually attack her Ripper style? Something tells me that he might have been arrested in the US had he tried that....

As for Mortimer, virtually every press report and statement i've read consistently refers to her stating that she spent "almost the whole time" between 12.30 and 1 AM at her door. Even from the report Chris posted, judging by the testimony of PC Smith (and I for one am more inclined to believe the testimony of an on duty police officer than a local resident), that means she began standing at her door at around 12.35 AM - even if we presume she only stood there for the 10 minutes, that takes it to 12.45 AM, during which time she should have seen not only PC Smith, but Morris eagle entering the passageway (12.40 by his testimony) and Israel Schwartz as well as Pipeman, BS Man AND Liz Stride (12.45 by his testimony) and possibly even James Brown at a similar time to Schwartz. Goldstein did not pass the club until somewhat closer to 1 AM. So whatever way you slice it, her testimony just does not add up, and that's the point that I tried to get across in my article and follow-up letter. Either she was confused with her times, thoroughly inattentive or fibbing altogether.

Anyway, as you say, we have veered off topic somewhat. If there's nothing more to be added, then it is best to get back to whatever it was you were discussing before.

Cheers,
Adam.

[mariab]

Adam,
essentially (apart from Barnett) we agree. As you said, Ms Mortimer was either confused with her times, or making herself important. Not that I necessarily adopt Tom's 00.46-00.56 time frame, but I can understand where he's coming from pertaining to the run of the events.
I think that my having looked into Rip 113-115 and especially Chris Phillips' having pertinently provided the Daily News quote for a 10'min. time frame certainly helped clarify some things.
By the by, one thing that confused me a bit in your A matter of time is that sometimes you chose to quote from The Star and sometimes from the Swanson report (which I don't have available here in Paris) pertaining to conflicting details, but this is a discussion for another thread.

[Chris]

I haven't been following the arguments over timing, but I think it would be a mistake to assume that Schwartz walked down the street dead on 12.45. Surely that would only be an estimate, which could easily be 5 or 10 minutes out either way.

It seems to me that the most straightforward interpretation is that PC Smith was in Berner Street at around 12.40 (in line with Gavin Bromley's revised timings for his beat), that Mrs Mortimer went out for 10 minutes or so soon after that, and that Schwartz then arrived, say 5 or 10 minutes before the discovery of the body.

[mariab]

Completely agree with Chris (hopefully without sounding irreverent) about accepting the times given by the witnesses as an estimate at best. I'm planning to re-study the Gavin Bromley article and his revised timings in the next days.
As for Schwartz, having found evidence in French spy reports at the Paris Archives Nationales that there was indeed a Hungarian/Polish Schwartz with no good English capabilities involved with the IWEC, I'm waiting for the results from further research to (possibly) figure out if Schwartz' testimony was based on any facts, or if the entire testimony was not concocted by William Wess. I have a very concrete suspicion on how Le Grand's physical description (as Pipeman) got included in Schwartz' testimony. And this is not unrelated to the WVC.

[Adam Went]

Maria:

The simplest solution is almost always the correct one. It is impossible to believe that if she was standing at her door the whole time that she claimed to be, that Mortimer would have seen or heard nobody passing by, because we KNOW that they did at some point during that half hour. I mean when you get down to splitting minutes and seconds to fit the testimony of a particular witness in, it should be an absolute red light. As we've said, the simplest solution is that she was either confused as to her times or somewhat fibbing.

Chris Phillips? I thought Chris was Chris George....anyway.... as for my sources in "A Matter Of Time", I used a variety of them in order to illustrate my points, not just The Star and the Swanson report...

Chris:

It seems to me that the most straightforward interpretation is that PC Smith was in Berner Street at around 12.40 (in line with Gavin Bromley's revised timings for his beat), that Mrs Mortimer went out for 10 minutes or so soon after that, and that Schwartz then arrived, say 5 or 10 minutes before the discovery of the body.

It's possible, but then that raises another issue. If PC Smith was in the street at 12.40 rather than 12.30/35, why did he not see Morris Eagle, who claimed to have entered the passageway at 12.40?

If nothing else, Schwartz's timing at least fits in with the other witness descriptions in that it's perfectly plausible there was nobody else other than the 4 of them (he, Liz, BS Man, Pipeman) to bear witness to it. If he was 5 minutes earlier, again, Morris Eagle should have seen him - if he was 5 minutes later, THEN Mortimer should possibly have seen him since it was closer to this time that Leon Goldstein was passing by....

I maintain that the sequence of events went something like this:
-PC Smith exits Berner St, 12.35 AM
-Morris Eagle enters club yard, 12.40 AM
-Liz appears between 12.40-12.45 AM - at the same time, Pipeman (who is in fact Jack the Ripper) spots her from nearby
-Israel Schwartz witnesses a tipsy BS man physically assault Liz, then either is pursued or followed by Pipeman down the street (12.45 AM) - at a similar time, James Brown is passing by.
-Pipeman approaches Liz, perhaps with words of sympathy or comfort, and under this pretext leads her into the passageway to Dutfield's Yard, where she is killed at approx. 12.50/55 AM
-Leon Goldstein passes by and is spotted by Mrs Mortimer who is checking outside her front door before retiring for the night, quite possibly killer and victim were still in the passageway at this point
-Louis Diemshitz discovers the body whilst leading his pony into the yard at 1 AM.

Again, this is only a rough and approximate outline, and everything was much more detailed in "A Matter Of Time", but surely something similar to what i've listed above is the most logical solution? No need to twist around the sighting times of every single witness in order to suit a theory, for a start...

Cheers,
Adam.

[Stewart P Evans]

'Pipeman'

...
I maintain that the sequence of events went something like this:
-PC Smith exits Berner St, 12.35 AM
-Morris Eagle enters club yard, 12.40 AM
-Liz appears between 12.40-12.45 AM - at the same time, Pipeman (who is in fact Jack the Ripper) spots her from nearby
-Israel Schwartz witnesses a tipsy BS man physically assault Liz, then either is pursued or followed by Pipeman down the street (12.45 AM) - at a similar time, James Brown is passing by.
-Pipeman approaches Liz, perhaps with words of sympathy or comfort, and under this pretext leads her into the passageway to Dutfield's Yard, where she is killed at approx. 12.50/55 AM
-Leon Goldstein passes by and is spotted by Mrs Mortimer who is checking outside her front door before retiring for the night, quite possibly killer and victim were still in the passageway at this point
-Louis Diemshitz discovers the body whilst leading his pony into the yard at 1 AM.
...
Cheers,
Adam.

From Jack the Ripper The Facts -

Page 157 - "The only person apart from Schwartz who witnessed the incident was Pipeman. Had the police talked to him? Is that why, as the Home Office observed, the 'police apparently do not suspect the second man'?..."

Page 158 - Re- the Star report, "The other witness therefore has to be Pipeman."

Page 196 - "He [Warren] said that the police investigation had hardly commenced and that there was no information indicating an accomplice - an interesting observation given the Schwartz story (and perhaps additional confirmation that Pipeman had been identified)."

[Chris]

Again, this is only a rough and approximate outline, and everything was much more detailed in "A Matter Of Time", but surely something similar to what i've listed above is the most logical solution? No need to twist around the sighting times of every single witness in order to suit a theory, for a start...

It's really not a question of "twisting around" witness times; more a matter of recognising that you can't expect those times to be exact. Morris Eagle is a case in point - some sources give the time in his case as 12.35, some as 12.40. Gavin Bromley analysed the chronology of Smith's beat at great length and concluded he was most likely to have been in Berner Street between 12.40 and 12.45.

I don't subscribe to Ripperologist, so I haven't read your article, but your scheme doesn't appear to be consistent with the report I quoted, which says that [Mrs Mortimer] went outside "shortly before a quarter to one o'clock" and "immediately" after hearing "the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat."

Obviously it's impossible to reconcile all the witness statements if the times are treated as absolutely accurate and exact, but I think something like what I suggested fits them together while doing least violence to the evidence.

[mariab]

It's really not a question of "twisting around" witness times; more a matter of recognising that you can't expect those times to be exact. Morris Eagle is a case in point - some sources give the time in his case as 12.35, some as 12.40. Gavin Bromley analysed the chronology of Smith's beat at great length and concluded he was most likely to have been in Berner Street between 12.40 and 12.45.
Obviously it's impossible to reconcile all the witness statements if the times are treated as absolutely accurate and exact, but I think something like what I suggested fits them together while doing least violence to the evidence.

Completely agree.
Gotta run, I'll look at the rest of the posts later tonight.

[mariab]

As for my sources in "A Matter Of Time", I used a variety of them in order to illustrate my points, not just The Star and the Swanson report...

The problem, Adam, is that you used The Star and the Swanson report concurrently pertaining to conflicting details, without sufficient justification on why you chose to accept which part of the different reports.

From Jack the Ripper The Facts -
Page 157 - "The only person apart from Schwartz who witnessed the incident was Pipeman. Had the police talked to him? Is that why, as the Home Office observed, the 'police apparently do not suspect the second man'?..."
Page 158 - Re- the Star report, "The other witness therefore has to be Pipeman."
Page 196 - "He [Warren] said that the police investigation had hardly commenced and that there was no information indicating an accomplice - an interesting observation given the Schwartz story (and perhaps additional confirmation that Pipeman had been identified)."

My interpretation is that Paul Begg hypothesized that Pipeman's identity might have been known to the police? Pipeman wasn't discussed much in the reports and it appears that he was excluded from police circulars going around to the various stations, including the physical descriptions of everyone BUT Pipeman. Am I correct to recall that Paul Begg overlooked the Swanson report and the ensuing memo exchange with Abberline where Pipeman was repeatedly referred to as "alleged accomplice", making clear that Pipeman's identity was not known? (I don't have the Swanson report available here in Paris, unless it's somewhere posted on casebook which I've missed, but I've looked, and I don't think so.)

[Stewart P Evans]

Official Reports

...
My interpretation is that Paul Begg hypothesized that Pipeman's identity might have been known to the police? Pipeman wasn't discussed much in the reports and it appears that he was excluded from police circulars going around to the various stations, including the physical descriptions of everyone BUT Pipeman. Am I correct to recall that Paul Begg overlooked the Swanson report and the ensuing memo exchange with Abberline where Pipeman was repeatedly referred to as "alleged accomplice", making clear that Pipeman's identity was not known? (I don't have the Swanson report available here in Paris, unless it's somewhere posted on casebook which I've missed, but I've looked, and I don't think so.)

It is obvious from the subsequent official reports that the man lighting the pipe was never traced.

[mariab]

Clearly he was never traced. Still, a certain leading member of the WVC matching Pipeman's physical description and evidenced to have been active in obstructing the Stride AND the Eddowes murder investigation was arrested a couple years later for unrelated crimes.

[Adam Went]

Hi all,

Stewart:

It doesn't help that Schwartz himself could not even be certain of whether Pipeman was simply leaving the scene as well, or whether he was intent on removing Schwartz, by violence if necessary. If my hypothesis is correct, Pipeman was trying to shield himself from view in the doorway - hearing BS man call "Lipski!" out to Schwartz, he thought he could have been spotted and that his best bet was to disappear momentarily.

As far as suspects go, I would rate Pipeman as a far more likely candidate than BS man, if the description Schwartz gave is anything resembling accurate.

Chris:

I certainly don't expect witness times to be spot on to the exact minute and that's precisely why i've been arguing all along that it's impossible to believe that Mortimer was standing at her door for 10 minutes only. She herself was much more approximate in her statements to the press.

The point is that if all the witness times are left exactly as they were initially reported, and as I have listed above, then the sequence of events fit in perfectly together. So why would anybody want to change that? It's equivalent to trying to mend something that was never broken in the first place!

As for the report you posted, you would not call 12.35 am "shortly before" 12.45 am then? I know I would. But really, it's just splitting hairs.

Maria:

Extremely unlikely that Pipeman's identity was ever known for certain to the police, or else we'd surely have a better record of it somewhere, given everybody was interested in any potential suspects they dragged in - besides, Pipeman would be unlikely to come forward of his own accord, given that he would have to answer for why he didn't come to Liz's aid in the first place when witnessing the attack - more importantly of course is that if the theory that he was actually JTR is correct, then naturally he's not going to come forward anyway.

As for "A Matter Of Time", if you post up the specifics of what you're talking about, i'll try to answer any queries you might have in a more detailed way - it's now been a year or more since I wrote that article and unfortunately I don't have a photographic memory of every detail that I put in there.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

Adam,

So the Pipe man was trying to shield himself from view by standing in the dorway and, erm, then he decides to light his Pipe?

You reckon that is shielding in the doorway?

As a pipe smoker I know exactly why he was in the doorway. He was doing exactly as Schwartz stated, lighting his pipe. He was looking for protection of his vesta from the wind, which often occurs near corners.

Maria,

Pipemans description is hardly unique. He could fit any number of people.

Monty

[Adam Went]

Monty:

You're probably right. I'm a non-smoker (like my lungs just the way they are, thanks) so the thought never really crossed my mind.

In any case, if he was indeed JTR as well, one could also imagine that he was keen to clear away anybody who could intrude on his plans to approach Liz after the intoxicated BS man had moved along - i.e. Israel Schwartz.

Cheers,
Adam.