Mile End Vigilance Committee

[mariab]

Hello Yankee Seargant,
Ms Mortimer not getting an invite to the inquest I get. But Israel Schwartz? Hmm...
Glenn Anderson isn't too much on the boards these days, but there's Fisherman. And Phil Carter lives in Norway (and speaks fluent Norwegian).

[Adam Went]

Maria:

I only used a handful of other press reports from various newspapers to back up my claims in the original article, i'm sure there would be more - if there was say, for instance, 6 different publications claiming that Mortimer said she was there for "almost the entire time" between 12.30 and 1 AM, and then, say, 1 publication saying that she was there for a ten minute gap, which must necessarily involve changing the testimony of other witnesses - on the basis of probability, which is going to be more likely to be correct?

Surely you're not expecting that Ms Mortimer would have missed the entire BS-Stride-Pipeman-Schwartz incident due to gas lighting?

I claim nothing of the sort. If she hadn't seen it though, she certainly would have (or should have) HEARD it if she was on her doorstep at the time, shouldn't she?

Chris:

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.


Because, Chris, her sighting of Goldstein was much closer to 1 AM. So the time that has been put forward for Mortimer's 10 minute interval by other researchers, particularly Tom, is 12.46-56.

So my point is that in order for that to be factually correct, PC Smith has to have been wrong about his time passing through Berner Street, which was much closer to 12.30 AM!

It is a simple mathematical equation, nothing more, that if you believe Mortimer, Smith had to have been wrong - and so had some of the other witness sightings too.

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.

No, but it is somewhat frustrating that you would be willing to argue about my points in an article which you've never even read.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris]

No, but it is somewhat frustrating that you would be willing to argue about my points in an article which you've never even read.

Of course I'm not arguing about points in your article. How could I? I haven't read it. I'm simply commenting on what you've posted on this board. If you didn't want people to comment on it perhaps you shouldn't have posted it.

As for your "simple mathematical question," does it really not occur to you that the accuracy of the time assigned to Goldstein also comes into the equation? That time - unlike those assigned to Smith or Schwartz - is qualified in Swanson's report as "about" 1 a.m., which suggests that Goldstein wasn't able to say very accurately when he was there.

In the scheme I've suggested he could have been there at ten to 1 or a little later. I fear you are again insisting on the times given being precise, when they can't be expected to be so - and this one is explicitly indicated as only approximate.

But really what your response underlines is that the evidence cannot simply be fitted together without modification as your "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" comment suggested, which is really the main point I am trying to get across.

[YankeeSergeant]

Isreal Schwartz

Hello Yankee Seargant,
Ms Mortimer not getting an invite to the inquest I get. But Israel Schwartz? Hmm...
Glenn Anderson isn't too much on the boards these days, but there's Fisherman. And Phil Carter lives in Norway (and speaks fluent Norwegian).

I find Schwartz's exclusion a bit strange even if he was found to be unreliable as well. I was just spitballing trying to reason out why Mortimer would be excluded and hadn't meant to imply anything about Schwartz

[Adam Went]

Chris:

Of course I'm not arguing about points in your article. How could I? I haven't read it. I'm simply commenting on what you've posted on this board. If you didn't want people to comment on it perhaps you shouldn't have posted it.

Precisely, and what i've posted on here is essentially the same as snippets out of my article - but the difference is that "A Matter Of Time" was about 30 pages long from memory, so obviously it's all going to be a lot clearer if it's read in its entirety rather than relying on me to be commenting on bits and pieces more than a year later, especially when, as I said before, the same ground we're going over now was gone over several times back then. I'm sure that I could forward you a copy of the edit of the article if you send your e-mail address.

As for your "simple mathematical question," does it really not occur to you that the accuracy of the time assigned to Goldstein also comes into the equation? That time - unlike those assigned to Smith or Schwartz - is qualified in Swanson's report as "about" 1 a.m., which suggests that Goldstein wasn't able to say very accurately when he was there.

Goldstein, unlike the other witnesses, HAD to be as accurate as possible with the time he gave for being in Berner St., because he was a potential suspect based on the testimony Mortimer gave, before Goldstein approached the police to clear his name. Again, it should be clear that he wasn't in the street at or before 12.45 AM, due to the weight of other witness sightings - and that he wasn't in the street after 1 AM, obviously because the body had been discovered by that stage. So Mortimer must have spotted him some time in between then, as the times in the original report suggest.

In the scheme I've suggested he could have been there at ten to 1 or a little later. I fear you are again insisting on the times given being precise, when they can't be expected to be so - and this one is explicitly indicated as only approximate.

I absolutely don't expect the times to be precise to the minute, and as i've said, that's why I find this 12.46 - 12.56 theory to be so non-sensical. All i'm saying is that if you, just for a moment, take Mortimer out of the equation altogether, then the other witness descriptions and their approximate times make perfect sense. All weight of probability and numbers, then, should surely tell us that there has to be huge question marks over her testimony.

I've got a number of other works on the go at the moment, but when I eventually get around to it, i'll certainly look much more closely at Fanny Mortimer individually, and her testimony....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris]

Goldstein, unlike the other witnesses, HAD to be as accurate as possible with the time he gave for being in Berner St., because he was a potential suspect based on the testimony Mortimer gave, before Goldstein approached the police to clear his name.

Sorry, but it's just silly to say that the timing for Goldstein HAD to be accurate because he was a potential suspect. Either he knew the time accurately or he didn't. As I've already pointed out, Swanson qualified the time with "about," which is a clear enough indication that it WASN'T known accurately

All i'm saying is that if you, just for a moment, take Mortimer out of the equation altogether, then the other witness descriptions and their approximate times make perfect sense.

And what I'm saying is that even if you include Mortimer the times make sense, provided you don't insist that they are exactly accurate, but recognise that they may be 5 or 10 minutes out. And in fact there is no difficulty at all with Goldstein's timing in the scheme I've suggested if you allow "about 1 a.m." to encompass "ten to one" - as it appears from your post that you do.

[Adam Went]

Chris:

What I meant was that Goldstein had more riding on getting his times as close to accurate as possible - witnesses like PC Smith, Israel Schwartz, etc were not suspects - Goldstein, for a brief time, would have been. In any case, there is no need to discuss his times further as I think we are both in agreement that Mrs. Mortimer did indeed see Goldstein at some point closer to 1 AM, well after the Schwartz sighting.

I can only repeat - again - that I do not expect the witnesses to all have been spot on to the precise minute with their times, that is indeed ridiculous. But at the same time, when all the pieces of the jigsaw fit in perfectly well as they are, I see no need to place undue importance on the testimony of Mortimer, who is simply one relatively unimportant witness who was erroneous with her times - even the police in 1888 must have seen this.

And again I can only suggest reading the article in its entirety, from which you might draw a clearer picture of the times and theories surrounding the Berner St witnesses.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Fisherman]

Maria:

"Glenn Anderson isn't too much on the boards these days, but there's Fisherman."

There is! And he will tell you that the german word "Herr" is left untampered with in the Scandinavian languages - we also say herr.

That is not, however, to say that the Scandinavian languages are all that close to the German language. Whereas Norwegians, Danes and Swedes all understand each other reasonably, none of us understand the Germans.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

In any case, there is no need to discuss his times further as I think we are both in agreement that Mrs. Mortimer did indeed see Goldstein at some point closer to 1 AM, well after the Schwartz sighting.

No, we aren't. I'm suggesting that Schwartz came after Mortimer!

But at the same time, when all the pieces of the jigsaw fit in perfectly well as they are, I see no need to place undue importance on the testimony of Mortimer ...

Well, obviously all the pieces of the jigsaw don't fit perfectly together unless you allow for some flexibility in the timings. But as I've made essentially the same point maybe half a dozen times now and there's still no sign of the message getting through, I won't try to discuss it further.

[Adam Went]

Chris:

Well I will admit to being slightly disappointed that you seem to have made up your mind without accepting the opportunity to at least read all of the available evidence and material on the subject which we are discussing, and I have said numerous times now that I do allow flexibility in the witness times, but that with the times as they currently stand and have stood for the past 123 years, there's no real genuine cause to do so.

Having said that, you're quite right that we do seem to be going around in circles, and so it is probably best to agree to disagree, for the time being at least.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris]

Well I will admit to being slightly disappointed that you seem to have made up your mind without accepting the opportunity to at least read all of the available evidence and material on the subject which we are discussing...

For the umpteenth time, it is abundantly obvious that the evidence does not fit perfectly together unless there is flexibility regarding the times. Reading your article could hardly change that.

As a matter of fact, I have now looked at your article. As far as I can see, it doesn't mention the report about Mortimer that we have been discussing, and it doesn't say anything about the time of Goldstein's visit to Berner Street. So I'm baffled by your repeated suggestions that all would be revealed if I would only look at your article.

[Phil Carter]

Maria:

"Glenn Anderson isn't too much on the boards these days, but there's Fisherman."

There is! And he will tell you that the german word "Herr" is left untampered with in the Scandinavian languages - we also say herr.

That is not, however, to say that the Scandinavian languages are all that close to the German language. Whereas Norwegians, Danes and Swedes all understand each other reasonably, none of us understand the Germans.

The best,
Fisherman

Hello Fish,

Yup, and we have Phil having lived in Norway 30 years who can confirm your comments about Scandinavians understanding each other (with certain exceptions of course, due to local dialect difficulties here and there).

Norwegian did have a German language influence put into it though, due to WW2 and the German occupation of Norway, however these words are now few and far between.

Hope you are well.

best wishes

Phil

[mariab]

I'm suggesting that Schwartz came after Mortimer!

This is the ONLY way it would make sense.
By the by, I'm researching Schwartz in French spy reports on Whitechapel anarchist activity and coming up with conflicting evidence, possibly due to entry mistakes, but I'm trying to clear this out. Not sure if I'll manage it all during this trip, as there are still 10 boxes of spy reports to go through, and only 3 days left. There's also a limit of boxes to order per day at the Paris Archives Nationales, sometimes only 3 per day. :-(

the german word "Herr" is left untampered with in the Scandinavian languages - we also say herr.
That is not, however, to say that the Scandinavian languages are all that close to the German language. Whereas Norwegians, Danes and Swedes all understand each other reasonably, none of us understand the Germans.

Yes, but the Dutch say “mynherr“, I think.
Fisherman, might I PM you (in a couple days) pertaining to a book I'm looking for about Danish diplomats in the 18th/19th century? Also, in case you have any contacts with Danish journalists?

Yup, and we have Phil having lived in Norway 30 years who can confirm your comments about Scandinavians understanding each other (with certain exceptions of course, due to local dialect difficulties here and there).Norwegian did have a German language influence put into it though, due to WW2 and the German occupation of Norway, however these words are now few and far between.

I used to speak a bit of Swedish in my last year of high school, but not much has remained in memory.
By the by, it looks like I'll attend a conference on “Music and Nature“ in Reykjavik in late May. The conference people just secured a sponsor (paying for our flight tickets, yesss!), plus I got Nikita clothing to sponsor me for a little stay to (hopefully) ride/ice climb the Snaeffels glacier, where Jules Verne located his Journey to the center of the earth. In my paper I'm gonna talk about Glaciers and arctic landscapes in 19th century lit and opera as a metaphor for the end of human civilization (referring to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Cherubini's Eliza, or the glacier of Mount St. Bernard, Rossini's Guillaume Tell, Berlioz' Damnation of Faust, Edgar Poe's The narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym, and Verne's The ice Sphinx). Actually it's a gig I've already done at another environmental conference in Milwaukee. Ripperology it ain't, but it features some degree of violence.

[Adam Went]

Chris:

Again you are completely misinterpreting my point. The whole reason I joined this discussion in the first place was to answer things that were being mentioned regarding "A Matter Of Time" - if you have read it thoroughly, which I very much doubt you have, along with Tom's response in #114 and then my response to him in #115, it should clear up a lot of the conjecture as to the theories that have been flying around on this topic - if it doesn't, and if you still can't see what the available contemporary evidence suggests, then perhaps it is me who's wasting my time, as you have obviously formed an opinion and refuse to be moved from it.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Fisherman]

Maria:

"Fisherman, might I PM you (in a couple days) pertaining to a book I'm looking for about Danish diplomats in the 18th/19th century?"

Please do, Maria, and I will try to help out if possible.

"Also, in case you have any contacts with Danish journalists?"

Not really. We used to cooperate a bit with them some years back, since we both share the same sound (Öresund). And I live fifteen minutes ferryride from Denmark myself. But journalists are normally not very true to their respective publications, and I have no Danish journalist contact myself at this stage, I´m afraid.

The best,
Fisherman