Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whistling on Berner Street

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    It does, but then what are we to make of Marshall, Brown, and club people, who all supposed the commotion began at close to 1am? If they were correct, then we would expect Mortimer to not agree with them - she was seemingly 10 minutes ahead of time. Yet she does agree with them, so in effect you're saying that Mortimer's clock was ahead of time by almost the same amount as these other witnesses were out, either subjectively or in reference to their own timepieces.

    Marshall: I went in about 12 o'clock and heard nothing more until I heard "Murder" being called in the street. It had then just gone 1 o'clock.

    Alternatively, the 10 minute report is wrong, or Mortimer badly underestimated the time she spent at her door, or she told the statement taking person, something different to what she told the press, not unlike Packer.

    That is not what the press reports indicate. The total ambiguity of who went for police, where and when, suggests to me that some other issue is being 'worked around' - something happened after the discovery, that they don't want us to know about. That something doesn't need to be sinister, but I think there is a reason we never get the full story.
    Hi Andrew,

    I was adjusting FMs time to Police time because I have a common event for Smith and FM - the sound of his boots passing. I don't have any common event for Marshall, Brown etc, so we're back to clock syncs. With all due respect, you do seem to have a propensity to look for mysteries in places that no one else suspects.

    Cheers, George
    “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

    Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

      Hi Andrew,

      I was adjusting FMs time to Police time because I have a common event for Smith and FM - the sound of his boots passing. I don't have any common event for Marshall, Brown etc, so we're back to clock syncs. With all due respect, you do seem to have a propensity to look for mysteries in places that no one else suspects.

      Cheers, George
      Okay, so let's go back to the 12:52 you mentioned in #179. That's about 15 minutes after Smith, which is probably close enough to be plausible. So given that time, can you give me an approximate time for the relevant events for Schwartz, Goldstein, and Diemschitz?
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

        Okay, so let's go back to the 12:52 you mentioned in #179. That's about 15 minutes after Smith, which is probably close enough to be plausible. So given that time, can you give me an approximate time for the relevant events for Schwartz, Goldstein, and Diemschitz?
        Schwartz about 12:46 - 12:47, Goldstein, don't know, Diemshitz about 12:52, all on Police time.
        “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

        Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

        Comment


        • Hi George,

          Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

          Schwartz about 12:46 - 12:47, Goldstein, don't know, Diemshitz about 12:52, all on Police time.
          It looks like we've come to very similar conclusions, only you're standardizing to police time and I'm standardizing to Dr. Blackwell - we're just adjusting the times to different clocks, but we both, presumably would conclude that Police Time and Dr. Blackwell's time are out of sync by some amount. I'm suggesting in the vicinity of 6 minutes, and I'm presuming you're somewhere around that too, give or take a few minutes. Both our recreations are, of course, trying to estimate that value, so I wouldn't expect us to have come to the exact same value, but I would hope we're not miles apart. If we're not, then we're coming to the same basic conclusion independently, and no doubt using some slightly different methods. That would be a good test of the robustness of recreating timelines with the information we have. Nice.

          - Jeff

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

            Schwartz about 12:46 - 12:47, Goldstein, don't know, Diemshitz about 12:52, all on Police time.
            Goldstein, don't know? Well as Fanny seems to have locked up prior to Schwartz, and Fanny sees Goldstein, then presumably Goldstein passed a few minutes before 12:45 (Police time). The only question coming out of that is; when did Brown visit the chandlers shop? There doesn't seem to be quite enough time between Schwartz and Diemschitz, so that too must have occurred at similar time to Goldstein's passing. Presumably these two just missed seeing each other, although it would be fun to fantasize what might have happened if their paths home had almost crossed...

            12.45 a.m. 30th. Leon Goldstein of 22 Christian Street, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got nearly as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he passed a woman, who was standing at her doorstep. He looked around over his shoulder at the club, and then on crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a man with a woman. He heard the woman say to the man, "Not tonight, maybe some other night", but just as he stepped from the kerb, a second man came out of the doorway of the chandlers shop across the road, and then Goldstein walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as his home near the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far. Upon being taken to the mortuary Goldstein identified the body as that of the woman he had seen.

            Jut a bit fun, George. I don't mean to create a mystery where none exists.
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

              Goldstein, don't know? Well as Fanny seems to have locked up prior to Schwartz, and Fanny sees Goldstein, then presumably Goldstein passed a few minutes before 12:45 (Police time). The only question coming out of that is; when did Brown visit the chandlers shop? There doesn't seem to be quite enough time between Schwartz and Diemschitz, so that too must have occurred at similar time to Goldstein's passing. Presumably these two just missed seeing each other, although it would be fun to fantasize what might have happened if their paths home had almost crossed...

              12.45 a.m. 30th. Leon Goldstein of 22 Christian Street, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got nearly as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he passed a woman, who was standing at her doorstep. He looked around over his shoulder at the club, and then on crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a man with a woman. He heard the woman say to the man, "Not tonight, maybe some other night", but just as he stepped from the kerb, a second man came out of the doorway of the chandlers shop across the road, and then Goldstein walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as his home near the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far. Upon being taken to the mortuary Goldstein identified the body as that of the woman he had seen.

              Jut a bit fun, George. I don't mean to create a mystery where none exists.
              I agree, Goldstein's passage can be placed during whatever time interval you have for Fanny Mortimer being on her doorstep.

              James Brown says he arrived home and about 15 minutes later heard the first search party, so his return journey can be estimated from that. If you are using the estimated durations as stated, then back up 15 minutes from the time you think the first search happened, but if you are correcting for the tendency to overestimate intervals, you back up 12m 33s. You should be able to approximate his journey from that.

              Given it appears Goldstein and Brown didn't see each other, if by your calculations you have Brown's journey during Fanny's vigil, then you could at least rule out some portion of her time on the doorstep and narrow the window that accommodates Goldstein. It's like building a puzzle, sometimes you know a piece goes "here", in section you've not built into yet, so the best you can do is just place it roughly. Others you can snap into place. We're never going to get the "exact right times", nor would we know if we did, but we can get something that is a good approximation, with known ranges of error. To be honest, with what little we have to work with, I'm pretty amazed we can do as much as we can.

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • Hi George,

                Just wondering, have you posted your police-based timeline in full somewhere? I see bits mentioned in various posts but I've not seen a full presentation of what you've worked out so far, but I easily may have missed it. I would be interested to see what you've come up with so far, and the parameters you're using to build it. I'm sure we'll be using different criterion for some of our decisions, which isn't a problem because there's choices to be made, and different researchers choose different options. To make a comparison between the timelines we would want to consider those differences in choices as well (such as you're standardizing to PC Smith, and I'm standardizing to Dr. Blackwell is one such choice difference). Also, for some witnesses we have multiple news stories, where their story is told a bit differently each time, so we may be drawing upon different statements at times.

                But, if despite all that, we still come to roughly similar timelines, only fixed to different standard clocks, it would improve our confidence in the robustness of the process. And, it would help point to any bits that require increased caution. For example, if you worked in Brown as per above, and he passes near the end of Fanny's vigil but before she goes in, and I have him passing shortly after she's gone inside, that would indicate we can't be sure exactly which was the case, but it appears those two events occur pretty close in time. That sort of comparison can help sharpen up our understanding of the events as well.

                Anyway, glad to see others working on the same problem.

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • I have a theory about the 'important statement' report, which presumably refers to Fanny Mortimer.

                  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 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. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

                  Presuming that the body did not lie in the yard when the policeman passed-and it could hardly, it is thought, have escaped his notice-and presuming also that the assassin and his victim did not enter the yard while the woman stood at the door, it follows that they must have entered it within a minute or two before the arrival of the pony trap. If this be a correct surmise, it is easy to understand that the criminal may have been interrupted at his work. Diemschitz says he thinks it quite possible that after he had entered the yard the assassin may have fled out of it, having lurked in the gloom until a favourable moment arrived.


                  I've always thought it strange that for a supposedly important statement, the statement maker is neither named nor quoted. This report appeared in a few papers, including the Evening News of Oct 1. Why did the EN deem it appropriate to publish three reports on Mortimer, in a single edition? The other two reports quote Mortimer, so why couldn't they quote her a third time? I've speculated that the reason for this anomaly is that the source of the statement referred to, is actually the police. That might explain why no quotes or names were given - the police did not provide those details, but merely gave a summary of the statement. The problem with that theory is; why would the police provide summary details of a witness statement, to the press? What's in it for them? Furthermore, we are told that the woman lived two doors from the club - so it seems fairly obvious who is being referred to. Thus the report provides no real anonymity for Fanny.

                  So who else might have taken the statement the report refers to? Consider this section from the EN's Oct 4 report on Matthew Packer...

                  We proceed to five hereunder the story of the two detectives, Messrs. Grand and J.H. Batchelor, of 283 Strand: When they began their quest, almost from the first place at which they sought evidence from No. 44 Berner street, the second house from the spot at which the body was found. This is the residence of a man named Mathew Packer, who carries on a small business as a greengrocer and fruiterer. His shop is an insignificant place, with a half window in front, and most of his dealings are carried on through the lower part of the window case, in which his fruit is exposed for sale. Mathew Packer had valuable information to give, and after two or three interviews on the subject, made and signed a statement in writing, the substance of which is as follows:

                  So supposedly Packer signed a statement taken by Grand and Batchelor. Could the same have been true of Fanny Mortimer? If that seems a little far-fetched, who else might have spoken to Fanny, who had a connection with the vigilance committee?

                  The Morning Advertiser of Oct 3, provided details of a committee meeting...

                  Last night a special meeting of the Vigilance Committee, of which Mr. Lusk is chairman, took place at the committee-rooms, 74, Mile-end-road, to discuss the refusal of the Home Secretary to issue offers of a reward for the conviction of the man wanted, and to receive the expected replies from her Majesty the Queen and the Home Secretary to the petitions presented to them.

                  During that meeting, this occurred...

                  An intimation at this stage reached the meeting that some private detectives wished to be engaged in the case on behalf of the Vigilance Committee, but Mr. Reeves and Mr. Aarons announced that they had already three detectives at work, and a band of twenty young gentlemen had gathered for the purpose of patrolling one section of the haunted district, with the view of assisting the police in bringing the offender to justice. The services of these gentlemen were therefore declined.

                  So the committee had three detectives - not just Grand and Batchelor. Highly speculative to be sure, but could this third detective have been the important statement taker? There is no other reference to this third detective, as far as I know, and I think that includes this...

                  Michael Kidney: I told the inspector on duty at the police-station that I could give information provided he would let me have a young, strange detective to act on it, and he would not give me one.

                  Although there is still the question as to who was the source of the information that Kidney claimed to have, but held back from the coroner.
                  Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 12-02-2021, 11:59 PM.
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                    ...

                    Michael Kidney: I told the inspector on duty at the police-station that I could give information provided he would let me have a young, strange detective to act on it, and he would not give me one.
                    Just in case anyone was wondering, Kidney was asking for a young Detective not known to the area, a stranger.
                    The wording in the Daily News, 4 Oct. was easier to understand.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                      ...

                      I've always thought it strange that for a supposedly important statement, the statement maker is neither named nor quoted. This report appeared in a few papers, including the Evening News of Oct 1. Why did the EN deem it appropriate to publish three reports on Mortimer, in a single edition? The other two reports quote Mortimer, so why couldn't they quote her a third time?...
                      I can't be sure if it was in Fishman's, The East End 1888, or Curtis's, Jack the Ripper and the London Press, but I read that on occasion in the Newspaper editing process a brief report might be set in the type-press. These were assembled letter by letter, therefore if a later report came in just prior to publication time it would be added in the later pages, rather than try remove the earlier account by unpicking hundreds of letters already set in columns and then shifting every other story in the press to close the gap.

                      Setting the type-press was a labor intensive process, they didn't always have to time to rework everything for the sake of one report.
                      In this case if we have three differing reports it likely means three different sources.

                      On a hot topic like the Whitechapel Murders a Newspaper might have their own journalist on the street interviewing witnesses, but also they might buy alternate accounts from an agency over the telegraph like the Central News or the Press Association. So in an extreme case we might read three differing accounts of a witness interview. Each account is original, yet different
                      Last edited by Wickerman; 12-03-2021, 02:09 AM.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                        Hi George,

                        Just wondering, have you posted your police-based timeline in full somewhere? I see bits mentioned in various posts but I've not seen a full presentation of what you've worked out so far, but I easily may have missed it. I would be interested to see what you've come up with so far, and the parameters you're using to build it. I'm sure we'll be using different criterion for some of our decisions, which isn't a problem because there's choices to be made, and different researchers choose different options. To make a comparison between the timelines we would want to consider those differences in choices as well (such as you're standardizing to PC Smith, and I'm standardizing to Dr. Blackwell is one such choice difference). Also, for some witnesses we have multiple news stories, where their story is told a bit differently each time, so we may be drawing upon different statements at times.

                        But, if despite all that, we still come to roughly similar timelines, only fixed to different standard clocks, it would improve our confidence in the robustness of the process. And, it would help point to any bits that require increased caution. For example, if you worked in Brown as per above, and he passes near the end of Fanny's vigil but before she goes in, and I have him passing shortly after she's gone inside, that would indicate we can't be sure exactly which was the case, but it appears those two events occur pretty close in time. That sort of comparison can help sharpen up our understanding of the events as well.

                        Anyway, glad to see others working on the same problem.

                        - Jeff
                        Hi Jeff,

                        I posted my timeline some time ago on the "if Schwartz lied" thread before you published your table of estimate times. I have made a couple of small changes since then so I'll post it again here, again with my proviso that, while times are shown to a minute, they are still approximate. Times are Police times.

                        Before 12:34 - Wess & company leave, Letchford arrives, Lave goes outside (and returns 5 to 10 minutes later), Eagle returns to the club, Stride & companion arrive opposite the club
                        12:34 - Smith sees Parcelman and Stride and is heard passing by FM.
                        12:35 - Parcelman and Stride cross into the yard just before FM arrives at her door. FM’s clock is running 10 minutes fast and shows 12:45. Couple arrives at the corner of the board school

                        12:45 - PM leaves door after locking up. Brown passes and sees the couple. Couple depart. Schwartz turns into Berner St.
                        12:47 - BSM and Schwartz arrive at the yard and BSM pulls Stride from the yard into the street. Schwartz crosses the road and proceeds to Fairclough St. Pipeman emerges, frightens Schwartz, BSM calls out Lipski. Pipeman and Schwartz depart to the south.
                        12:48 - 12:53 - Someone kills Stride

                        12:52 Letchford’s sister leaves doorstep.
                        12:52 - Diemshitz turns into Berner St. Club clock is running 10 minutes slow and reads 12:42.
                        12:53 - PM hears the cart pass. Diemshitz pulls into yard and horse shies.

                        12:53 to 12:55 - Diemshitz prods Stride with whip, climbs down from cart, lights match and sees shape of woman, goes into club searching for his wife, locates candle and returns to discover the body, alerts those in the club who emerge and light matches to observe the body.
                        12:55 - Club members depart the yard looking for police along Fairclough.

                        12:57 Diemshitz returns with Spooner. Koze and Eagle depart for Commercial Road.
                        12:59 - Lamb is alerted in Commercial Road and proceeds to the yard. Ayliffe follows shortly after.

                        1:00 – Lamb is standing over body.
                        1:01 - Lamb sends Constable for doctor and sends Eagle to Leman St PS.
                        1:02 - Smith arrives at the Berner St/Commercial Road corner and proceeds to yard.
                        1:03 - Johnson is alerted, goes to alert Blackwell, whose pocket watch is running fast and reads 1:10
                        1:06 - Johnson arrives at yard and is mistaken for Blackwell by Lamb and Diemshitz. Smith leaves to fetch ambulance.

                        1:07 – Johnston opens Stride’s collar and begins to examine body. Lamb closes gates.
                        1:09 - Blackwell arrives at yard, finds gates closed. Pocket watch is running fast and shows 1:16. Finds Stride’s collar is open. Blackwell estimates Stride has been dead 20 minutes to half hour:- i.e. about 12:40 to 12:50.


                        Cheers, George
                        Last edited by GBinOz; 12-03-2021, 07:16 AM.
                        “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                        Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                          I have a theory about the 'important statement' report, which presumably refers to Fanny Mortimer.

                          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 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. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

                          Presuming that the body did not lie in the yard when the policeman passed-and it could hardly, it is thought, have escaped his notice-and presuming also that the assassin and his victim did not enter the yard while the woman stood at the door, it follows that they must have entered it within a minute or two before the arrival of the pony trap. If this be a correct surmise, it is easy to understand that the criminal may have been interrupted at his work. Diemschitz says he thinks it quite possible that after he had entered the yard the assassin may have fled out of it, having lurked in the gloom until a favourable moment arrived.


                          I've always thought it strange that for a supposedly important statement, the statement maker is neither named nor quoted. This report appeared in a few papers, including the Evening News of Oct 1. Why did the EN deem it appropriate to publish three reports on Mortimer, in a single edition? The other two reports quote Mortimer, so why couldn't they quote her a third time? I've speculated that the reason for this anomaly is that the source of the statement referred to, is actually the police. That might explain why no quotes or names were given - the police did not provide those details, but merely gave a summary of the statement. The problem with that theory is; why would the police provide summary details of a witness statement, to the press? What's in it for them? Furthermore, we are told that the woman lived two doors from the club - so it seems fairly obvious who is being referred to. Thus the report provides no real anonymity for Fanny.

                          So who else might have taken the statement the report refers to? Consider this section from the EN's Oct 4 report on Matthew Packer...

                          We proceed to five hereunder the story of the two detectives, Messrs. Grand and J.H. Batchelor, of 283 Strand: When they began their quest, almost from the first place at which they sought evidence from No. 44 Berner street, the second house from the spot at which the body was found. This is the residence of a man named Mathew Packer, who carries on a small business as a greengrocer and fruiterer. His shop is an insignificant place, with a half window in front, and most of his dealings are carried on through the lower part of the window case, in which his fruit is exposed for sale. Mathew Packer had valuable information to give, and after two or three interviews on the subject, made and signed a statement in writing, the substance of which is as follows:

                          So supposedly Packer signed a statement taken by Grand and Batchelor. Could the same have been true of Fanny Mortimer? If that seems a little far-fetched, who else might have spoken to Fanny, who had a connection with the vigilance committee?

                          The Morning Advertiser of Oct 3, provided details of a committee meeting...

                          Last night a special meeting of the Vigilance Committee, of which Mr. Lusk is chairman, took place at the committee-rooms, 74, Mile-end-road, to discuss the refusal of the Home Secretary to issue offers of a reward for the conviction of the man wanted, and to receive the expected replies from her Majesty the Queen and the Home Secretary to the petitions presented to them.

                          During that meeting, this occurred...

                          An intimation at this stage reached the meeting that some private detectives wished to be engaged in the case on behalf of the Vigilance Committee, but Mr. Reeves and Mr. Aarons announced that they had already three detectives at work, and a band of twenty young gentlemen had gathered for the purpose of patrolling one section of the haunted district, with the view of assisting the police in bringing the offender to justice. The services of these gentlemen were therefore declined.

                          So the committee had three detectives - not just Grand and Batchelor. Highly speculative to be sure, but could this third detective have been the important statement taker? There is no other reference to this third detective, as far as I know, and I think that includes this...

                          Michael Kidney: I told the inspector on duty at the police-station that I could give information provided he would let me have a young, strange detective to act on it, and he would not give me one.

                          Although there is still the question as to who was the source of the information that Kidney claimed to have, but held back from the coroner.
                          Hi Andrew,

                          I have to say that I award you full marks for your research.

                          "Why did the EN deem it appropriate to publish three reports on Mortimer, in a single edition? The other two reports quote Mortimer, so why couldn't they quote her a third time?"

                          As we have discussed before, I don't think the third interview, published first in the EN publication, was with Mortimer. The reporter says that he interviewed a well dressed woman, talking to neighbours, who was the wife of a well to do artisan. Mortimer's husband was a Carman. The woman also reports seeing Goldstein heading north on Berner St towards Commercial Road, where as Mortimer has him headed south and turning into Fairclough. I wondered if Mortimer may have been Letchford's sister but her wedding certificate showed her a spinster with a different maiden name. Perhaps the artisan's wife was Letchford's sister?

                          Cheers, George
                          “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                          Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

                          Comment


                          • Hi George,

                            Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                            Hi Jeff,

                            I posted my timeline some time ago on the "if Schwartz lied" thread before you published your table of estimate times. I have made a couple of small changes since then so I'll post it again here, again with my proviso that, while times are shown to a minute, they are still approximate. Times are Police times.

                            Before 12:34 - Wess & company leave, Letchford arrives, Lave goes outside (and returns 5 to 10 minutes later), Eagle returns to the club, Stride & companion arrive opposite the club
                            12:34 - Smith sees Parcelman and Stride and is heard passing by FM.
                            12:35 - Parcelman and Stride cross into the yard just before FM arrives at her door. FM’s clock is running 10 minutes fast and shows 12:45. Couple arrives at the corner of the board school

                            12:45 - PM leaves door after locking up. Brown passes and sees the couple. Couple depart. Schwartz turns into Berner St.
                            12:47 - BSM and Schwartz arrive at the yard and BSM pulls Stride from the yard into the street. Schwartz crosses the road and proceeds to Fairclough St. Pipeman emerges, frightens Schwartz, BSM calls out Lipski. Pipeman and Schwartz depart to the south.
                            12:48 - 12:53 - Someone kills Stride

                            12:52 Letchford’s sister leaves doorstep.
                            12:52 - Diemshitz turns into Berner St. Club clock is running 10 minutes slow and reads 12:42.
                            12:53 - PM hears the cart pass. Diemshitz pulls into yard and horse shies.

                            12:53 to 12:55 - Diemshitz prods Stride with whip, climbs down from cart, lights match and sees shape of woman, goes into club searching for his wife, locates candle and returns to discover the body, alerts those in the club who emerge and light matches to observe the body.
                            12:55 - Club members depart the yard looking for police along Fairclough.

                            12:57 Diemshitz returns with Spooner. Koze and Eagle depart for Commercial Road.
                            12:59 - Lamb is alerted in Commercial Road and proceeds to the yard. Ayliffe follows shortly after.

                            1:00 – Lamb is standing over body.
                            1:01 - Lamb sends Constable for doctor and sends Eagle to Leman St PS.
                            1:02 - Smith arrives at the Berner St/Commercial Road corner and proceeds to yard.
                            1:03 - Johnson is alerted, goes to alert Blackwell, whose pocket watch is running fast and reads 1:10
                            1:06 - Johnson arrives at yard and is mistaken for Blackwell by Lamb and Diemshitz. Smith leaves to fetch ambulance.

                            1:07 – Johnston opens Stride’s collar and begins to examine body. Lamb closes gates.
                            1:09 - Blackwell arrives at yard, finds gates closed. Pocket watch is running fast and shows 1:16. Finds Stride’s collar is open. Blackwell estimates Stride has been dead 20 minutes to half hour:- i.e. about 12:40 to 12:50.


                            Cheers, George
                            Ah, so I wasn't going mad! I thought you had, but I couldn't recall what thread it was in and must have missed it when scanning through various attempts. Anyway, looking at the two, we're pretty much in agreement, with roughly 6-7 minutes of sync difference between PC Smith's clock and Blackwell, so if one adds 6 or 7 minutes to each of your times it's very similar to what I've come to, and if one subtracts 6-7 minutes from my times, we get something very similar to yours. Nice.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                              Hi Andrew,

                              I have to say that I award you full marks for your research.
                              Hi George. Thanks.

                              "Why did the EN deem it appropriate to publish three reports on Mortimer, in a single edition? The other two reports quote Mortimer, so why couldn't they quote her a third time?"

                              As we have discussed before, I don't think the third interview, published first in the EN publication, was with Mortimer. The reporter says that he interviewed a well dressed woman, talking to neighbours, who was the wife of a well to do artisan. Mortimer's husband was a Carman. The woman also reports seeing Goldstein heading north on Berner St towards Commercial Road, where as Mortimer has him headed south and turning into Fairclough. I wondered if Mortimer may have been Letchford's sister but her wedding certificate showed her a spinster with a different maiden name. Perhaps the artisan's wife was Letchford's sister?

                              Cheers, George
                              Are you sure the reporter wasn't only commenting on her appearance, rather than what he had been told about her? Why would the husbands occupation be volunteered or asked about?

                              Some three doors from the gateway where the body of the first victim was discovered, I saw a clean, respectable-looking woman chatting with one or two neighbours. She was apparently the wife of a well-to-do artisan, and formed a strong contrast to many of those around her.

                              Isn't this just Fanny wearing her Sunday best?

                              Regarding Goldstein heading north versus south, to me this comes back to the question of what was meant about the man Mortimer had seen pass through the street previously. Let's assume she did go to her door on Smith's passing, and this was at 12:45 Mortimer Time. She also goes to the yard just after 1am MT. Why did she not then say...?

                              I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between a quarter to one and one o'clock this morning, and did not notice anything unusual.

                              Why can't she have also gone to her door at 12:30 MT? If she had briefly come in at 12:40 MT, she could have seen Goldstein walk south in that (previous) period. The 5 minute or so gap would then justify her claim to have been at her doorstep nearly all of that half hour. At 12:45 MT, she goes to the door with the intention of shooting the bolts. It's obvious to me why the bolts weren't already shot. It's also obvious that the 10 minutes only theory, leaves too much unexplained.

                              According to the thread on Letchford's sister, the occupations of the husbands of the sisters were; porter, carman, boot maker.
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                I can't be sure if it was in Fishman's, The East End 1888, or Curtis's, Jack the Ripper and the London Press, but I read that on occasion in the Newspaper editing process a brief report might be set in the type-press. These were assembled letter by letter, therefore if a later report came in just prior to publication time it would be added in the later pages, rather than try remove the earlier account by unpicking hundreds of letters already set in columns and then shifting every other story in the press to close the gap.

                                Setting the type-press was a labor intensive process, they didn't always have to time to rework everything for the sake of one report.
                                In this case if we have three differing reports it likely means three different sources.

                                On a hot topic like the Whitechapel Murders a Newspaper might have their own journalist on the street interviewing witnesses, but also they might buy alternate accounts from an agency over the telegraph like the Central News or the Press Association. So in an extreme case we might read three differing accounts of a witness interview. Each account is original, yet different
                                How does this explain why one of the three reports does not name or quote the person who made the statement?

                                The second paragraph (see #188), sounds very much like the thoughts of a detective. Someone is trying to work out what happened, and not just provide a report. I think the speculation is owing to the person who took the statement, and not the journalist responsible for the report.
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X