Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[FrankO]

Cheers Frank, this has to be Fanny although it’s been disputed in the past.

That would be my guess too, Mike.

[FrankO]

It suggests that Diemschitz was already back at the yard. Either that or he never left it.

Hi Andrew,

In one of the snippets about Mortimer she says: "A man touched her face and said it was quite warm". The only man who stated to have done this is Spooner, so my guess would be that Diemshutz had just returned.

One gets the impression that for a couple of minutes at least, neighbours were entering the yard to find the deceased along with just a handful of people. Does that seem right?

It does, although I think Mortimer was understating things. She seems to be saying that, at least, Mrs. D. was there, the man who touched Stride's face and Louis himself. I imagine there were a few more in reality. Plus, if it was actually Spooner that she saw, her 2 or 3 don't correspond with Spooner's 'about 15' I believe he stated.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

Who did she hear calling for the police? Was it Eagle running up Berner St? If yes, then what does the following suggest?

My money would be on Eagle for the reason I gave in my previous post.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On re-reading it I agree with Frank.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

It doesn't sound very plausible to my ears that they would have missed one another. If Eagle did turn west on Commercial Road and ran at least as far as Backchurch Lane, wouldn't he have looked into that street while shouting to see if a PC would surface? Or are you suggesting that he would have just past Backchurch Lane? Or that Smith was out of earshot in Batty's Gardens or some other side alley?

But if he was, where would he have been earlier when Diemshutz and Kozebrodski ran out in search of a PC? He would only have been further south down Backchurch Lane, or even in Fairclough Street and, thus, much closer to where the shouting and running by D & K came from As I said, that doesn't sound plausible.

I presume that I'm missing something. Could you elaborate/explain?

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank.
Sorry for the late reply.
The first problem we have with trying to guess where Smith might have been, is when we look at his testimony. Something has not been recorded correctly.
Smith described his circuitous route from the start at Gowers Walk on Comm. Rd., then east to Christian St., south to Fairclough, then east to Grove, and back along Fairclough to Back Church Lane, then north to Comm. Rd.
Yet, he also tells the inquest he walked up Berner St., if that is the case then how was he able to cover Back Church Lane, unless he then walked west on Comm. Rd. then south down Back Church Lane to Fairclough, turn around and come back up?

If that is the case then perhaps therein lies the answer to your question, by the time Eagle came passed the top end of Back Church Lane, PC Smith was at or near the bottom end of that street. Out of earshot, maybe even out of sight.
My guess, because that is all we can do, is that Smith described the outer limits of his beat. He did not tell the court which streets he patrolled except that he walked up Berner St. So, that leaves us unable to claim where he must have been.

My own understanding of beats, as sparse as it is, is that a constable doesn't cover the length of a street twice, only once. So, if he walked up Berner, he would walk on Comm. Rd. a short way, then down the next street, to Fairclough, then back up the next street, then back down the next one, etc. etc.
There were instances where this duplication may be necessary, but only for a portion of a street, not the entire length.

I don't think we can guess a suitable answer without more information.
Which means, we have nothing with which to argue that Eagle must have seen Smith, but equally nothing to support the idea he couldn't have seen Smith.

This is PC Smith's circuitous route, beginning at top left.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just to add, on the subject of men looking for a Constable:

Philip Krantz:

Were you on the look out to see if there was any stranger there? – No. I went out into the street to look for a policeman.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis,

Yes, I’ve recently done timeline’s/scenarios that account for both possibilities. It will be interesting if Jeff is going to look at all reports of Mortimer because it seems impossible to gauge what she actually did and when she did it. I might have another look myself but when I said in my original posts that Mortimer is close to useless as a witness I wasn’t just trying to be controversial. Time wise she’s impossible to evaluate accurately.

My approach to evaluating her time is to figure that her 10 minute estimate for being at her door is probably pretty accurate, but her statement that she was at her door nearly the whole time for 30 minutes probably isn't. I would think that she would have seen more if she had been at her door that long. I think that we can figure that this 10 minute interval was sometime after Smith passed, but before Diemshutz arrived. We can also figure that the Schwartz incident couldn't have occurred while she was at her door, at least not in the location where we think that it occurred. So she doesn't seem worthless to me, because she seems to put some constraints on what's possible.

[JeffHamm]

My approach to evaluating her time is to figure that her 10 minute estimate for being at her door is probably pretty accurate, but her statement that she was at her door nearly the whole time for 30 minutes probably isn't. I would think that she would have seen more if she had been at her door that long. I think that we can figure that this 10 minute interval was sometime after Smith passed, but before Diemshutz arrived. We can also figure that the Schwartz incident couldn't have occurred while she was at her door, at least not in the location where we think that it occurred. So she doesn't seem worthless to me, because she seems to put some constraints on what's possible.

I suspect something similar, the 10ish minutes sounds more plausible than the 30 minutes. Too much happens in that 30 minutes that she misses. With 10 minutes, things can happen either side that she isn't there to see.

The hope is for us to work out roughly when that 10 minute window was (which only contains Goldstein's passage). Then we can consider which side if that window could contain the 2 minute Schwartz event (before, after, either, or neither).

Some of the recent news stories seem to suggest a sequential search, for example, but on the other hand, they also sound like a journalist has "told the story of the events" as if Fanny saw everything, when in reality the reporter is just using her as a convenient way to present the information he has gathered. If the latter, we need to be careful about how much we rely on the fine details of these reports.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

In one of the snippets about Mortimer she says: "A man touched her face and said it was quite warm". The only man who stated to have done this is Spooner, so my guess would be that Diemshutz had just returned.

Yes, and the way it reads seems to indicate that she sees the man touching the face, soon after she enters the yard.

It does, although I think Mortimer was understating things. She seems to be saying that, at least, Mrs. D. was there, the man who touched Stride's face and Louis himself. I imagine there were a few more in reality. Plus, if it was actually Spooner that she saw, her 2 or 3 don't correspond with Spooner's 'about 15' I believe he stated.

Cheers,
Frank

Perhaps she meant she could see 2 or 3 at the gates, before she went into the yard where there were more people.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I suspect something similar, the 10ish minutes sounds more plausible than the 30 minutes. Too much happens in that 30 minutes that she misses. With 10 minutes, things can happen either side that she isn't there to see.

Why then would she have mentioned 12:30?

If ~10 minutes as of ~12:45 is superimposed on nearly all of 12:30 to 1am, do we get a contradiction?

What should Fanny have seen and mentioned seeing to a reporter, that would necessarily have gone into a newspaper report?

The hope is for us to work out roughly when that 10 minute window was (which only contains Goldstein's passage). Then we can consider which side if that window could contain the 2 minute Schwartz event (before, after, either, or neither).

If the 10-minute report is regarded as being closer to the truth, then 'before' would seemingly mean 'before Smith'. In other words, the BS man did not kill Stride. What then was the purpose of the two men? I've suggested thievery. Had Schwartz been "out for the day", as in the press account, then a day at the markets would surely see him carrying home a bag of some sort.

Some of the recent news stories seem to suggest a sequential search, for example, but on the other hand, they also sound like a journalist has "told the story of the events" as if Fanny saw everything, when in reality the reporter is just using her as a convenient way to present the information he has gathered. If the latter, we need to be careful about how much we rely on the fine details of these reports.

- Jeff

What did Fanny see that suggested to her that a man had just walked out of the club, not long before she went in for the night?

[JeffHamm]

Hi NBFN,

Why then would she have mentioned 12:30?

I don't know why, that requires knowing her thoughts. Moreover, since I've not started trying to collate the press reports yet, I'm loath to start speculating on any particular specific. I do think, though, that the 30 minute vigil just seems improbable, as if she was out from 12:30 to 1:00, no matter whom you think kills Stride, she should have seen them together; or you have Stride murdered before 12:30, and Lave doesn't spot her when he's in the yard, etc. So Fanny out from 12:30 to 1:00, even without doing a full analysis, just seems to me to already create too many problems that cannot be resolved. However, as we know that other reports have her out for only 10 around minutes, then that shorter length vigil is more likely to fit in with the other statements. As such, I will be surprised if, after completing the analysis, if the 30 minute version looks like a reasonable alternative to a shorter, 10 minute vigil.

Mind you, it is not unheard of for an analysis to produce a result that is surprising, so perhaps I'll change my view?

If ~10 minutes as of ~12:45 is superimposed on nearly all of 12:30 to 1am, do we get a contradiction?

Well, strictly speaking, yes, because ~10 minutes starting at ~12:45 precludes 12:30 to ~12:45, or if you allow ~12:45 to start towards 12:30, you preclude more of the interval up to 1:00. There's 20 minutes of difference between the durations, and that's sizeable and covers the critical times.

What should Fanny have seen and mentioned seeing to a reporter, that would necessarily have gone into a newspaper report?

Again, all we have is what the reporter wrote their stories, and the editors modify them to fit in the column space. So presuming their stories are based upon what Fanny said to the reporter, she chose to mention those things. She may have mentioned more that the reporter didn't include, or the editor cut out. And she may have said the things we have in words differently than the reporter chose to use. We don't have Fanny's direct words because she wasn't called to the inquest, where we have a better chance of getting a version of their direct wordage.

If the 10-minute report is regarded as being closer to the truth, then 'before' would seemingly mean 'before Smith'. In other words, the BS man did not kill Stride. What then was the purpose of the two men? I've suggested thievery. Had Schwartz been "out for the day", as in the press account, then a day at the markets would surely see him carrying home a bag of some sort.

Maybe, but first we need to work out Fanny's information on its own. Then, we can see how that aligns with PC Smith's statements, knowing of course, that Fanny and PC Smith's "times" will be based on different clocks. If we end up with Fanny's "start of vigil" time being close to "PC Smith's Patrol time", with differences within the range of different clocks, we may be able to reconcile things. Hard to say at this point though.

What did Fanny see that suggested to her that a man had just walked out of the club, not long before she went in for the night?

That comes from a news report that, on my first read through it, looks ... odd. It attributes to Fanny a lot of statements that seem to be phrased similarly to how other people report their actions. As I mentioned above, it has the feel of that reporter writing the information of the night as if it had all be relayed to him by Fanny, as if she "saw everything that happened, which coincidently are only things reported in the press by others", and that raises a few red flags that I want to check out. It may be my reaction is wrong, and once I go through all the information carefully, it will come out that it appears that Fanny simply did get there in time to witness all of those events. That would be cool, and very useful to us. But if it is just a reporter being "stylistic" in their news presentation, then that would be a shame. Again, it's too early to make a call on that, and it is also quite possible that after examining things that other options will present themselves. There's a lot of information to unpack first.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Thanks to Herlock for gathering all the available reports into one place. Great job.

Reading through them I noticed various consistencies and inconsistencies.

There are reports of a Mrs Mortimer who lives at #36, four doors from the scene of the tragedy. She stated she was at her door for most of 30 minutes and referred to Diemshitz as the manager or steward of the club. She saw a man with a black bag going down Berner St.

There are reports from a woman, who is consistently un-named, who lived two doors from the scene of the tragedy. She spent only 10 minutes at her door stoop. She referred to the heavy tramp of a policeman passing and to hearing Diemshitz pony pass by.

Then there is a report from an artisan's wife (Mortimer's husband was a car-man) seen standing and talking to other women three doors from the club, but there is no indication of where she lived. She heard someone call out about 10 inches of cold steel, and referred to Diemshitz as "Mr Lewis". When she arrived at the gateway there were only two or three people present, including Lewis and his wife, so that must have been before Diemshitz departed and returned with Spooner. She saw a man with a black bag going up Berner St.

If these reports were from the same woman I would expect there to be some overlap in the detail, but I can't see that there is any overlap. IMO these reports were from three different women. Door stoop snooping was common practice at the time. We know than Mortimer, Marshall and Letchford's sister were thus engaged on that night. Perhaps they stood in their doorways just inside the building line, and thus did not see each other, or perhaps door stoop snooping was so common that no-one thought to mention that others were also engaging in the practice.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Then there is a report from an artisan's wife (Mortimer's husband was a car-man) seen standing and talking to other women three doors from the club, but there is no indication of where she lived. She heard someone call out about 10 inches of cold steel, and referred to Diemshitz as "Mr Lewis". When she arrived at the gateway there were only two or three people present, including Lewis and his wife, so that must have been before Diemshitz departed and returned with Spooner. She saw a man with a black bag going up Berner St.

The reference to the 2 or 3 in the gateway is interesting. Had Mr & Mrs Diemschitz been in the yard (away from the gates), it would have been too dark for the woman to recognise them, unless it was by voice. Even then she might have had a hard time picking out those voices amongst the 15 or so that Spooner reckoned was in the yard when he arrived. But I'm wondering how there could not have been roughly that (larger) number, given the following.

Mrs Diemschitz: I at once complied with his [Louis'] request and gave him some matches. He then rushed out into the yard, and I followed him to the doorway, where I remained. Just by the door I saw a pool of blood, and when my husband struck a light I noticed a dark lump lying under the wall. I at once recognised it as the body of a woman, while, to add to my horror, I saw a stream of blood trickling down the yard, and terminating in the pool I had first noticed. She was lying on her back with her head against the wall, and the face looked ghastly. I screamed out in fright, and the members of the club, hearing my cries, rushed downstairs in a body out into the yard.

If Louis was there when the woman arrived and had yet to go for police himself, then the following cannot be strictly true.

C: Did you touch the body?
D: No, I ran off at once for the police.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Thanks to Herlock for gathering all the available reports into one place. Great job.

Reading through them I noticed various consistencies and inconsistencies.

There are reports of a Mrs Mortimer who lives at #36, four doors from the scene of the tragedy. She stated she was at her door for most of 30 minutes and referred to Diemshitz as the manager or steward of the club. She saw a man with a black bag going down Berner St.

There are reports from a woman, who is consistently un-named, who lived two doors from the scene of the tragedy. She spent only 10 minutes at her door stoop. She referred to the heavy tramp of a policeman passing and to hearing Diemshitz pony pass by.

Then there is a report from an artisan's wife (Mortimer's husband was a car-man) seen standing and talking to other women three doors from the club, but there is no indication of where she lived. She heard someone call out about 10 inches of cold steel, and referred to Diemshitz as "Mr Lewis". When she arrived at the gateway there were only two or three people present, including Lewis and his wife, so that must have been before Diemshitz departed and returned with Spooner. She saw a man with a black bag going up Berner St.

If these reports were from the same woman I would expect there to be some overlap in the detail, but I can't see that there is any overlap. IMO these reports were from three different women. Door stoop snooping was common practice at the time. We know than Mortimer, Marshall and Letchford's sister were thus engaged on that night. Perhaps they stood in their doorways just inside the building line, and thus did not see each other, or perhaps door stoop snooping was so common that no-one thought to mention that others were also engaging in the practice.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I agree that there is enough uncertainty in the reports to call into question whether the reports are from different sources. Where you don't see any overlap in the three accounts, I'd say there's certainly one. A lone woman on her doorstep. That has to be the key unifying factor. Otherwise, we have 3 independent witnesses in a critical time period who didn't see Stride and didn't see each other. 3 people, 3 vantage points, 3 time frames, absolutely zero useful information. Add that two of them see a man with a black bag, but at different times and heading a different direction if the accounts are taken as accurate, and we can reasonably assume one sighting was Fanny's at the latter part of the vigil period, who saw the other black bag man, and when? And didn't see the PC, or anything else for that matter.

The reports don't match up as neatly as we'd like them to, but for them to come from three separate lone female doorstep snoopers, all in close proximity to each other, who didn't notice each other and who essentially did and didn't see the same things just seems unlikely to me. Factor in the nature of the scene and the nature of the press, I think it's harder to make a case for these being different accounts than there is for it being Fanny Mortimer recycled.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi George,

I agree that there is enough uncertainty in the reports to call into question whether the reports are from different sources. Where you don't see any overlap in the three accounts, I'd say there's certainly one. A lone woman on her doorstep. That has to be the key unifying factor. Otherwise, we have 3 independent witnesses in a critical time period who didn't see Stride and didn't see each other. 3 people, 3 vantage points, 3 time frames, absolutely zero useful information. Add that two of them see a man with a black bag, but at different times and heading a different direction if the accounts are taken as accurate, and we can reasonably assume one sighting was Fanny's at the latter part of the vigil period, who saw the other black bag man, and when? And didn't see the PC, or anything else for that matter.

The reports don't match up as neatly as we'd like them to, but for them to come from three separate lone female doorstep snoopers, all in close proximity to each other, who didn't notice each other and who essentially did and didn't see the same things just seems unlikely to me. Factor in the nature of the scene and the nature of the press, I think it's harder to make a case for these being different accounts than there is for it being Fanny Mortimer recycled.

I agree completely with your assessment here.

It is likely that these conflicting reports stem from the same initial source; Fanny Mortimer.


But I think that the reason for some of the clear discrepancies can perhaps be explained by the following hypothesis...

We know that Mortimer wasn't the wife of an Artisan. That's a fact.

And so an initial response would be; well that's not Mortimer.

However, I think that all of the accounts are from Fanny Mortimer.

But why the clear and obvious differences in the multiple accounts?

Well, what if the initial account was of Fanny describing a man she saw walking UP Berner Street and coming FROM the direction of the club?...

But then this is changed deliberately to alter the direction of which the man seen was travelling?

We know that the man allegedly seen walking FROM the club was reported early on; the following day in the newspapers.

But when did the alternate reports of Mortimer having seen a man walking DOWN the street TOWARDS the club appear in the press?

Well, frustratingly, the same day as the other contradictory report.

So we have a chronology issue that IF it could be resolved, may identify the correct order in which the statement/s were taken.

Do we have a case of a report being deliberately altered in order to either state that the man seen by Mortimer was travelling TOWARDS or FROM the club?

What I think is obvious is that the man with the bag was only seen travelling in ONE direction and at ONE time only and NOT seen twice, ergo, going up AND down Berner Street.

But what would be the reason for switching the direction of travel of the man seen by Mortimer?

Well, when we think of Packer's initial not seeing or hearing ANYTHING, but then alleging to be a key witness AFTER Le Grand convinced him to tell a story; then perhaps the same applies here with Mortimer.

I am not suggesting that Le Grand got to Mortimer the same way he got to Packer, because the timing of the contrasting Mortimer reports appear in the press BEFORE Le Grand is on the scene... or was he?


If in fact Mortimer did see a man with a black bag walking FROM the murder site and UP Berner Street shortly before the body was found, then it would seem very likely that Mortimer witnessed the killer heading north toward Commercial Road moments after slaying her.

But was it a case of deliberately switching direction in order to draw attention AWAY from the killer having just come from the club?

IF the man with the bag is all of a sudden walking TOWARDS the club, then he can't have been the killer.

When you add into the mix that Goldstein is then told to come forward to say he was the man seen with the black bag and that he was walking TOWARD the club, it then makes Goldstein void of any suspicion because he was seen walking towards and PAST the club.

But what if someone from the club had got to Mortimer and she was forced to change her story to one of a man walking TOWARD the club?

That would also explain the differences in timings when she says she was at her door for varying time periods.

In reality, I believe she went to bolt her door, and heard someone or something outside.

She states she thought it was a policeman, but I am not so sure.

The point is that something CHANGED her motivation when she got to the door.

Based on the idea that she was going to bolt her door but then stayed at her door for around 10 minutes, may be her way of saying that she heard more than she actually declared she did.

It would make her going to the door around 12.45am.

But the hearing of a policeman outside would suggest it was earlier, i.e. when Smith passed.

This claim of hearing a policeman brings the timing forward to around 12.35am when Smith passed.

But what if this is ALSO a fabrication in order to move her witness timings?

Imagine her not hearing a policeman, but hearing something else as she goes to her door?

at 12.45am

What could she of heard at that time that was said to have occurred in the street?

Now I have never been a believer of the Schwartz story, but what if it DID happen and Mortimer was another witness to the assault?

My drawing attention to the fact she claimed it was overly quiet on the street, could in fact imply it was the opposite that was true.

I don't believe that the many discrepancies in Mortimers account/s are simply a matter of editorial error; I think there's more going on here.

What made Mortimer change her motivation from going to bolt the door before going to bed, to changing her mind and standing at her door for around 10 minutes.

Something must have drawn her attention to want to stay standing at her door for around 10 minutes.


In terms of the correct direction of travel of the man with the black bag, the opposite could also apply.

The man may have been travelling TOWARDS the club and innocent, but the press may have deliberately swapped the direction of travel to the man walking FROM the club, as a way of trying to implicate the club as being involved in the murder.
This version perhaps seems more plausible as it would explain why the reporter mentions the witness as being the wife of an Artisan.
By mentioning the wife of an Artisan, it is an attempt to convince the reader that the witness is more reliable than your average local.

Note that the Artisan reference and the man seen walking FROM the club are in the same article.

When you then add Goldstein coming forward to say he was the man with the bag, it is perhaps a genuine way to explain why he was in the street.

Either way, I believe Mortimer saw or heard more than was willing to let on.

It's also interesting that in the subsequent 1891 census, the first names of all of Mortimers family are not listed and haven't been transcribed. For whatever reason she omits her children's names.
I wonder whether this was a form of defensive strategy post witness status.

Ultimately, we have to ask the all important question; can Fanny be trusted?


RD