The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[GBinOz]

[B]However we disagree at least I don’t embarrassingly and shamefully refuse to answer inconvenient questions. This is not honest debate. You can’t have honest debate when one person deliberately ignores the inconvenient and invents evidence

Hi Herlock,

From the Daily Telegraph report of Stride's Inquest:
Morris Eagle After the discussion, between half-past eleven and a quarter to twelve o'clock, I left the club to take my young lady home, going out through the front door. I returned about twenty minutes to one.......I had been there twenty minutes when a member named Gidleman came upstairs, and said "there is a woman dead in the yard".

Here we have Eagle guessing what time he left the club and estimating the time he took to return and then estimating again how long he was there before being informed of the murder. You would have us believe that all the errors in these guesses and estimates cancelled each other out and he arrived at a correct time of 1AM, nearly an hour and a half after his starting guess. The same applies to the guesses and estimates of Spooner and Brown, yet you contually use these three to challenge the short estimates of Lamb. You seem to be presenting the reports from the inquest as Lamb giving different times. Lamb made only one statement. Some reporters chose to give an accurate time, which is the most likely to accurately reflect what Lamb actually said (particularly when they agree), others give a general time and some neglect to quote a time at all. The same applies with Johnson.

Kozebrodski worked with Diemshitz and it would be reasonable to assume that he looked at the clock in the club when he arrived for work at 11:30 to check that he was on time for work. We know there was a clock in the club because Eagle specifically stated that he didn't look at it. An estimate of 10 minutes is minimal compare to the long multiple estimates of Eagle, Spooner and Brown. I repeat my inconvenient question: When did these three last see a clock?
However accurate Kozebrodski's estimate may have been, it was still subject to error due to that clock not being synched. I really can't see your basis for challenging Hoschberg's estimate. He used the phrase "I should think" which was victorian speak for "I believe this to be true" and you have no justification for doubting his estimate in favour of those of your three men. What reason had Hoschberg to lie?

I am a little confused about your comment "Like Fanny Mortimer, who I wouldn’t have trusted to tell me what day it was.". I have seen your posts in the past where you were proposing that if FM's times were calibrated by Smith's footsteps between 12:30 and 12:35, then she would have just missed Stride when she came to her door and just missed Schwartz because she went inside just before he arrived. I noted at the time of your posts you conveniently left out the part of her story involving Diemshitz arriving some 4 minutes after she went inside.

I agree with your assertion that police constables often did not carry pocket watches. However, according to Monty, it was imperitive that they knew the time. The police of that era had their times co-ordinated to that of Big Ben (GMT) by means of telegraph and telephone. The beats of the PCs were overseen by a Sergeant so perhaps he carried a pocket watch and provided corrections for the local clocks at the start of the beats? Smith and Lamb were on their regular beats and the tobacconist clock was on both those beats. They would have had a very good grasp on accurate times. To propose that the short time estimates, from when they last saw a clock, are less accurate than the long multiple estimates based on dubios starting points employed by Eagle, Spooner and Brown defies both logic and reason.

I am aware that we both stand in wonder at what we each see as the other's inability to grasp the "bleeding obvious". I guess we need to look at the “The irresistible force meeting the immovable object” and decide into which category we fall. I don't wish to be involved with the flame war between yourself and Michael Richards. I have independently arrived at some conclusion that happen to coincide with Michael's, and others which do not, but it appears that it is his alleged conspiracy theory in which I have in the past been suspected to be involved. That is not the case.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

But Herlock,if you did make a cup of tea,that would show an intent existed.Intent,in most murders,is obvious.It is shown quite clearly in the Whitechapel killings.The killer intended to kill.I agree however that it would be difficult to show if killing Stride was the sole intent.

Hello Harry,

Yes and if the killer had mutilated it would have shown intent. The point is that he didn’t mutilate for whatever unknown reason.

Michael’s claim is that if the killer had been interrupted then we should definitely have expected to have seen evidence of the intention to mutilate (for example, raised skirts) This isn’t the case though because if the killer had been interrupted say, just as he’d cut her throat, then it would have been before he’d proceeded to any further action. His point would only be valid if evidence of the intention to mutilate couldn’t have been avoided. A bit like when a forensic expert tells us that a killer couldn’t have avoided getting covered in blood. Michael is saying that the killer ‘couldn’t have avoided’ leaving evidence of his intention to mutilate. Obviously this isn’t the case if he was interrupted before he moved on to mutilation. There’s no way that I or anyone else can claim that the killer did intend to mutilate (the killer might not have been the ripper) but equally we can’t claim that because there was no mutilation then it proves that it wasn’t the ripper. There’s no problem of course with saying “I don’t think that the killer was interrupted” but it couldn’t be proved or disproved. The lack of mutilation would carry more evidential weight if he’d had limitless time free from interruption but we know that the possibility that he might have been interrupted exists.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

From the Daily Telegraph report of Stride's Inquest:
Morris Eagle After the discussion, between half-past eleven and a quarter to twelve o'clock, I left the club to take my young lady home, going out through the front door. I returned about twenty minutes to one.......I had been there twenty minutes when a member named Gidleman came upstairs, and said "there is a woman dead in the yard".

Here we have Eagle guessing what time he left the club and estimating the time he took to return and then estimating again how long he was there before being informed of the murder. You would have us believe that all the errors in these guesses and estimates cancelled each other out and he arrived at a correct time of 1AM, nearly an hour and a half after his starting guess. The same applies to the guesses and estimates of Spooner and Brown, yet you contually use these three to challenge the short estimates of Lamb. You seem to be presenting the reports from the inquest as Lamb giving different times. Lamb made only one statement. Some reporters chose to give an accurate time, which is the most likely to accurately reflect what Lamb actually said (particularly when they agree), others give a general time and some neglect to quote a time at all. The same applies with Johnson.

Ive always accepted that most times were estimated George. As for Eagle, of course we can’t be certain of how he arrived at his time and how accurate he was but we do know that he was called by Gilleman who would have been questioned by police. There’s also the real possibility that he checked the clock on his return to the club and then estimated 20 minutes. Of course we can’t guarantee total accuracy but he confirms and backs up Diemschutz who had no reason to lie.

George, we are surely quibbling over a minute or 2 here or there. I can’t see why these times are an issue to someone that isn’t proposing or supporting a cover up?

Kozebrodski worked with Diemshitz and it would be reasonable to assume that he looked at the clock in the club when he arrived for work at 11:30 to check that he was on time for work. We know there was a clock in the club because Eagle specifically stated that he didn't look at it. An estimate of 10 minutes is minimal compare to the long multiple estimates of Eagle, Spooner and Brown. I repeat my inconvenient question: When did these three last see a clock?

We don’t know of course George.

However accurate Kozebrodski's estimate may have been, it was still subject to error due to that clock not being synched. I really can't see your basis for challenging Hoschberg's estimate. He used the phrase "I should think" which was victorian speak for "I believe this to be true" and you have no justification for doubting his estimate in favour of those of your three men. What reason had Hoschberg to lie?

He wasn’t lying. It’s simply a case of Diemschutz sees a clock. Eagle and Gilleman confirm the discovery time. Sarah and the servants also confirm and Brown hears men calling for a Constable at the time that we would have expected him to have. Why dispute this apart from the fact that they could all have been slightly out?

I am a little confused about your comment "Like Fanny Mortimer, who I wouldn’t have trusted to tell me what day it was.". I have seen your posts in the past where you were proposing that if FM's times were calibrated by Smith's footsteps between 12:30 and 12:35, then she would have just missed Stride when she came to her door and just missed Schwartz because she went inside just before he arrived. I noted at the time of your posts you conveniently left out the part of her story involving Diemshitz arriving some 4 minutes after she went inside.

No George I have conveniently left anything out. I’m not Michael. I might make errors which I’ll own up to but I don’t deliberately dodge questions. Naturally, I believe that she was mistaken about the 4 minutes.

I agree with your assertion that police constables often did not carry pocket watches. However, according to Monty, it was imperitive that they knew the time. The police of that era had their times co-ordinated to that of Big Ben (GMT) by means of telegraph and telephone. The beats of the PCs were overseen by a Sergeant so perhaps he carried a pocket watch and provided corrections for the local clocks at the start of the beats? Smith and Lamb were on their regular beats and the tobacconist clock was on both those beats. They would have had a very good grasp on accurate times. To propose that the short time estimates, from when they last saw a clock, are less accurate than the long multiple estimates based on dubios starting points employed by Eagle, Spooner and Brown defies both logic and reason.

Smith made an estimate which contradicted Mortimer. So by your thinking (very reasonable thinking too) Mortimer should be mistrusted on timing. Lamb said “about 1.00” or “just before 1.00) We aren’t suggesting that he was miles out George. Probably around 6 minutes. How can that be difficult to accept especially when that minute adjustment means that his time fits in perfectly with the rest of the evidence.

I am aware that we both stand in wonder at what we each see as the other's inability to grasp the "bleeding obvious". I guess we need to look at the “The irresistible force meeting the immovable object” and decide into which category we fall. I don't wish to be involved with the flame war between yourself and Michael Richards. I have independently arrived at some conclusion that happen to coincide with Michael's, and others which do not, but it appears that it is his alleged conspiracy theory in which I have in the past been suspected to be involved. That is not the case.

I understand that George.

Cheers, George

I’d sum up by saying that we know what happened with a very high degree of confidence. We know in what order things occurred with a very high degree of confidence. Yes, any of the witnesses could have been slightly out due to errors of estimation and unsynchronised clocks and watches. But 15 or 20 minutes is too much of a stretch.

[Michael W Richards]

Gilleman also referred to as Gillen in some records came upstairs and notified Eagle, Eagle ran downstairs..presumably "pell mell", and when he came upon the woman it was 1. Not after 1, which would be if Diemshitz arrived when he said he did. At 1. Lamb said before 1. Again we can refer to the posts by people who know that police were required to maintain scrupulous timings and whether they personally had timepieces on them or not, they would have the ability to consistently throughout their shift, check local times. The other 3 witnesses said around 12:40-12:45 they were by the body. Well before 1. If Eagle arrived at 12:40 and they were there, then all he says is fabrication anyway. And if they were there when they said they were, then Israels a liar...they would have seen that altercation, and they couldnt be by the dying woman if she was upright on the street at the moment, could they? Diemshitz says he arrived "precisely" at 1. He chose the word, stop dismissing the importance of a witnesses own words. Like Kozebrodski's....who says he learned of the woman around 12:40, and he came from inside the club after marking his time of return using some timepiece as reference. Surely the club had more than 1 of those, placed for all to see. Heschberg came from inside so he had the same accesses. Diemshitz went by street clocks apparently, Eagle estimated I suppose and Spooner surely did, but those are all a matter of minutes here or there, the most critical reconstruction expert would be ok with a few minutes here or there. But what you are arguing anyway is that the majority of witnesses must have all been off around 20 minutes, all of them by that much. Why on earth would you back 20 minutes as a more probable answer, when a few minutes here or there reconciles with the majority of the accounts anyway? It seems a move designated to be argumentative and often disrespectful rather than a legitimate counter idea to consider.

Ill say that a lot of people have dealt with these issues in the same way you do, but they also wanted to have the answer match their preconceptions. Disregard what doesnt fit or change it so the path to the conclusion youve already reached is sound.

[Michael W Richards]

What can be learned from the man who killed Polly and then Annie is that his objectives obviously exceeded just causing death. He did not prolong the event either, so that isnt the game. He wanted to cut into the victims, you can argue about whether he wanted specific organs all day. He did in Annies case, perhaps he had similar intentions in Pollys case. If that was the first kill, then one can understand misfires in location choice or timing. He does seem to correct those and therefore complete more activities in Hanbury. Without "meaningless" cutting.

In the case of Liz Stride, she is virtually untouched after a single cut. The cut may have been made while he held her by her twisted scarf, then he just drops her. The murder was suggested as perhaps being 2 secs long by Blackwell. And she may have been cut while falling, or being dropped. Not on the ground. There is also no evidence that she was "working the streets" that night.

So.....change in MO, change in how he cuts and when he cuts, single cut vs 2 deep cuts, untouched after single cut, new knife, risky venue to complete mutilations if intended. Imagining an interruption is just one element to counter these points, the problem of course is that one can only imagine an interruption, there is no evidence that warrants that conclusion.

Stride is simply killed,... sad, cold, cruel....all of the above, but a victim of a man who only kills so he can then mutilate?, no.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Gilleman also referred to as Gillen in some records came upstairs and notified Eagle, Eagle ran downstairs..presumably "pell mell",

No. Your trying to make it appear that the club was some kind of maze of corridors. In fact Eagle said “I went down in a second and struck a match.” So there was no significant time gap.

and when he came upon the woman it was 1. Not after 1, which would be if Diemshitz arrived when he said he did. At 1.

Again, no. You’re trying to make it appear that Eagle said that it was exactly 1.00 when he actually said “It must have been about one o'clock.”

Lamb said before 1. Again we can refer to the posts by people who know that police were required to maintain scrupulous timings and whether they personally had timepieces on them or not, they would have the ability to consistently throughout their shift, check local times.

Yet again you are quoting selectively. In The Times version he said about 1.00. Even if his ‘before 1.00’ time was what he’s said this could easily have meant a minute or 2 before and no matter however much you talk about the police having more reason to be aware of the time it’s still wrong to suggest that they knew the exact time at any given time. He had no watch. He was estimating so being out by 5 or 6 minutes is hardly an issue. As ever, you’re tying to skew the evidence to support a theory.

The other 3 witnesses said around 12:40-12:45 they were by the body.

It doesn’t matter that they were by the body unless Stride was wearing an accurate watch and they checked the time by it.

Well before 1. If Eagle arrived at 12:40 and they were there, then all he says is fabrication anyway.

Or Eagle was there and they weren’t. Which is what happened. Lave didn’t see these people either. Because they weren’t there.

Ill ask again Michael, why did Fanny Mortimer not see any of this? I thought that she was on her doorstep at 12.45?

And if they were there when they said they were, then Israels a liar...they would have seen that altercation, and they couldnt be by the dying woman if she was upright on the street at the moment, could they?

Fanny Mortimer. You’re avoiding her Michael. On one hand you’re saying that she was on her doorstep at 12.45 but on the other your saying she missed all of the action.

Diemshitz says he arrived "precisely" at 1. He chose the word, stop dismissing the importance of a witnesses own words.

Babyish nitpicking. Even today in our far better educated times how many times do we hear people misuse the word ‘literally’ Michael? Every day we hear it. Do we nitpick and hold them to it? Of course we don’t. And yet again I’ll point out what Frank pointed out and what you constantly ignore. That Diemschutz would have got from the clock to the yard in under a minute. So very possibly still 1.00 by that clock.

Your persistence on this point is a desperate and embarrassing as your ‘evidence of interruption’ silliness.

Like Kozebrodski's....who says he learned of the woman around 12:40, and he came from inside the club after marking his time of return using some timepiece as reference. Surely the club had more than 1 of those, placed for all to see.

Did he mention checking a clock? No.

Why do you trust him and yet you assume Eagle to be a liar? Eagle would have been backed up by Gilleman.

Heschberg came from inside so he had the same accesses.

Access is irrelevant. His words tell us that he was estimating. He was clearly wrong.

He said that he’d heard a policeman’s whistle? Who was that?

Diemshitz went by street clocks apparently,

No Michael, the other witnesses might have had the opportunity to have seen a clock but Diemschutz categorically states that he did see a clock. There’s a massive difference and all that you can do is to call him a liar to support your theory.

Eagle estimated I suppose and Spooner surely did, but those are all a matter of minutes here or there, the most critical reconstruction expert would be ok with a few minutes here or there. But what you are arguing anyway is that the majority of witnesses must have all been off around 20 minutes, all of them by that much. Why on earth would you back 20 minutes as a more probable answer, when a few minutes here or there reconciles with the majority of the accounts anyway? It seems a move designated to be argumentative and often disrespectful rather than a legitimate counter idea to consider.

Are you serious? Diemschutz 1.00/ Eagle 1.00/ Gilleman 1.00/ Brown 1.00/ Lamb around 1.00/ Spooner around 1.00/

You have Hoschberg and Kozebrodski, plus you rely on the transparently unreliable Fanny Mortimer. This is the reality of the situation. Diemschutz discovered the body at 1.00. Absolutely no doubt exists on this.

Ill say that a lot of people have dealt with these issues in the same way you do, but they also wanted to have the answer match their preconceptions. Disregard what doesnt fit or change it so the path to the conclusion youve already reached is sound.

The pot calls the kettle black…..again. Please stand back and try and re-evaluate without your conspiracy goggles on. Look at the witnesses that you rely on….

A woman that gives 2 versions of events for what she did that night.

A man who actually confirms that the body was found at 1.00. Yet you try and use him for the opposite.

A man who, when estimating an arrival time, gives 2 contradicting times within the same statement.

And two men guessing the time who were out by 15 minutes and who, for all that we know, might have chatted and one got the time from the other.

Thats it. Your theory is held up on these feeblest of props. It’s no wonder that after 20 years still no one accepts your theory. How loud does a message need to be? The obvious problem is that you need a theory to make the evidence work and not the other way around as it should do.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What can be learned from the man who killed Polly and then Annie is that his objectives obviously exceeded just causing death. He did not prolong the event either, so that isnt the game. He wanted to cut into the victims, you can argue about whether he wanted specific organs all day. He did in Annies case, perhaps he had similar intentions in Pollys case. If that was the first kill, then one can understand misfires in location choice or timing. He does seem to correct those and therefore complete more activities in Hanbury. Without "meaningless" cutting.

In the case of Liz Stride, she is virtually untouched after a single cut. The cut may have been made while he held her by her twisted scarf, then he just drops her. The murder was suggested as perhaps being 2 secs long by Blackwell. And she may have been cut while falling, or being dropped. Not on the ground. There is also no evidence that she was "working the streets" that night.

Of course she didn’t ‘clock in’ but what evidence would there be. She might have been having a night out which went badly and she ended up skint. She might have been approached and thought ‘why not?’ It doesn’t matter.

So.....change in MO, change in how he cuts and when he cuts, single cut vs 2 deep cuts, untouched after single cut, new knife, risky venue to complete mutilations if intended. Imagining an interruption is just one element to counter these points, the problem of course is that one can only imagine an interruption, there is no evidence that warrants that conclusion.

Apart from the stupid point of course she might not have been a ripper victim. It cannot be proven either way so it’s a complete waste of time trying. You’re only saying that she wasn’t because of Isenschmidt. Whether she was or not is far more important to you than me.

Stride is simply killed,... sad, cold, cruel....all of the above, but a victim of a man who only kills so he can then mutilate?, no.

Impressive omniscience. You can’t know that Michael. No one can. You just make yourself look silly by claiming to know.

[FrankO]

I have just been reading a thread here: https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...r-street/page7

In post 104 AP.Wolf refers to a discussion with a horologist and concludes "if you find a discrepancy between civil and police witness testimony of 15 or 20 minutes then this is perfectly acceptable and normal". There is another interesting post, #113, where there were 25 witnesses for a videotaped murder and some were 30 minutes out in their timeline.

Hi George,

Sorry for the delay in replying, but I was too occupied with other things.

Thanks for the link to the thread on jtrforums. Indeed interesting posts with regards to our discussion here. They’d make Spooner and others being off on their timing much less striking/significant.

The frustrating thing with the time variance that has been discussed here is that substantial differences are arising from different reporters listening to exactly the same testimony at the inquest. It's like something out of Alice in Wonderland.

Frustrating indeed. How did these reporters manage to end up with sometimes substantial differences when they all heard the very same words being spoken? Worse than Chinese whispering!

I would like to beg your indulgence and ask your opinion on some points.
At Number 7, where is Stride's companion (Parcelman), and for what reason is Stride standing in the entrance of the yard?

I really have no opinion on either of these things, George, as there’s nothing in the evidence to give us anything of a solid idea. Mr. Parcelman could have been anywhere at that point. He could have entered the club or the yard or he could have left the scene altogether via Fairclough Street, Hampshire Court or Sander Street or he could have entered the chandler’s shop where Brown would buy his supper. And, so, Stride may have been waiting for his return or she may have been waiting for someone else as a prostitute or otherwise or she was just standing there for a couple of minutes, enjoying a cachou and a moment alone before heading home. Who knows?

Just before Number 10, whose footsteps was Mortimer hearing pass her door?

My guess would be Smith’s, as I believe the sound of a beat officer on his rounds would have been quite recognizable.

Should Number 11 be qualified by adding "headed south returning from the coffee shop".

Just to be sure: yes, it should.

As you are probably aware, the Evening News 1 Oct 1888 contained three statements by female witnesses who claimed to have been at their door around the time of the murder. Two of those statements appear to be from Mortimer, although they are conflicting. The third is described as being from "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". This can't have been Mortimer as her husband was a carman. Her statement was quite different to that of Mortimer and she said the she saw "a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand", and that "He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club". This appears to be a sighting of Goldstein on his way to the coffee shop (or was he leaving the yard after murdering Stride?). I have not as yet ascertained the identity of this woman. Curious that she sees Diemshitz at the yard after the alarm had been sounded since he testified at the inquest that he was running through the street sounding the alarm.

It's indeed striking that this woman claims to have seen a man exactly like Goldstein going up Berner Street instead of going down and passing the club. Also striking that this woman, just as Mortimer, seems to have been on her doorstep (or outside) and had returned inside very shortly before she was alerted to the murder. And that she, exactly like Mortimer, was just about to go to bed when this happened.

Whether Mortimer or another woman, I think the police would have been very interested in her story and, especially, the part about the man possibly coming from the club at the time that he did. As we don’t have any evidence at all that they spoke to her and she didn’t appear at the inquest, I’m inclined to believe that this woman may just as well have been a woman who heard Mortimer’s story and telling it as her own, only changing the detail about the direction in which this respectably dressed mystery man with the black bag was walking, making it more sinister and interesting. Either this or the newspaper itself/reporter himself was responsible for the change.

As to this woman seeing Diemshutz in the yard, I don’t find it so odd. After all, she only went to the yard after Eagle passed her house calling for the police and Eagle left the yard only after Diemshutz ran out of it in search of a copper. So, if her story is true, then Diemshutz had already returned to the yard with Spooner. It shouldn’t have taken Diemshutz much more than 1.5 minutes to ran out of the yard and return with Spooner.

Very best regards,
Frank

[GBinOz]

Thanks for the link to the thread on jtrforums. Indeed interesting posts with regards to our discussion here. They’d make Spooner and others being off on their timing much less striking/significant.

Hi Frank,

You're welcome. I have recently discovered another thread on the JTR forum here:
https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...ime#post120389

Post #2 contains an excellent archived dissertion by Chris McKay on all aspects of timekeeping in the late nineteenth century, and Post #6 addresses the strikes and chimes of brewery and church clocks. There are interesting conclusion drawn in Post #8.

There is also some interesting discussion of the contradictions in the times for the Stride murder.

Best regards
George

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

You're welcome. I have recently discovered another thread on the JTR forum here:
https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...ime#post120389

Post #2 contains an excellent archived dissertion by Chris McKay on all aspects of timekeeping in the late nineteenth century, and Post #6 addresses the strikes and chimes of brewery and church clocks. There are interesting conclusion drawn in Post #8.

There is also some interesting discussion of the contradictions in the times for the Stride murder.

Best regards
George

Thanks a lot for directing me to that thread and those posts, George! I will certainly have a look at it later!

Cheers,
Frank

[caz]

That Israel Schwartz may have indicated initially that he believed the Lipski was a call to his pipe smoking friend, it remains his own perspective, and again, we have little reason to support what he says anyway as it clearly wasnt of perceived importance at the Inquest into Strides death. And whether the statement was believed by senior investigators later on as revealed in their comments, that is a record of perspective. Not of any fact.

As I interpret this whole scenario Israel has more to do with public relations than anything else.

Hang on, which one is it?

1) Schwartz was speaking from his own perspective, when initially claiming that Stride's assailant appeared to call out "Lipski" to his pipe smoking friend, who then chased Schwartz away?

2) Schwartz was setting up a wholly invented scenario to put a non-Jewish assailant outside the club's premises, shouting an anti-Semitic insult at him?

Where does the second version leave the invented pipe smoker, apart from in the way?

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

It's indeed striking that this woman claims to have seen a man exactly like Goldstein going up Berner Street instead of going down and passing the club. Also striking that this woman, just as Mortimer, seems to have been on her doorstep (or outside) and had returned inside very shortly before she was alerted to the murder. And that she, exactly like Mortimer, was just about to go to bed when this happened.

Whether Mortimer or another woman, I think the police would have been very interested in her story and, especially, the part about the man possibly coming from the club at the time that he did. As we don’t have any evidence at all that they spoke to her and she didn’t appear at the inquest, I’m inclined to believe that this woman may just as well have been a woman who heard Mortimer’s story and telling it as her own, only changing the detail about the direction in which this respectably dressed mystery man with the black bag was walking, making it more sinister and interesting. Either this or the newspaper itself/reporter himself was responsible for the change.

Hi Frank,

Just a little more on this "other woman". Charles Letchford, living at 30 Berners Street, said:
"I passed through the street at half-past twelve, and everything seemed to me to be going on as usual, and my sister was standing at the door at ten minutes to one, but did not see anyone pass by.".

Fanny Mortimer's maiden name was Skipp, so it would appear that there was a second woman standing in her doorway that night and she saw Bernstein headed towards Commercial Road. She added this sighting as an after thought to saying that is was very quiet that night with few people moving around.

The Police report of Goldstein's statement contained a marginal note "Who saw this man go down Berner St, or did he come forward to clear himself in case any questions might be asked." Dutfields Yard to Spectacle Alley is about a twelve minute return trip on foot. It seems suspicious to me that Goldstein was observed going to and returning from the Coffee shop in such a short period of time around the time of Stride's death.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Frank,

Just a little more on this "other woman". Charles Letchford, living at 30 Berners Street, said:
"I passed through the street at half-past twelve, and everything seemed to me to be going on as usual, and my sister was standing at the door at ten minutes to one, but did not see anyone pass by.".

Fanny Mortimer's maiden name was Skipp, so it would appear that there was a second woman standing in her doorway that night and she saw Bernstein headed towards Commercial Road. She added this sighting as an after thought to saying that is was very quiet that night with few people moving around.

The Police report of Goldstein's statement contained a marginal note "Who saw this man go down Berner St, or did he come forward to clear himself in case any questions might be asked." Dutfields Yard to Spectacle Alley is about a twelve minute return trip on foot. It seems suspicious to me that Goldstein was observed going to and returning from the Coffee shop in such a short period of time around the time of Stride's death.

Cheers, George

George,
you are right to question the identity of the woman purported to be Fanny Mortimer, in the the reports that seem to be referring to her, but do not mention her by name. I would add that a report that claims a woman has made an important statement, yet does not manage to name that individual, is a rather strange report. Unless that is, the statement was made to the police, and the report writer only has 2nd-hand and possibly partial information, to go on. In that case, who can say with confidence that Fanny gave two contradictory reports?

I do not understand though, how you have come to the conclusion that it was the "other woman" who saw Goldstein walking up Berner street, and not Fanny. Walter Dew stated that it was Mrs Mortimer who witnessed this. Why do you suppose otherwise?

Regarding Letchford's reference to 12:50, what do you suppose is so significant about that time? Wasn't the murder at about 1am? Also, what exactly does this phrase mean...?

... my sister was standing at the door at ten minutes to one ...

Does it mean briefly, at 12:50, or until 12:50, or from 12:50?

I would presume from your reference to Goldstein's round trip, that you suppose it means 'at' or 'until'.

Now please consider the Evening News, Oct 4 report, regarding Packer. Here's the opening...

We are enabled to present our readers this morning in the columns of the Evening News with the most startling information that has yet been made public in relation to the Whitechapel murderer, and the first real clue that has been obtained to his identity. The chain of evidence in our possession has been pieced together by two gentlemen connected with the business of private inquiries, who, starting on the track of the assassin without any pet "theory" to substantiate, and contenting themselves with ascertaining and connecting a series of the simplest facts, have succeeded in arriving at a result of the utmost importance. There are no suppositions or probabilities in the story we have to tell; we put forward nothing but simple facts, each substantiated by the evidence of credible witnesses. What they go to establish is that the perpetrator of the Berner street crime was seen and spoken to whilst in the company of his victim, within forty minutes of the commission of the crime and only passed from the sight of a witness TEN MINUTES BEFORE THE MURDER and within ten yards of the scene of the awful deed.

Ten minutes before 1am is 12:50. Ten yards from the gateway is the Mortimer residence. How many women were at their front door at 12:50, on Berner street that night? Which of these women witnessed the murderer?

[GBinOz]

How many women were at their front door at 12:50, on Berner street that night? Which of these women witnessed the murderer?

Hi NBFN,

I am not concerned with times. If you read the articles for which I have provided a link in my earlier posts, you will see that there is far too much discussion about unsynchronised clock times, and even more about "estimates".

Have a look at the Evening News of 1 Oct 1888. There are three interviews. One names Fanny Mortimer, another gives the location of her house and the third (the first in paper order) is of an unidentified neighbour seen talking with a group of women in Berner St. That woman is said to stand out from those around her, and to be the well to do wife of an artisan. Mortimer's husband was a carman. Letchford said his sister was at her door that night. Mortimer was not Letchford's sister as her maiden name was Scipp. So, to answer your question, I don't know how many women were at their door that night, but there were at least two and the Evening News interviewed both of them. Of the two interviews attributed to Fanny Mortimer, one was identified by name, but the other was by identified as living "two doors from the club", the accuracy of that address being something which we will never know.

My policy is to take police times as a benchmark, civilian times as useful for deducing intervals, and discard completely estimates from over an hour before based on indeterminate starting points. The interviews in the EN indicate that two women saw Goldstein that night around the time of Stride's murder. One saw him headed north in Berner St and the other saw him headed south. For what ever reason, Goldstein felt the need to pre-empt any investigation into any witness sightings with a prefabricated alibi. I find this a little suspicious, as did the police at the time.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I am not concerned with times.

You may not be concerned with exact times, George, but you are concerned with approximate times...

I would not dismiss Israel's testimony too quickly, as if FM's story is evaluated against Smith's times it does not fare badly. My assessment is that Stride was murdered around 12:50. The big factor in all of these discussions is that clocks were not synchronised and time estimates by anyone except the professionals (the police) are dubious to the point of being irrelevant.

Yet regardless of Charles Letchford making reference to the time 12:50 - as though that time, or approximate time, had some special significance - you are apparently not interested!

If you read the articles for which I have provided a link in my earlier posts, you will see that there is far too much discussion about unsynchronised clock times, and even more about "estimates".

By the same token, the so-called Schwartz incident may have actually occurred at near to 1am, and not 12:45 as apparently stated by Schwartz. Thus we cannot rely on a time estimate by Schwartz', to conclude that he either is or is not a vital witness. It is not acceptable to take that chance. So he must be summoned to the inquest...

Have a look at the Evening News of 1 Oct 1888. There are three interviews. One names Fanny Mortimer, another gives the location of her house and the third (the first in paper order) is of an unidentified neighbour seen talking with a group of women in Berner St. That woman is said to stand out from those around her, and to be the well to do wife of an artisan. Mortimer's husband was a carman.

I've quoted from all 3 interviews, many times. I even started a thread based on one of them. Presumably you've noticed that your questioning of the identity of the woman involved in the 2 interviews that exclude a name, has not resulted in much discussion. The point is, for some people at least, that the 'heavy, measured tramp' report is regarded as Fanny Mortimer contradicting her named and quoted statement. Israel Schwartz is therefore saved. End of story. As for the report of Goldstein being witnessed walking up Berner street - whoever did the witnessing - this has barely been discussed in the entire history of Casebook.

Letchford said his sister was at her door that night. Mortimer was not Letchford's sister as her maiden name was Scipp. So, to answer your question, I don't know how many women were at their door that night, but there were at least two and the Evening News interviewed both of them. Of the two interviews attributed to Fanny Mortimer, one was identified by name, but the other was by identified as living "two doors from the club", the accuracy of that address being something which we will never know.

Two doors from the club is #36 - the Mortimer residence. So you must mean the 'Interview with a Neighbour' is with Letchford's sister. Correct? So why does the named quote sound so similar to the interview...?

Mortimer: I had just gone indoors and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' club close by. I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club house. On going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the gates, with her throat cut from ear to ear.

Neighbour: I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police. I ran to the door, and before I could open it I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.' I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway. ... Then I see a sight that turned me all sick and cold. There was the murdered woman a-lying on her side, with her throat cut across till her head seemed to be hanging by a bit of skin.

My policy is to take police times as a benchmark, civilian times as useful for deducing intervals, and discard completely estimates from over an hour before based on indeterminate starting points. The interviews in the EN indicate that two women saw Goldstein that night around the time of Stride's murder. One saw him headed north in Berner St and the other saw him headed south. For what ever reason, Goldstein felt the need to pre-empt any investigation into any witness sightings with a prefabricated alibi. I find this a little suspicious, as did the police at the time.

If one woman saw Goldstein heading north, and then another saw him heading south, presumably just prior to 1am, at what approximate time was he first spotted?