Mile End Vigilance Committee

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Do I Detect?

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

[Adam Went]

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

Cheers,
Adam.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.