Mile End Vigilance Committee

[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).

[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]

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?

[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]

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

[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]

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. ;-)

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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!

[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.