The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I can see what you mean and have re-read Lamb's statement a dozen times, but just can't agree with your suggestion. Lamb replied to a question at the inquest saying that he passed the intersection of Commercial Road and Berner Street 6-7 minutes before he arrived at Dutfields yard. (There are those who insist he was 6 minutes out in this estimate.) The tobacconist clock that Diemshitz claimed to have viewed is at that intersection. I am in the minority of those who believe that Lamb is more likely to have looked at that clock on one or both occassions that he passed it than did Diemshitz. So Lamb, on his normal beat, passes that intersection headed east on the way to the fixed point at Grove St. He then turns around and heads west on his normal beat. In his testimony he is stating a time and place for when the two men were running towards him shouting. A minute or two later, at about 1 o'clock, he is in Dutfields yard and Smith stated that he was at the intersection of Commercial Road and Berner Street at one o'clock, the same time that Diemshitz said he was turning into Berner St from Commercial Road. Remembering that in every other statement before the inquest he said he turned into Berner St at his usual time of about one o'clock, except for one statement where he said 12:45 because he came home early due to the rain, are you going to say that Diemshitz was right and two police constables were wrong? That is not to suggest that Diemshitz was deliberately lying. Witnesses are known for sub consciously augmenting what they actually saw and he may have just firmed up his "usual time" for the inquest.

I asked Monty the question: how important was correct time to police constables. His reply was very important. I think it is time to determine an answer for the question: How did police constables keep an accurate track on time without pocket watches. I suspect that perhaps the overseeing seargent would set a pocket watch to GMT from the telegraphed time at the local police station and then provide clock corrections for clocks on the PC's rounds, but I'll follow that up.

Cheers, George

'Remembering that in every other statement before the inquest he said he turned into Berner St at his usual time of about one o'clock, except for one statement where he said 12:45 because he came home early due to the rain...'

Hi George,

Could you source this for me please, as I could have sworn the report you appear to be thinking of said something quite different? I thought Louis consistently said he noted the time as being one o'clock, but expanded on this in one article to say this was not his usual time, because he had left the Westow Hill market early due to the poor weather, so would normally have arrived back later than one o'clock. At the time I read the article in question, I thought this sounded consistent with his wife saying he had "suddenly" appeared at the kitchen door, as if she hadn't expected him back quite so soon. And she confirmed the one o'clock time, didn't she?

I don't recall reading anything to suggest that Louis had deviated from his one o'clock arrival/discovery time, let alone that he had slipped up somewhere along the line and said it was 12.45. Perhaps someone should have alerted Michael Richards to this bombshell a lot sooner.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

You do not believe that "these extra dramatic comings and goings" occurred, or at least did not occur when Michael claims they did, and yet Fanny's non-witnessing of these events - supposed or actual - still counts against Fanny's reliability as a witness? That is completely arbitrary.

Your reference to "a doorstep dwelling busybody", suggests that you regard Fanny Mortimer with disdain. Presumably she is a threat to things you wish to believe were true, and wish others to also believe.

You misunderstood the direction of my sarcasm, NBFN.

A bit like Schwartz misunderstanding the direction of the highly charged "Lipski!"

I wasn't really referring to Fanny's reliability, but to the fact that she admitted to hearing and seeing very little of any real evidential value during that entire half hour: she heard heavy footsteps between 12.30 and 12.45; and saw a man with a black bag between 12.45 and 1am. That was pretty much it, until she heard a pony and cart shortly before the sounds of the commotion in and around the yard. Not her fault at all, and she had to estimate the times and the intervals just like anyone else in her situation.

Incidentally, what a stroke of luck for Louis D, if he lied about his arrival time and delayed raising the alarm for up to twenty minutes, that someone else's pony and cart should have been audible to Fanny at a time which was consistent with Louis acting immediately on his grim discovery. Or did luck have nothing to do with it? Did the crafty so-and-so wait for Fanny to lock up and prepare for bed, then take his pony and cart round the block, so she would hear him coming and assume it was for the first time that night?

Today's theorists only get to play around with the comings and goings, adding or taking away at their leisure, because Fanny managed to miss so much of the known action, through no fault of her own.

It was not my argument that she was out on her doorstep for almost the entire half hour, making her not only appear like a 'doorstep dwelling busybody', but a particularly ineffectual one at that.

Is that how long it would take? So tell us how long Stride had been standing in the gateway, prior to Schwartz turning into Berner street. Then tell us how long she remained at the gateway after BS had left the scene. Or was BS the murderer? Apparently you know the answer, because it was apparently all over in the time it would take to take a pee.

What Schwartz described could all have been over in that time. Even if we take Schwartz out of the equation as an inconvenient witness, we know Stride was seen there on Berner Street alive and well, after 12.30, and that at some point she entered the yard for whatever reason, to be found dead there within the same half hour. Fanny never saw the woman. So she must have been indoors all the while Stride would have been visible from Fanny's doorstep. We don't know exactly how long that would have been before Stride was out of sight inside the yard, or if her killer was visible for any of that time, but Fanny saw nothing and nobody. How long she would have needed to be indoors to miss all that we know happened is anyone's guess.

Love,

Caz
X

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No it doesn’t. The ‘incident’ is purely what occurred in Berner Street. We can’t stretch it out just to make it more unlikely to have been missed.

That is just funny

After Schwartz turned out of Berner Street no one saw him or took notice of him.

Unlike the part in Berner street, witnessed by dozens?

Interesting you say that it begins from the point that Stride stands in the gateway because Fanny didn’t see her arrive there. And if Fanny went onto her doorstep at 12.45 this gives the lie to her statement of being on her doorstep for nearly the whole of the 30 minutes between 12.30 and 1.00. It’s half of that time wiped away straight away.

She went to her door to shoot the bolts. She had been previously been on her doorstep, and had left the door unlocked. There is no explicit indication that she not previously been on her doorstep, and the unlocked door supports the notion that she were on her doorstep most of the half hour, as she claimed. So that gives the lie to your claim.

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.

Guess who she saw the second time ... again?

Again, if she went onto her doorstep at 12.45 for 10 minutes (so until 12.55) why didn’t she see Stride.

Because she was not there to be seen. The whole "standing in the gateway", is a pile of garbage.

If the murder took place earlier Stride must have been there.

That is brilliant logic!

Fanny is a useless witness.

She is obviously a problem for the traditionalists.

[Michael W Richards]

Wrist watches were almost exclusively made for women until well into the 1880s, when military men decided they needed to tell the time quickly without having to whip out their pocket watches while fighting. For most men, wrist watches did not become commonplace until the early 20th century. But that's a minor point.

The major one to make is that 1 o'clock is one of the easiest times to note and remember when looking at a clock face. Both hands close to each other pointing skywards. Hard for even a child to be completely mistaken. It's not as if it could have been five past midnight, for example.

So if Louis noted the time by the clock, mere seconds before turning into the yard, I see nothing remotely suspicious or dishonest in stating that it was "precisely one o'clock". While the clock could have been wrong, that wouldn't have made Louis either mistaken or a rotten liar.

And where is the evidence that Fanny was definitely, without a doubt, still on her doorstep when the clock Louis referred to showed the time to be "precisely one o'clock"?

How could she have known exact times while still out on her doorstep, or the exact time she decided to call it a night, even assuming there was a clock keeping perfect time somewhere in the house, so her carman husband didn't need the services of a knocker upper on work days? Did she normally stand on her doorstep, clock in hand to check the time when nothing was happening? She saw Goldstein pass by as she was locking up for the night, then a little while later she remarked to her husband that she could hear the pony and cart, shortly after which she opened up again to see what the commotion was.

You scoff at Louis for noting the time on a clock as he passed it, but then insist that Fanny would have known she was out on her doorstep at precisely 1am. That would mean she heard the pony and cart between going back in and hearing the commotion, and yet you expect us to believe this was some other pony and cart, which nobody else thought to mention.

Although I didnt insinuate wristwatches were widely used, it is also true that they were used by British military as early as 1885. The issues with the time settings will always be an issue in any criminal case because we dont all wake up and make sure were synchronized with Greenich Mean time or any point to establish universal consistency. So you got the estimates, and the references to timepieces which are not synchronized. If a reference is made shortly after establishing a time then its likely to be off at most a few seconds or minutes. If a reference is made without any recently prior established time reference, you have situations like Spooner. But if men who were inside come out of the club they would have been exposed to a timepiece which all could easily see. This was, on Saturday nights, essentially a semi private town hall meeting. A main reference would be available in that building. Which is why when Issac K says he returned at 12:30 and about 10 minutes later he was summoned it carries more weight than a Spooner. But you can still validate a Spooner, if what he claims, based on his own estimates, roughly matches sources whom you have been able to qualify by virtue of using the same time piece. Like the club members that all said they were there by the woman at 12:40, based on the clock all would be able to use in the club.

Fanny was at her door throughout that half hour, when the specific intervals were we dont know for sure, but we do know that it was her belief she was there "nearly the whole time". There are events that are claimed around 12:40 that no-one else sees...likely Louis and Eagle returning, you would have Liz and BSM near the spot where the approaching Schwartz witnesses his assault....( this isnt my validation of his story at all, but just to make the point),.... you have Spooner coming into the yard, you have a few things that Fanny doesnt see and yet happened..but they happen within maybe a third of that 30 minutes period. So, if she is out of sight for 10 minutes of 30, might she feel that she was at the door most of that time?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So your issues with Mortimer can be boiled down to:

A. She didn't see enough
B. She saw too much

You're a hard man to please, Herlock!

My only issue is that she can’t be used to prove or disprove anything. None of us can prove when she was or wasn’t on her doorstep only that it’s entirely possible and plausible that she missed seeing the Schwartz incident because she’d gone back inside.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And Mortimer only saw Goldstein once btw.

So your issues with Mortimer can be boiled down to:

A. She didn't see enough
B. She saw too much

You're a hard man to please, Herlock!

[Herlock Sholmes]

The 'Schwartz incident' begins from the point that Stride first stands in the gateway, and ends either when Schwartz reaches the railway arch, or Stride leaves the scene, whichever comes last. The initial point is indeterminate, relative to the last, and the last in unknowable. Thus the claim, "the Schwartz incident would have taken 30 seconds or so", is false.

No it doesn’t. The ‘incident’ is purely what occurred in Berner Street. We can’t stretch it out just to make it more unlikely to have been missed. After Schwartz turned out of Berner Street no one saw him or took notice of him.

Interesting you say that it begins from the point that Stride stands in the gateway because Fanny didn’t see her arrive there. And if Fanny went onto her doorstep at 12.45 this gives the lie to her statement of being on her doorstep for nearly the whole of the 30 minutes between 12.30 and 1.00. It’s half of that time wiped away straight away.

Again, if she went onto her doorstep at 12.45 for 10 minutes (so until 12.55) why didn’t she see Stride. If the murder took place earlier Stride must have been there.

Fanny is a useless witness.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Was she on her doorstep at exactly 12.50?

How long was she on her doorstep?

These are some of the reasons I find Letchford's comments so interesting. Mortimer said she were at her door for nearly the whole period of 12:30 to 1am. Marshall said he was at his doorstep for the entire period 11:30 to midnight. Yet Letchford's sister was at her doorstep for ... 1 minute?
Or was there something significant about 12:50 - hence CL's reason for mentioning that particular time?

... my sister was standing at the door at ten minutes to one, but did not see any one pass by.

Pass by? Surely the more relevant issue was; did she see anyone enter or leave the yard?

Fanny: There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates.

The phrase 'pass by' seems a little beside the point.

Letchford’s sister proves absolutely zero. The Schwartz incident would have taken 30 seconds or so. It could occurred at 12.48 and Letchford’s sister would still have missed it.

The 'Schwartz incident' begins from the point that Stride first stands in the gateway, and ends either when Schwartz reaches the railway arch, or Stride leaves the scene, whichever comes last. The initial point is indeterminate, relative to the last, and the last in unknowable. Thus the claim, "the Schwartz incident would have taken 30 seconds or so", is false.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And Mortimer only saw Goldstein once btw.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Schwartz arrived a little after 12:45, FM missed seeing him.

Did the sister see him, or was that another near miss? The elusive Israel Schwartz. LOL

Was she on her doorstep at exactly 12.50?

How long was she on her doorstep?

…….

Letchford’s sister proves absolutely zero. The Schwartz incident would have taken 30 seconds or so. It could occurred at 12.48 and Letchford’s sister would still have missed it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I asked Monty the question: how important was correct time to police constables. His reply was very important. I think it is time to determine an answer for the question: How did police constables keep an accurate track on time without pocket watches. I suspect that perhaps the overseeing seargent would set a pocket watch to GMT from the telegraphed time at the local police station and then provide clock corrections for clocks on the PC's rounds, but I'll follow that up.

Cheers, George

But George you surely can’t be trying to deny the possibility that a Constable on his beat when asked at any point in time might not have been 5 minutes out? That’s basically the only question that’s required. “Is it possible that Lamb might have been 5 mins or so out?”

What if he’d seen another clock 5 minutes earlier on his beat that was 5 minutes slow? And that was the clock that he regularly used me not the one Diemschutz saw? Perhaps something distracted him when he passed Diemschutz’ clock?

All that I’m saying George is that many things are possible. Of course Diemschutz might have been slightly out if the clock was wrong. But we have no reason to suspect him of a) lying, or b) being out by any great length of time (I realise of course that you are suggesting a or b)

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am in the minority of those who believe that Lamb is more likely to have looked at that clock on one or both occassions that he passed it than did Diemshitz.

Cheers, George

All the we can say George is that Diemschutz specifically said that he looked at the clock whereas Lamb might or might not have looked at the clock. He might have seen a clock earlier on his beat and was estimating the time from that.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Caz,

Could it be that you are being a little harsh in your description "a doorstep dwelling busybody"? It was a common practice at the time, before radio. In Australia my grandparents often sat on their front porch, as did their neighbours on their's, to watch the goings on in the street and to gossip.

A juryman: How long were you standing at the door?
William Marshall: From 11:30 to 12.

Billy the doorstep dwelling busybody. LOL

I thought it may be helpful to group together in one post the three articles dealing with "doorstep busybodies" from the Evening News of Oct 1 1888:

If anyone knows of reports in other publications, please share.

Traditionally it has been thought that all these interviews were with Fanny Mortimer. The red account reads like a report and the green reads like an interview.

Why would the press have interviewed Mortimer 3 times? Yet if the source of the red report was a police statement, and not a first-hand account, how did the Daily & Evening News papers come to know about it? The green report seems to have come about by chance...

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. ... I got into conversation with her and found that she was one of the first on the spot.

In the green account she arrives at the yard after Spooner, but the blue account has her arriving with only 2 or 3 people in the yard, including Diemshitz and his wife.

Yard or gateway...?

I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway.

Same as Herschburg...

[I] came down to see what was the matter in the gateway. Two or three people had collected...

Presumably he meant, "had collected in the gateway", and that many more were in the yard. Either that, or the story given by Mrs Diemschitz of all the remaining members hurtling pell-mell down the stairs, was false.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock....maaate,

What would you like to present as absolute fact? Police reports? Anderson, McNaughten, Swanson and Aberline were not unified in their opinions or statements. Press reports? Conflicting reports of inquest statements? If you just assemble the "facts" that agree with your opinion, that does not represent an offical version, it's cognitive bias.

I will allow a Victorian Constable leeway of a minute or two, a Victorian clock owner a leeway of 10 minutes or so, and guesstimators of times of an hour or so a leeway of +/- 20 or more minutes.

Cheers, George

When I talk about the ‘official version’ George I simply mean Stride killed between 12.45 and 1.00 and discovered by Diemschutz as the police believed based on their assessment of the witnesses and the evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, are you proposing that car men were well-to-do artisans?

Cheers, George

Fanny Mortimer might simply have dressed slightly better than her neighbours. She might also have done a bit of Hyacinth Bouquet-type exaggeration about her husbands occupation. Then….“Some three doors from the gateway……chatting with one or two neighbours.” Of course the wording here is vague but she appears to be talking to neighbours 3 doors from the club and as someone who lived 2 doors from the club then she would indeed have had neighbours living 3 doors from the club. It’s far more that this was Fanny especially as she claimed to have been one of the first on the spot.