Mile End Vigilance Committee

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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:

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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!)

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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.