Mile End Vigilance Committee

[Monty]

It seems a lot of things fail to cross your mind Adam. However it doesn't hamper your ability to pass judgement.

Monty

[Adam Went]

And just what would you be referring to in particular there, Mr. Monty?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Stewart P Evans]

Do I Detect?

Do I detect a 'Young Guns' v. 'Old Farts' confrontation developing?

[Chris]

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.

I think you misunderstood my point. The difficulty with your scheme is not that Mrs Mortimer said she heard the tread of a policeman shortly before 12.45, but that she said "immediately" after that she went to her door. In your reconstruction she went to the door about 20 minutes later.

[mariab]

Adam,
perhaps we could discuss this in about a week and a half, when I have access to my books (in Berlin) and to the Swanson report?

Monty,
I recall your lighting-his-pipe-scenario from older threads, and I feel it makes much sense, particularly in a rainy, lightly windy night.
On the other hand: Pipeman's physical description, particulaly pertaining to height, is not exactly common, and the fact that it fits “like a glove“ with a certain “player“ in the events, who later was instrumental in getting involved and tampering with the investigation should be consider as circumstantial evidence. I even have a suspicion on why Le Grand's physical description was included in Israel Schwartz' testimony EVEN if this testimony is fully or partly fake. As it happens, I'm currently researching this and I already have some results.

[mariab]

The difficulty with your {Adam's} scheme is not that Mrs Mortimer said she heard the tread of a policeman shortly before 12.45, but that she said "immediately" after that she went to her door. In your reconstruction she went to the door about 20 minutes later.

Wow! And again, I fully agree with Chris Phillips here.

[Hunter]

Interesting discussion.

I have a question to Stewart, Neil, Chris, Maria, Adam or anybody following this thread.

It is a safe bet that Fanny Mortimer was interviewed by the police as well as the press... so why did the coroner (Baxter - who had a reputation of being thorough) not call her as a witness at the inquiry?... and why was she not mentioned in Swanson's report (though Goldstein was) given her pivital role in establishing a timeline?

Is it because she didn't claim to have seen Elizabeth Stride and the investigation by the coroner and the police revolved only around those individuals? If that was the case, then it would display a narrow minded focus from both the coroner and the police.

Or could it be because they found a problem with her story, though Goldstein's coming forward seems to give her some measure of credibility?

[mariab]

Actually, neither was Israel Schwartz invited at the inquest. Credibility problems or communication/language problems?
By the by, I'm just back from the Paris Archives Nationales and the Schwartz orator involved with the IWEC and favoring speeches in Yiddish/Russian/Hungarian/Polish is listed with a first initial as “N“ in a spy report. I'll be researching him further, also in censuses.

[Phil Carter]

Interesting discussion.

I have a question to Stewart, Neil, Chris, Maria, Adam or anybody following this thread.

It is a safe bet that Fanny Mortimer was interviewed by the police as well as the press... so why did the coroner (Baxter - who had a reputation of being thorough) not call her as a witness at the inquiry?... and why was she not mentioned in Swanson's report (though Goldstein was) given her pivital role in establishing a timeline?

Is it because she didn't claim to have seen Elizabeth Stride and the investigation by the coroner and the police revolved only around those individuals? If that was the case, then it would display a narrow minded focus from both the coroner and the police.

Or could it be because they found a problem with her story, though Goldstein's coming forward seems to give her some measure of credibility?

Hello Hunter,

I see your possiblility about Fanny Mortimer, but it struck me that having a problem with a witness story didn't stop Mrs Maxwell from appearing in front of that particular Coroner, who didn't have the same reputation as Baxter, as seen by his much critiqued handling of the Kelly inquest. Very ninteresting indeed.

best wishes

Phil

[Hunter]

Hi Phil,

Yes, two different styles of coroners for sure, but there again, Maxwell claimed to have seen the victim.

Hi Maria,

Schwartz is mentioned by Swanson, Abberline, Anderson and Warren. The latter two described his testimony as eminating from the inquest. Were they mistaken?... or is there something that we don't know?... like a written testimony that hasn't survived and wasn't noted by Baxter in his summary.

Its difficult imagining the charasmatic Baxter passing on both Mortimer and Schwartz.

Niether the police records nor the inquest reports (as repeated in the papers) even give Mrs. Mortimer the time of day, yet she lights up the press reports like a Christmas tree... enough to get Goldstein scrambling for the nearest police station to unwittingly impart his little black bag into Ripper folklore.

[mariab]

Hello Hunter,
when I get back to Berlin (where my books are) I'll go through what transcribed police records or inquest reports are available (aditionally to what is posted here on casebook) and try to fomulate some thoughts. (I know it might become a painful process! )

Quote Hunter: Mrs. Mortimer lights up the press reports like a Christmas tree...
It's pretty obvious that Ms Mortimer was overeager to talk to the press, which fits with the possibility of her having exaggerated the time spent out on her doorstep. As I've commented in my post #136, The Daily News from October 1, 1888 quotes Ms Mortimer TWICE, each time with a conflicting testimony pertaining to her times:
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881001.html
1) A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact.
2) 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.

As for Schwartz, my impression is that he avoided talking to the press, and that William Wess covered for him in The Star report? Pertaining to the anarchist/orator “N. Schwartz“ I've located in French spy reports on Whitechapel anarchist activity from 1899-1905: In theory, since age, situation, and political contacts (among else with William Wess) more or less fit, it could be that Israel Schwartz might have changed his first name, to lay low after the Ripper controversy, plus Jewish people changed their names as a rule, at least once in their lives. (I have documentation of name changes pertaining to several Jewish artists residing in Paris.) Naturally, I'm going to research this “N. Schwartz“ thoroughly, through censuses, Der Arbeter Fraint, etc.. Don't wanna be speculating here.

[Ben]

Do I detect a 'Young Guns' v. 'Old Farts' confrontation developing?

Well, as a young fart, Stewart, I intend to egg both sides on!

[Adam Went]

Stewart:

Developing? Ha, Monty and I have been arguing virtually non-stop for about 6 years now....so it may be that I have to join the "old farts" side after all.

Chris:

I think you misunderstood my point. The difficulty with your scheme is not that Mrs Mortimer said she heard the tread of a policeman shortly before 12.45, but that she said "immediately" after that she went to her door. In your reconstruction she went to the door about 20 minutes later.

No, in my reconstruction, Mrs Mortimer, if she was indeed at her door for any length of time, it wasn't during the 12.30 - 1 AM gap that she repeatedly claimed it was. I suspect her times were exaggerated and that her trip to the door when she spotted Leon Goldstein was simply when she was doing the last rounds before turning in for the night - she would only have needed to be at her door for 5 minutes either side of spotting Goldstein and it's almost impossible that she wouldn't have seen SOMEBODY - even if it was Liz and her would-be killer.

In any case, if you would like to read the more thorough version, I suggest trying to get hold of a copy of that issue of Ripperologist where the timeline and theories surrounding it are explained in full.

Hunter:

It's a good question and one that we can only guess at.
Personally I would suggest that the police were onto Mortimer's story as being falsified within the very first days of it being published - she could even be seen as being a bit of a second Matthew Packer!

Besides, essentially, Goldstein aside, her testimony essentially would be "I saw and heard nothing odd" which isn't much use to an inquest. Schwartz, on the other hand, DID see something, but we know his knowledge of the English language was very poor, if not completely non-existent, which even with a translator often makes getting the details exactly right very hard.

Schwartz may also have feared a reprisal attack from one or both of BS Man or Pipeman, if he thought in his own mind that they were in league and that he was more or less "snitching" on the most feared man in the East End, and so refused to testify at the inquest.

Again, just guesswork though.

[Stewart P Evans]

Whatever...

Stewart:
Developing? Ha, Monty and I have been arguing virtually non-stop for about 6 years now....so it may be that I have to join the "old farts" side after all.
...

Whatever you do, don't become an old fart - there's no future in it!

[Chris]

No, in my reconstruction, Mrs Mortimer, if she was indeed at her door for any length of time, it wasn't during the 12.30 - 1 AM gap that she repeatedly claimed it was. I suspect her times were exaggerated and that her trip to the door when she spotted Leon Goldstein was simply when she was doing the last rounds before turning in for the night - she would only have needed to be at her door for 5 minutes either side of spotting Goldstein and it's almost impossible that she wouldn't have seen SOMEBODY - even if it was Liz and her would-be killer.

The fact remains that according to the report I quoted she went to her door immediately after hearing a policeman go past, but according to the summary of your reconstruction that you posted earlier the gap was about 20 minutes.

So - at the risk of labouring the point - your reconstruction is not just a matter of leaving "all the witness times ... exactly as they were initially reported" as you suggested. And in any case, as you say, you can't just leave Mrs Mortimer's times as reported, because different reports say different things.