Mile End Vigilance Committee

[mariab]

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.

I happened to have re-read Rip issue #113 as of lately and, pertaining to Ms Mortimer, Adam's article uses the Star report from October 1st, 1888. Adam also laments the fact that Ms Mortimer was not invited at the inquest, so as to have a more “official“ version of her testimony, about which I agree and wish to join him in his lamentations. ;-) Plus he speculates that poor gas lighting might have contributed to Ms Mortimer having missed some of the “action“ on the night of September 30, 1888 – which is simply not tenable.

[Phil Carter]

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

Hello Hunter,

Thanks for the reply.
Agreed. I was thinking in terms of the word you described for Fanny Mortimer as "pivotal". That is where the thought of Mrs Maxwell came in. Her testimony could well be described as exactly that. Both witnesses, Mortimer and Maxwell were important, I agree.

As an aside, it just occured to me that the Fanny Mortimer's initials are "FM". haha (a whimsical comment without seriousness, by the way)

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

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?

Hey Hunter,

Im very wary of statements such as '..its a safe bet...' as it is just that, a bet.

The fact she doesnt appear in Swansons report, nor any other MEPO, indicates to me she was either not interviewed or her evidence is contradicted.

Those who appeared at the inquest where either involved in the sighting of Stride prior to her death, discovery of her body and subsequent events, suspicious events (Drage and the knife) or relations/friends who knew Stride.

Now some will say Mortimer was a key witness, and on the face of it I can see why. However it may be the police were unaware of this witness (which I find highly unlikely) or she told them a completely differing story, and a rather embellishing one, to the one she told news reporters.

The purpose of an inquest is to establish a course of event or events and draw conclusion, it is not an investigation nor part of it.

I do not see what extra information Mortimer really brings. There is nothing extraordinary in her statement, well there was until Goldstein cleared himself. And her absence from the inquest should not be viewed as sinister nor questionable in my opinion as, as I have stated, she brings nothing to the table.

Now thats my take.

Monty


PS Stewart - Careful now....we dont want cabals forming.

[mariab]

The fact she doesnt appear in Swansons report, nor any other MEPO, indicates to me she was either not interviewed or her evidence is contradicted.

And we know that her evidence was contradicted ALREADY in the newspaper reports, and ALREADY in one and the same newspaper report (with her being quoted twice, in a contradictory manner, in The Daily News of October 1st, 1888).

or she told them a completely differing story, and a rather embellishing one, to the one she told news reporters.

Why do I feel that she talked big to the press, and might have “humbled down“ when questioned by the police, subsequently?

I do not see what extra information Mortimer really brings. There is nothing extraordinary in her statement, well there was until Goldstein cleared himself. And her absence from the inquest should not be viewed as sinister nor questionable in my opinion as, as I have stated, she brings nothing to the table.

Completely agree.

Quote Phil Carter:
As an aside, it just occured to me that the Fanny Mortimer's initials are "FM".
Oh yeah, Ms Mortimer did MJK. ;-)

[Phil Carter]

Quote Phil Carter:
As an aside, it just occured to me that the Fanny Mortimer's initials are "FM".
Oh yeah, Ms Mortimer did MJK. ;-)

Hello Maria,

You left out that it was the whimsical reference.. actually compared to another "FM"...

and by the way any "Nordic" reference to "Pipeman" would be "Pipemann"

best wishes

Phil

[mariab]

I know, Phil, mine was a joke too.
As with Herr Pipemann... ;-) (Or how do Scandinavians call “Herr“? It escapes me presently...)

[Hunter]

Hi Monty,

Thanks for a very good reply.

The phrase, 'a safe bet' is indeed, a good way for one to lose his shirt when this case is concerned. 'Probability' would have been a better word.

Swanson did say that 'extended enquiries' were made in Berner St., but also said it was to ascertain if any person had been seen with a woman... for which Mortimer would have been of no help. DSS, of course, was just summarizing what he thought was pertinent, so FM may have gotten no farther that a Detective Sergeant's notebook. She certainly got the press going with the black bag man.

We found out Packer had been previously interviewed only after the grapestalk incident blew up in the press and Sgt. White had to clear things up.

Swanson did leave Lushington, or someone from the Home Office, scratching their head about who the person was that saw Goldstein.

[mariab]

We found out Packer had been previously interviewed only after the grapestalk incident blew up in the press and Sgt. White had to clear things up.

Precisely. Because Matthew Packer changed his story in an endlessly more crucial fashion than Ms Mortimer and her “times“.

Swanson did leave Lushington, or someone from the Home Office, scratching their head about who the person was that saw Goldstein.

Would you perhaps give us the reference from where this bit of info's coming from, Hunter? My newbie roots are visible again, plus I have no books along where I am right now (but I'm taking notes).
And DSS stands for Donald Sutherland Swanson, right?

[Adam Went]

Hey all,

Chris:

Yes, but my point is that in order to believe what you're saying is true, one must believe the word of a local woman with no real reason to be paying any particular attention to what was happening around her, over a policeman who was on duty, patrolling during the height of the Ripper scare and who's business it was to make sure he was keeping a close eye on things. Which of the two are more likely to be accurate?

Again I can only urge you to read the article if possible, and if not, read back through the extensive topics which covered all of this last year - before, during and after "A Matter Of Time" was written and published - I feel increasingly like we are going over old ground.

Maria:

It is true that I quoted a report in The Star relating to Fanny Mortimer - however, in my letter to the editor response in #115, I list several other newspapers and their comments to show that the 12.30 - 1 AM estimate from Mortimer herself was not a one-off as far as the press was concerned. Obviously I can't remember all of these off the top of my head (I know Pall Mall Gazette was one of them), but they are listed.

As for the poor gas lighting "not being tenable", how then do you explain the testimony of other witnesses to the darkness of areas of Berner St. and their inability to see anything even if there had been something going on?

Monty:

My god, I think we finally are pretty much in agreement on something! Wow!

In hindsight, it is definitely a shame that there was not a more thorough and official documenting of Mortimer and her testimony - the same can be said for Israel Schwartz - but we can only go on what we know.

Cheers,
Adam.

[mariab]

It is true that I quoted a report in The Star relating to Fanny Mortimer - however, in my letter to the editor response in #115, I list several other newspapers and their comments to show that the 12.30 - 1 AM estimate from Mortimer herself was not a one-off as far as the press was concerned. Obviously I can't remember all of these off the top of my head (I know Pall Mall Gazette was one of them), but they are listed.

Absolutely, Adam. In your LTE in Rip 115 you quoted many additional sources documenting Ms Mortimer's alledged “half hour“ spent at her doorstep. Still, as we just witnessed in The Daily Mail conflicting double quote of her, these reports are not really ‘trustworthy‘ (for lack of a better word).

As for the poor gas lighting "not being tenable", how then do you explain the testimony of other witnesses to the darkness of areas of Berner St. and their inability to see anything even if there had been something going on?

Surely you're not expecting that Ms Mortimer would have missed the entire BS-Stride-Pipeman-Schwartz incident due to gas lighting?
By the way there's a recent article by SPE on gas lighting in Examiner 3 (I think it was, from the top of my head).

[Chris]

Yes, but my point is that in order to believe what you're saying is true, one must believe the word of a local woman with no real reason to be paying any particular attention to what was happening around her, over a policeman who was on duty, patrolling during the height of the Ripper scare and who's business it was to make sure he was keeping a close eye on things. Which of the two are more likely to be accurate?

Frankly that comment baffles me. In what way am I believing Mortimer over Smith? All I'm pointing out is that on Mortimer's own account, she went to her door immediately after Smith passed by on his beat.

Again I can only urge you to read the article if possible, and if not, read back through the extensive topics which covered all of this last year - before, during and after "A Matter Of Time" was written and published - I feel increasingly like we are going over old ground.

Of course you're right that this has been discussed many times before. But as the "ten minutes" report I quoted was apparently new to you I hope I haven't been completely wasting your time.

[Hunter]

Hi Maria,

Precisely. Because Matthew Packer changed his story in an endlessly more crucial fashion than Ms Mortimer and her “times“.

That's true, but my example was just to clarify that residents in the area were questioned... nothing more.

Would you perhaps give us the reference from where this bit of info's coming from, Hunter? My newbie roots are visible again, plus I have no books along where I am right now (but I'm taking notes).
And DSS stands for Donald Sutherland Swanson, right?

The reference comes from Swanson's Oct. 19th report. In a marginal note, Lushington, I believe, remarks upon Swanson's statement about Goldstein identifying himself, at the Leman St. Police Station, as the man with the black bag... obviously in reference to Mortimer's press statements. Swanson doesn't mention why Goldstein did this or who saw him. At the side of this statement, in the margin, is written, "who saw this man go down Berner St. or did he come forward to clear himself in case any questions might be asked"

It is in The Ultimate, but I also have a fascimile copy of the report that shows the position of the annotations made.

Yes, DSS stands for Donald Sutherlard Swanson. He often signed his own annotations and reports with those initials.

[mariab]

Thank you so much for the clarifications, Hunter, and apologies for the inconvenience. I wasn't able to carry any Ripperological books along this trip (as I'm carrying thick music scores along), but as long as I get back to Berlin, I'll check out the Swanson report and other things.

[YankeeSergeant]

Why wasn't Fanny called?

Hey Hunter,

Im very wary of statements such as '..its a safe bet...' as it is just that, a bet.

The fact she doesnt appear in Swansons report, nor any other MEPO, indicates to me she was either not interviewed or her evidence is contradicted.

Those who appeared at the inquest where either involved in the sighting of Stride prior to her death, discovery of her body and subsequent events, suspicious events (Drage and the knife) or relations/friends who knew Stride.

Now some will say Mortimer was a key witness, and on the face of it I can see why. However it may be the police were unaware of this witness (which I find highly unlikely) or she told them a completely differing story, and a rather embellishing one, to the one she told news reporters.

The purpose of an inquest is to establish a course of event or events and draw conclusion, it is not an investigation nor part of it.

I do not see what extra information Mortimer really brings. There is nothing extraordinary in her statement, well there was until Goldstein cleared himself. And her absence from the inquest should not be viewed as sinister nor questionable in my opinion as, as I have stated, she brings nothing to the table.

Now thats my take.

Monty


PS Stewart - Careful now....we dont want cabals forming.

The reason she wasn't called sould be as simple as oversight. Let's face it, the police were busting A%% to work the case and invariably especially if there are a lot of conflicting storys and a very little time things get pushed aside and forgotten. I don't see anything terribly sinister inher not being called. How important she would have been to the police then is a matter of conjecture I would think (In my humble opinion)

[YankeeSergeant]

NOt certain

I know, Phil, mine was a joke too.
As with Herr Pipemann... ;-) (Or how do Scandinavians call “Herr“? It escapes me presently...)

Maria, I'm not certain but they might as the Scandinavian languages are similar to German. (GLENN! WE need your expertise!)