Whistling on Berner Street

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

Name:William Mortimer
Estimated Birth Year:abt 1840
Date of Registration:Jan-Feb-Mar 1889
Age at Death:49
Registration district:St George in The East
Inferred County:London
Volume:1c
Page:251

1891 Census:
36 Berner Street, St George in the East
Head: F Mortimer (Widow) aged 50 born "Don't know" England - Mangle woman
Children:
M (Female) aged 14
C (Male) aged 13
E (Male) aged 11
Rose aged 10
John aged 8
All born in St George East

Mortimer's husband died within months of Stride's Murder, so he may have been sleeping in the front room because he was too ill to get upstairs, or because there were lodgers upstairs, or both. They certainly weren't empty nesters. Would woman caring for a sick husband and five kids be in a position to exhibit a wealthy appearance?

Cheers, George

You're right George - the kids weren't old enough to have left home. It does seem a mystery that Fanny was described in the manner she was. If it was her, of course.

Do you agree with my suggestion in #364, that the source for that Irish Times snippet, was Mrs. Artisan? If yes (or even if no), what do you make of this bit ...?

He seems to have returned home about a quarter to 1...

Did Mrs A give the IT reporter that information? Is that what she was told? If yes, perhaps Fanny locked up at closer to 12:50 than 1am, with Diemschitz arriving just prior. That would make sense of Fanny having said that she heard Smith pass just before 12:45, and her saying she went to the yard just after 1am - she was about 5 to 10 minutes 'ahead of time'. That would seem to place Fanny at he door at 12:45. She sees Goldstein. She does not see Schwartz or anyone else from Schwartz's tale. Were they actually there to be seen?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don’t know the answer to the whistle question and I can’t say that it bothers me. I’ve spent too long on here listening to fantasies.

No, you don't know. Your constantly repeated claim that "we know what happened", is a hollow one.

Schwartz saw a conflict at the gates of the club at around 12.45. Variations between the 2 ‘versions’ can be put down to factors like different interpreters, Press error/exaggeration etc. The fact that no one saw him is irrelevant. The ‘events’ tally up using a reasonable, sensible margin for error. Stride was killed by an unknown man who might or might not have been BS Man who in turn might or might not have been the ripper. Diemschutz found the body at 1.00 (allowing for clock error of course)

Thats what happened. There’s no need to read every single newspaper in existence in order to manipulate a mystery. The idea of a plot is laughable. Could Schwartz have lied about being there? Very little is impossible but it’s extremely unlikely. Your attempt at ‘discovering’ a mystery is a deliberate and wilful effort to invent one from nothing purely so that you can say that you’ve discovered something new.

It is quite telling that you accuse me of reading the papers to work out what happened. That is, of being aware of the evidence and attempting to form a theory around it. Then there is your bizarre and repeated claim that by doing so, I'm attempting to create a mystery. This is exactly backwards. We actually start with a mystery, and go from there. The identity of the WM is a mystery, which some people are interested in solving, or at least narrowing down the field of candidates. Perhaps you are opposed to this, on the basis that you actually prefer the mystery to remain, permanently.

As for laughable ideas, that is exactly what I think about Israel Schwartz's story. No one witnessed it because it never happened, and Schwartz was likely a fake witness.

[GBinOz]

Is it possible the Mortimers' had more wealth than might be supposed by the husbands occupation? If Fanny had borders in the otherwise spare room(s), Mr & Mrs Mortimer would have effectively been 'double income no kids'. In that case, she may have been able to dress better than the wives of most carmen.

Hi Andrew,

Name:William Mortimer
Estimated Birth Year:abt 1840
Date of Registration:Jan-Feb-Mar 1889
Age at Death:49
Registration district:St George in The East
Inferred County:London
Volume:1c
Page:251

1891 Census:
36 Berner Street, St George in the East
Head: F Mortimer (Widow) aged 50 born "Don't know" England - Mangle woman
Children:
M (Female) aged 14
C (Male) aged 13
E (Male) aged 11
Rose aged 10
John aged 8
All born in St George East

Mortimer's husband died within months of Stride's Murder, so he may have been sleeping in the front room because he was too ill to get upstairs, or because there were lodgers upstairs, or both. They certainly weren't empty nesters. Would woman caring for a sick husband and five kids be in a position to exhibit a wealthy appearance?

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're missing of the point is quite predictable. Firstly, all times qualified by the word 'about', are approximates. Secondly, do we even know the approximate time Kozebrodsky was first by the body?

12:40 GMT is not the issue here. Instead, what I'm alluding to is that there are several pieces of evidence that point to Koz being alerted to the murder, and his involvement in its immediate aftermath, that are not part of the 'official' story. The following is quite fascinating, if literally true.

IK in the EN: "I came into the club about which you are asking me at half-past twelve o'clock. Shortly after I came in Diemschitz asked me to come out into the yard, as he saw there was something unusual had taken place there."

Shortly after? So where was IK shortly before that? Not at the club, it would seem, but close to it.



Already explained in #364. Either you haven't read that post carefully, or you've chosen to ignore what I said about this.



That is your opinion, but it seems to me that any evidence that appears to contradict the 'accepted story', is highly likely to offend you, and use of said evidence in a theory, is highly likely to cause you to be outraged.

If we know what happened, then put your money where your mouth is, and tell us who blew the early whistle.

I don’t know the answer to the whistle question and I can’t say that it bothers me. I’ve spent too long on here listening to fantasies.

Schwartz saw a conflict at the gates of the club at around 12.45. Variations between the 2 ‘versions’ can be put down to factors like different interpreters, Press error/exaggeration etc. The fact that no one saw him is irrelevant. The ‘events’ tally up using a reasonable, sensible margin for error. Stride was killed by an unknown man who might or might not have been BS Man who in turn might or might not have been the ripper. Diemschutz found the body at 1.00 (allowing for clock error of course)

Thats what happened. There’s no need to read every single newspaper in existence in order to manipulate a mystery. The idea of a plot is laughable. Could Schwartz have lied about being there? Very little is impossible but it’s extremely unlikely. Your attempt at ‘discovering’ a mystery is a deliberate and wilful effort to invent one from nothing purely so that you can say that you’ve discovered something new.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Herlock,

Here we have exactly what I was talking about - an entire theory based on a fallacy. If you read the actual wording it states that Mrs Artisan was in a group of women chatting some three doors from the gateway. It does not say that she lived there.

"I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.' "

The curious thing about this is that the Coram knife had a 10 inch blade, but that was not found until the following evening. Seems a little specific for any witness or bystander to be announcing within minutes of the discovery of the body. It might be noted that neither of the two interviews with Mortimer contain this reference, and only one of them quoted her name.

A fascinating coincidence, that would seem to have one of the following explanations:

* a lucky guess
* the knife was left behind, and it's size was estimated correctly
* those were the words of the murderer

There is no specific evidence that the knife was left behind, of course. If Joseph Koster was the man who spoke those words, then he surely just made a 'lucky' guess. Having said that, are you aware of the first name of the Batty Street Lodger?

I'm really not seeing the problem with a second woman being interviewed. There are sufficient differences in their statements, and Mortimer would have mentioned seeing Leon twice - I do not read the word "previously" in the same context as Andrew although I can see how he could have that interpretation.

There is an article here:
https://jfiles00.tripod.com/explore/...t/berner_t.htm (click on here for descriptive tour)
which has the following talking about the section of Berner St nearest Commercial Road:
"For the neighborhood is composed of many small brick dwellings, and is "thickly populated by artisans," such as "tailors, shoe-makers, cigarette makers, and others - mostly Poles and Germans - who do their work at home."

What is there that prevails against a woman from this area being interviewed? A reason that begins "it is not possible that a second woman was interviewed because...".

Cheers, George

Is it possible the Mortimers' had more wealth than might be supposed by the husbands occupation? If Fanny had borders in the otherwise spare room(s), Mr & Mrs Mortimer would have effectively been 'double income no kids'. In that case, she may have been able to dress better than the wives of most carmen.

[caz]

Hello George,

I can't think any reason Baxter would call Mortimer to the inquest.

Baxters job was to find out who the deceased person was and how, when and where they died and to provide the details needed for their death to be registered. Mortimer had nothing to offer on any of those criteria that other witnesses weren't more qualified to give..

The only unique information she could have offered, Goldstein, had already been dismissed. There is no surprise she wasn't called.

This suggests that the police were satisfied that Goldstein told them the truth about his movements and could be eliminated from their enquiries. Mortimer stated that he was the only person she had seen on Berner Street, so she had witnessed precisely nothing in connection with the murder.

Love,

Caz
X

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Caz,

I suppose it could seem to be loaded. I was commented on the tendency for posters to comment "if the times were wrong or conflicting, why didn't the police or the coroner raise questions". That was the reason why they didn't.

I think it would be reasonable to suggest that the majority of discussion on these forums is repetitive conjecture and speculation based on contradictory press reports, proposed accurate-to the-minute timings and the interminable minute (size) examination of every word and phrase for alternative meanings, sinister plots and bias justifications. Nevertheless, we endeavour to persevere, who knows why.

Interspersed amongst the above are a few facts. It is a fact that in the Evening New 1 Oct 1888 there were three separate accounts of interviews with witnesses. Two were directly attributed to Mortimer. The third was not, and contained different detail. It is also fact that two witnesses reported hearing a police whistle before the police were located. What are the alternatives for dealing with these facts?
. Just ignoring the offending facts?
. Out of hand dismissal without supporting justification?
. Massage of language to achieve the desired result?
. Fanciful conjecture evolving into bias satisfying speculation?
. Proposing alternatives that may reasonably explain the circumstances of the factual statements.

In the facts at hand, the first can be addressed by a second witness (Mrs Artisan), and nobody gets hurt. Unless Leon was "beamed" to the Spectacle he had to get there somehow and it is more likely than not that he used the same route going and returning. The possibility that he was observed by more than one door stoop snoop shouldn't raise an eyebrow. Does it matter if the police questioned him (marginal notes suggest that possibility)? There was no proof that he did anything but walk to a cafe and then return home.

George,
I can't bear to admit that Leon had to get there somehow. It's just too painful!
You're right though - Goldstein probably used the same route, going and returning. Israel Schwartz was probably the same. It's a shame that Goldstein was seen twice, and Schwartz not at all, especially considering that Goldstein was said to have walked by hurriedly, and Schwartz said he stopped to look at the altercation at the gates, before running off to the railway arch. Perhaps even more so considering that Schwartz may have meant the arch closest to 22 Christian street - meaning they would have taken pretty much the same route, and not far apart in time.

The second fact can be addressed by a little research, which showed that the WVC were issued with police whistles leading to the reasonable conclusion that it is likely that it was one of their members that blew the initial alarm whistle. No drama, no contortions, no consequences, just a reasonable straight forward solution.

Cheers, George

There is a very good YouTube channel called Fascinating Horror, with an intro to JtR video, which mentions the WVC and its patrolmen equipped with whistles and sticks. It hardly seems that this is obscure knowledge, yet it took a while for it to be mentioned here. Perhaps those who were so sure that the 'early' police whistle, must have been blown by a policeman, had fallen for the trap - the trap of plausibility.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But we know that Kozebrodski wasn’t with the body at 12.40.

You're missing of the point is quite predictable. Firstly, all times qualified by the word 'about', are approximates. Secondly, do we even know the approximate time Kozebrodsky was first by the body?

12:40 GMT is not the issue here. Instead, what I'm alluding to is that there are several pieces of evidence that point to Koz being alerted to the murder, and his involvement in its immediate aftermath, that are not part of the 'official' story. The following is quite fascinating, if literally true.

IK in the EN: "I came into the club about which you are asking me at half-past twelve o'clock. Shortly after I came in Diemschitz asked me to come out into the yard, as he saw there was something unusual had taken place there."

Shortly after? So where was IK shortly before that? Not at the club, it would seem, but close to it.

Was he a dwarf? How could Kezebridski be described as ‘a little boy?’

Already explained in #364. Either you haven't read that post carefully, or you've chosen to ignore what I said about this.

Just garbled versions of versions told by people keen to be involved.

We know what happened.

That is your opinion, but it seems to me that any evidence that appears to contradict the 'accepted story', is highly likely to offend you, and use of said evidence in a theory, is highly likely to cause you to be outraged.

If we know what happened, then put your money where your mouth is, and tell us who blew the early whistle.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Eagle as he ran past her house to get a Constable?

No, I don't think that's a particularly good suggestion. Eagle doesn't seem to have said anything about yelling through neighbours closed doors, as he made his way up Berner street calling for police. Why do you suppose he would have done that, regardless of not mentioning it to the coroner? The Irish Times snippet I quoted, offers a much more plausible candidate ...

Koster immediately ran across the road and saw a woman lying on her side in the gateway leading into Dutfield's stabling and van premises. ... He immediately roused the neighbours, and by the aid of a candle it was seen that the woman's throat was cut open very nearly from one ear to the other...

Why did you discount the possibility of it being Koster, without even mentioning his name?

It could be argued that Koster was not the man who made the reference to "ten inches of cold steel", as a completely literal interpretation of the IT article suggests that Koster roused the neighbours, and then observed the victim's wound by candlelight. Perhaps that means he did not go door-to-door to do his 'rousing', but stayed at the gateway. That in turn suggests that the rousing consisted of blowing a whistle, which suggests that Joseph Koster was on WVC patrol, and thus was on or at least close to Berner street, at the time of the murder. When Israel Schwartz turned into Berner street, he sees a man walking ahead of him, who he had not seen while he walked on Commercial Road. Just maybe ...

[drstrange169]

Hello George,

I can't think any reason Baxter would call Mortimer to the inquest.

Baxters job was to find out who the deceased person was and how, when and where they died and to provide the details needed for their death to be registered. Mortimer had nothing to offer on any of those criteria that other witnesses weren't more qualified to give..

The only unique information she could have offered, Goldstein, had already been dismissed. There is no surprise she wasn't called.

[GBinOz]

>>"it is not possible that a second woman was interviewed because...".<<

When it comes to ripperology nothing is "not possible".

The above sentence reads like something written on a wall, but I hope people get my drift.
I get your drift. I guess I was becoming frustrated with answers such as the obdurate " she only saw him once" or the lingual gymnastics of "up can mean down you know".

First thing to note is that the mystery woman is described as,

"... 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."

Was her husband "a well-to-do artisan" or was this merely an assumption on the writer's part because of the "strong contrast to many of those around her"?

The writer of this piece, which appears on page two of the paper, is clearly different from the interviewer of Mortimer on page three. There is also a lot of poetic licence in the first writer's piece.

If these are in fact two different women why is only one of them ever referred to subsequently?

The police report says Goldstein was

"the man that passed down Berner St. with a black bag at that hour"

The Evening News the next day wrote,

"It is a remarkable fact that the only man Mrs. Mortimer observed in Berner street, early on Sunday morning, carried a shiny black bag."
LOOK FOR A MAN WITH A BLACK BAG!
Below will be found "A Plausible Suggestion," signed "Medicus." The writer apparently had no knowledge at the time he despatched his letter of the statement made by a young man named Albert Baskert, of 13 Newnham street, Whitechapel, and therefore the coincidence is, to say the least, peculiar.

"Medicus" says that if the murderer wore a pair of dissecting gloves and an ordinary glazed mackintosh, his work could be accomplished, and the gloves and mackintosh wrapped up in a brief bag, and the man would immediately appear a respectable clerk returning late from the City.

It is a remarkable fact that the only man Mrs. Mortimer observed in Berner street, early on Sunday morning, carried a shiny black bag.

I read this as a part of the Medicus statement rather than a comment by the paper.

If they knew they had two witnesses, why give credence to only one?

Either both were Mortimer, with one report being more sensational than the other or, if separate, the first story was dismissed by both the police and the paper itself.

Hi Dusty,

It appears the police or the coroner dismissed Mortimer as well when she wasn't called to the inquest.

You make some good points but I do not find myself persuaded.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Firstly, of course I accept that I misread the quote so it of course can’t be stated that she lived next door to Mortimer. This wasn’t an attempt to prove a ‘theory’ by dishonesty George, it was simply an error on my part.
I never thought it was anything but an error.

Of course it’s not impossible that this was a different woman. If it was then we have 2 women who both spent some time on their doorsteps that evening and saw nothing. They were both alerted to events at the club just as they were about to go to bed and both got to the club before a crowd began to gather. I still think that it’s more likely that this woman was Fanny. Why didn’t the reporter get her name?
I don't know why he didn't get her name. I would have been nice if he had quoted all the names of the gossip group, but he didn't. We already had a second woman doing some door stoop snooping - Letchford's sister. Maybe she was one of the group? And don't forget Marshall. Of course two people's description of the same event are going to have similarities. But there are also differences. In her interview Mortimer refers to the man who discovered the body, not by name, but as the manager and caretaker of the club. Why didn't she give his name? Mrs Artisan refers to him as Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club and "Mr. Lewis, who travels in cheap drapery things a bit now and again".

Even if this was a second women what does she add to the case?
She places Leon in the area at the time of the murder rather than at the coffee shop. We don't know the extent of the police investigation into his movements, but Leon must have been concerned to have pre-emptively reported to the police. In the end the police had no more evidence than that he went to a coffee house and then returned home.

Cheers, George

[drstrange169]

>>"it is not possible that a second woman was interviewed because...".<<

When it comes to ripperology nothing is "not possible".

The above sentence reads like something written on a wall, but I hope people get my drift.

First thing to note is that the mystery woman is described as,

"... 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."

Was her husband "a well-to-do artisan" or was this merely an assumption on the writer's part because of the "strong contrast to many of those around her"?

The writer of this piece, which appears on page two of the paper, is clearly different from the interviewer of Mortimer on page three. There is also a lot of poetic licence in the first writer's piece.

If these are in fact two different women why is only one of them ever referred to subsequently?

The police report says Goldstein was

"the man that passed down Berner St. with a black bag at that hour"

The Evening News the next day wrote,

"It is a remarkable fact that the only man Mrs. Mortimer observed in Berner street, early on Sunday morning, carried a shiny black bag."

If they knew they had two witnesses, why give credence to only one?

Either both were Mortimer, with one report being more sensational than the other or, if separate, the first story was dismissed by both the police and the paper itself.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Here we have exactly what I was talking about - an entire theory based on a fallacy. If you read the actual wording it states that Mrs Artisan was in a group of women chatting some three doors from the gateway. It does not say that she lived there.

"I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.' "

The curious thing about this is that the Coram knife had a 10 inch blade, but that was not found until the following evening. Seems a little specific for any witness or bystander to be announcing within minutes of the discovery of the body. It might be noted that neither of the two interviews with Mortimer contain this reference, and only one of them quoted her name.

I'm really not seeing the problem with a second woman being interviewed. There are sufficient differences in their statements, and Mortimer would have mentioned seeing Leon twice - I do not read the word "previously" in the same context as Andrew although I can see how he could have that interpretation.

There is an article here:
https://jfiles00.tripod.com/explore/...t/berner_t.htm (click on here for descriptive tour)
which has the following talking about the section of Berner St nearest Commercial Road:
"For the neighborhood is composed of many small brick dwellings, and is "thickly populated by artisans," such as "tailors, shoe-makers, cigarette makers, and others - mostly Poles and Germans - who do their work at home."

What is there that prevails against a woman from this area being interviewed? A reason that begins "it is not possible that a second woman was interviewed because...".

Cheers, George

Firstly, of course I accept that I misread the quote so it of course can’t be stated that she lived next door to Mortimer. This wasn’t an attempt to prove a ‘theory’ by dishonesty George, it was simply an error on my part.

Of course it’s not impossible that this was a different woman. If it was then we have 2 women who both spent some time on their doorsteps that evening and saw nothing. They were both alerted to events at the club just as they were about to go to bed and both got to the club before a crowd began to gather. I still think that it’s more likely that this woman was Fanny. Why didn’t the reporter get her name?

Even if this was a second women what does she add to the case?

[GBinOz]

So he estimates that she lived 3 doors from the club. Mortimer actually lived 2 doors from the club and yet she never mentions her next door neighbour being on the doorstep at the same time that she was on hers?

So she’d also spent sometime on her doorstep but neither she or Mortimer are aware of each other’s presence even though they were neighbours and must have known each other well?
It’s nothing to do with bias George. You have 2 women both just about to go to bed, living 2 and 3 doors from the Club, both spent time on their doorstep and saw Goldstein but little else of interest (so they’re basically giving the same story) both arrived at the club immediately after the first cry went up and before a crowd gathered. Neither mention seeing each other despite the fact that they had been standing on adjacent doorsteps at the same time and would undoubtedly have known each other well. And we have to ask why our reporter didn’t ask the name of the woman he was interviewing.

Surely we have to conclude that Mortimer and Mrs Artisan were one and the same George?

Hi Herlock,

Here we have exactly what I was talking about - an entire theory based on a fallacy. If you read the actual wording it states that Mrs Artisan was in a group of women chatting some three doors from the gateway. It does not say that she lived there.

"I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.' "

The curious thing about this is that the Coram knife had a 10 inch blade, but that was not found until the following evening. Seems a little specific for any witness or bystander to be announcing within minutes of the discovery of the body. It might be noted that neither of the two interviews with Mortimer contain this reference, and only one of them quoted her name.

I'm really not seeing the problem with a second woman being interviewed. There are sufficient differences in their statements, and Mortimer would have mentioned seeing Leon twice - I do not read the word "previously" in the same context as Andrew although I can see how he could have that interpretation.

There is an article here:
https://jfiles00.tripod.com/explore/...t/berner_t.htm (click on here for descriptive tour)
which has the following talking about the section of Berner St nearest Commercial Road:
"For the neighborhood is composed of many small brick dwellings, and is "thickly populated by artisans," such as "tailors, shoe-makers, cigarette makers, and others - mostly Poles and Germans - who do their work at home."

What is there that prevails against a woman from this area being interviewed? A reason that begins "it is not possible that a second woman was interviewed because...".

Cheers, George