Two

[Roy Corduroy]

Fanny had nothing to hide or to gain by fabricating.

We don't know that. The killer might have been a friend of hers.

Roy

[Jeff Leahy]

We will never know. But the police investigating probably covered the angles and gave these things due consideration. So we can only go by the police statement and press reports.

I wasn’t trying to pin anything on Fanny. Just remarking it was odd that she stood outside her house for ten minutes on a damp autumn evening.

Perhaps its only odd from my twentieth century perspective, perhaps she would find it odd that I choose to stay in all evening watching little glowing boxes with writing on them. I believe Don gave a lecture talking about MJK and Joe Barnett reading out loud. His point was very similar. We must remember that they were from a different age to our own and we might miss the obvious explanations without wearing a 19th century hat..

Perhaps as Michael suggested she was just taking in the smell? Or perhaps this was the closest thing she had to TV? Personally I have her smoking a pipe, but perhaps people only did that indoors at this time?

I guess it’s the sort of question best fired and Henry Allingham rather than a Ripper expert, and alas he has gone.

Cheers all

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

I wasn’t trying to pin anything on Fanny. Just remarking it was odd that she stood outside her house for ten minutes on a damp autumn evening.

Fanny wasn't standing outside her house, she was standing in the doorway. She witnessed Leon Goldstein who recognized himself in her statement as it appeared in the papers. This makes her about the only corroborated witness on the street in the time after 12:30am.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Fanny's doorway opened directly on to the street..

are you suggesting she had her door open and was deliberately letting the heat out?

Still seems odd

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm suggesting nothing. She stated she was in her doorway.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

well as her door way opened directly onto the street. She was either standing on the street. Half on the street, half in the house, or in her own house.

All of which changes drastically her angle of view or events.

Pirate

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

It was really the norm at that time to stand in doorways of houses, or sit on the doorstep for a great part of the day and evening, for several reasons - odd as it may seem to us.

The routine lasted well into the 1950's and even the 1960's in East London, (and most urban communities throughout the country) when they began to knock down the rows of terraced houses and replace them with high rise flats.

There were quite a few reasons they did it.

Many would just stand nattering with neighbours to pass the time because there was generally much a greater community spirit than now and they took a much greater interest in helping (or gossiping about) their neighbours.

That's not univerally true of course, because there is a still a good community spirit in many areas in this country and around the world, but it was a well known trait of the Cockney that they helped one another out in times of trouble and shared fortune, both good and bad. Standing on doorsteps apparently helped this along.

With no TV and radio it was more interesting to see what was going on in the street, rather than sit staring at the four walls, your partner, 15 kids and a scraggy moggy.

Many working class households didn't have a clock or watch, so standing in the doorway and observing the street was a way of finding out the time and keeping abreast of the news and gossip in the community.

The houses were often very overcrowded and dirty and it was far more pleasant standing or sitting outside.

Having the door open prevented damp and mould from forming and aired the place out.

Obviously it was done far less in the winter months.

Hugs

Jane

xxxx

[perrymason]

HI Jane,

Its no different to the front porches that were in use all over the neighbourhoods I grew up in....everyone was out at night...smoking, talking, reading, just "being".....I think Fanny might well have been doing anyone of those except talking....unless to herself.

I think one of the contentious parts for me is the status of the yard after a meeting on Saturday night that held 200 or so people. Its 12:40...Eagle returns and enters a yard that Lave says he was also in at 12:40, and by the "street"...not only dont they see each other in a yard that was around 8-9 feet across from Club Wall to the Cottages, they see no one else. There is no one left onsite save the 28 men upstairs. Not one using the privvy or having a pipe..not one getting some air....not one lingering around taking a break from the song and probable drink....not one having a private conversation.

It seems that between around 11:30pm and 12:40am, approximately 173 people leave the club and the yard. And just one returns...Eagle. But all the remaining men onsite are not only indoors, but 1 flight up from the street.

The neighbors had no recollection problems regarding similar after meeting Saturday nights and "low men and women in the yard after 1am"....so if this night was as described by Eagle, Lave and Schwartz, it was rare in the clubs history.

Cheers Janie....all.

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't know how it is in your parts of the world, but one observation I made a long time ago is that here in the states, sometime in the 50's, houses started being built with back porches instead of front porches. Blaim on it TV, but people started becoming more insular around that time.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Not as suggestive as Schwartz not being asked to appear.

Do we know that he wasn't asked?

[Archaic]

Witness Procedure

Hi, Sam & everyone.

I have a question about Witness Procedure:

If a witness such as Schwartz ought to have appeared to give his testimony, but claimed he was "too afraid" of the consequences- such as the killer seeking revenge against himself and his family- would the police have let him off?

Thanks, Archaic

[perrymason]

Hi, Sam & everyone.

I have a question about Witness Procedure:

If a witness such as Schwartz ought to have appeared to give his testimony, but claimed he was "too afraid" of the consequences- such as the killer seeking revenge against himself and his family- would the police have let him off?

Thanks, Archaic

If his testimony was deemed vital, No. His statement could have been entered without him present, he could have written one anonymously that was read aloud at the Inquest, he could have been introduced under a false name, he could have been sequestered like Lawende was before the Inquest,...there are many ways to have his statement appear on record at the Inquest that would protect him and his identity.

Now...with that in mind....and with the knowledge that if he told the truth his statement is one of the more important statements of any Canonical murder....what does his absence likely indicate?

Its not a trick question...he didnt appear because the police chose not to call him as a witness.

Cheers Archy

[Chris]

...he didnt appear because the police chose not to call him as a witness.

Of course, the simple fact is that, much as you may wish you knew why Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest, you don't. No one does.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Arch,

If a witness such as Schwartz ought to have appeared to give his testimony, but claimed he was "too afraid" of the consequences- such as the killer seeking revenge against himself and his family- would the police have let him off?

Perhaps it was the authorities, rather than Schwartz, who feared the consequences of giving his testimony a wider audience. After all, here was a Jew who may well have seen Jack the Ripper assaulting a woman outside a Jewish club. To compound matters, the assailant shouted out the name of a Jewish murderer whose trial had been a public sensation, and whose case was still fresh in people's minds. In this context, it's worth remembering that senior Metropolitan officers wanted to suppress a mere chalk message for fear that it might spark an anti-semitic riot.

[Archaic]

Thanks for the replies, everybody.

Hi, Sam, that's an interesting point, especially in light of how the police handled- or more accurately, obliterated- the Goulston Street Graffito.

But wasn't it already in the newspaper that the witness was Schwartz, a Hungarian Jew?

Do you think the police were just trying to take the focus off him, and off Jews in general?

Best regards, Archaic