Fanny Mortimer

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You just won’t let this fantasy go will you?

Actually, it is you and the other hard-core Schwartzists, who cannot let the fantasy go.

The Star: INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder. This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line.

So Israel Schwartz was probably an actor!
Was he paid for his services to the Socialist League, I wonder, or was there some other kind of deal done?

The Star: He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter.

How convenient that all the nuances of speech were hidden from the police, and a friend doing the interpreting!

The Star: The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly.

So the man tried, but failed? The man had broad shoulders. Stride was a slight, impoverished woman, and of middle age.
If the man had wanted to pull her into the street (for no obvious reason), he could have.
Schwartz clearly lied about this, and furthermore, the footway is the street, for all intents and purposes. Why would she have stood in the darkness of the Dutfield's Yard passageway?

Swanson: The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, ...

How improbable that the one and only word that was called out, was a word meaningful to this man of no English!

The Star: He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane.

If the police did not disclose his name and address, he (or the interpreter) must have contacted the press of his own accord.
What possible reason would he have for doing that? What's in it for him?
Many people spoke to the press on Berner street, the morning of the murder - so why not Schwartz? Why did he require a special meeting?

Of course, these questions assume that the man who spoke to the reporter, was the same man who spoke to Abberline.
A rather different story was given, though - so we can't be sure it was the same man.

The Star: It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved.

So Schwartz supposedly went out all morning, afternoon, evening, and well into the night, leaving all the details and work involved in moving address, to his wife!
However, this unlikely scenario sets him up for one of the most beautifully constructed excuses ever told by someone going near a crime scene.
You see he just wanted to quickly duck down Berner street that night, to see if his wife had finished moving, but unfortunately was frightened off by a man smoking a pipe. Not to worry, when he finally made it to the new address, the wife was there! What a relief - don't have to go back to Berner street tonight!
So Schwartz gave himself an excuse for briefly being on Berner street, at close to the time of the murder. How utterly convenient.

By the way, what's this 'expected to move' bit? Expected? Is that the excuse to be used, when not found at the new address?

The Schwartz incident was over when it was over. It would have taken a matter of seconds.

When Schwartz runs away incontinently, b-s man is still at the gates, and Stride is still on the footway.
What happens then? Do these two quickly run off stage, in preparation for the next act?

Apparently no one else saw it. So what?

The Star: The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

Irish Times: During the day all sorts of stories were brought to the police with the object of showing that more or less effective "clues" to the perpetrators of the murders had been obtained. ... Another story was to the effect that a man of light complexion had been struggling with the woman Stride in Berner street, and that he threw her down, but it being thought that it was a man and wife quarrelling nobody interfered with them.

Those who saw it? Nobody interfered with them? What's all this about, then?

The police, who were there, believed him and continued to believe him.

Anderson to the Home Office, Oct 23: That a crime of this kind should have been committed without any clue being supplied by the criminal, is unusual, but that five successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime. ...
Moreover, the activities of the Police has been to a considerable extent wasted through the exigencies of sensational journalism, and the actions of unprincipled persons, who, from various motives, have endeavoured to mislead us.

Israel Schwartz may well have been one of those unprincipled persons, and there is not a hint of him being heard from or making an appearance at the inquest. Where did he go?

Unless of course they put the description given by him of BS Man onto the front page of the Police Gazette over 2 weeks after the Inquest was over just for a laugh.

You're wrong to suppose 'the police' was a monolithic thing, in which everyone agrees with everyone else.

I’m getting tired of this embarrassing conspiracy crap!!!

Does that include your own crap...?

Hi Caz,

If Schwartz had felt threatened by his encounter with BS Man and Pipeman might he not just have layed low at a friend's house or somewhere out of town until it all died down?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So let's call it 12:55. Now when you do you want the so-called Schwartz incident over by?



Elizabeth Strides Inquest



Those at the curved bench are reporters

You just won’t let this fantasy go will you? The Schwartz incident was over when it was over. It would have taken a matter of seconds. Apparently no one else saw it. So what? The police, who were there, believed him and continued to believe him. Unless of course they put the description given by him of BS Man onto the front page of the Police Gazette over 2 weeks after the Inquest was over just for a laugh. I’m getting tired of this embarrassing conspiracy crap!!!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And you don't seem to understand this pointless nitpicking on 5 minutes or so here and there.

So let's call it 12:55. Now when you do you want the so-called Schwartz incident over by?

The oft quoted 'precisely' could simply have been added by the reporter.

Elizabeth Strides Inquest



Those at the curved bench are reporters

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
You still don't seem to understand that if Smith arrives just after 1am (even 1:05), Diemschitz cannot have arrived at 1am, as claimed.
The choice is Diemschitz or Smith, but not both

And you don't seem to understand this pointless nitpicking on 5 minutes or so here and there. The oft quoted 'precisely' could simply have been added by the reporter.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No need to apologise Frank. Your version also provides a time gap for the Schwartz incident.

That 1½ to 2 minute gap, is roughly the time it would take Smith to walk from #40 to #1 Berner street.

For all 4 actors in the Schwartz play to be out of Mortimer's sight, by the time she gets to her doorway, the play would have to begin well before Smith reaches Commercial Rd - meaning he would walk straight past b-s man and IS - those two going in the other direction. Smith would then hear the event.
Both Stride and b-s man would also have to quickly leave the scene, without going into the yard, else Fanny will see b-s man walking away from it.

My only doubt is that I’d given greater weight to Smith’s accuracy about time as he’d passed the same clock that Diemschutz took his timing from.

You still don't seem to understand that if Smith arrives just after 1am (even 1:05), Diemschitz cannot have arrived at 1am, as claimed.
The choice is Diemschitz or Smith, but not both.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Sorry for the late reply, Michael, but you’re right, it is like a bad game of join the dots!
I see that you keep holding tight to Smith’s estimate of 12:30 – 12:35, which is fine, of course. I like your first suggestion better than the second, because it fits better (or, perhaps, less bad) with the evidence.

That would return Smith to the top of Berner street, at close to 1am.

I, actually, didn’t mention a 4^th possibility (not on purpose):
Mortimer heard Smith pass her house just before 12:45 and went to her doorstep at least 1.5 minute later (so that Smith and Stride & companion would be out of sight) and stood there for some 10 minutes.

Where did Stride & companion go, considering she must return just before 1am, if not into the yard?
And when does JtR enter the picture?

The way I look at things, this possibility is a best fit for all the evidence we have. As you know my reasoning is that if we count back from Blackwell’s arrival in the yard at 1:16, we arrive at Johnson’s arrival/Smith’s departure at 1:12 -1:13 and if we’d assume that Smith stayed at the scene for 5 minutes before he left for the ambulance (which seems quite long to me, judging by his statement), he’d arrived at the scene around 1:07 – 1:08.

The 1:16 gets quoted all the time, but strictly speaking, this is the time Blackwell begins his examination, not his time of arrival at the gates.
This is true because Johnston is aware of this time - thus it must have been recorded by Johnston when he is with Blackwell, near the body...

As soon as Dr. Blackwell came he looked at his watch. It was then 1:16. I was there three or four minutes before Dr. Blackwell.

The coroner had this understanding, also...

… although the bleeding had stopped when Dr. Blackwell's assistant arrived, the whole of her body and the limbs, except her hands, were warm, and even at 16 minutes past 1 a.m. Dr. Blackwell found her face slightly warm, and her chest and legs quite warm.

I know, this doesn’t fit with Smith’s assertion that he was at the corner of Commercial Road and Berner Street at around 1 o’clock, but he can’t have been there, yet, at that time, as he didn’t see Eagle running, he didn’t see PC 426 H going to get Dr. Blackwell and he didn’t see PC 426 H returning with Johnson from that corner. When Smith arrived at the north-western corner of Berner Street, PC 426 H must have been waiting in the doctor’s house, which was at the north-eastern corner of Batty Street, for assistant Johnson to get ready.

There must be a gap of some minutes, for these reasons, although 426H could have gone to the surgery via Fairclough & Batty streets.

The big problem is always going to be that Lamb must arrive a few minutes or more before Smith, for Smith to not hear any of the related activity.
Yet this puts Lamb on the scene at 4 or 5 past 1 (in your 4th scenario), and much activity has to occur between then and 1am, for Diemschitz to arrive when claimed. Consider what he said to The Star:

First of all I thought it was my wife, but I found her inside the club enjoying herself with the others. I said to some of the members there is a woman lying in the yard, and I think she is drunk. Young Isaacs, a tailor machinist, went to the door and struck a match, and to our horror we saw blood trickling down the gutter almost from the gate to the club. The dance was immediately stopped. I and Isaacs ran out for a policeman, but could not find one after traversing several streets, but in the meantime another man from the Club, Eagle, ran to the Leman-street police-station and fetched two policemen, who arrived about seven minutes after the discovery.

The Leman street detail is incorrect, but the 7 minutes would throw out the timeline.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No need to apologise Frank. Your version also provides a time gap for the Schwartz incident. My only doubt is that I’d given greater weight to Smith’s accuracy about time as he’d passed the same clock that Diemschutz took his timing from.

[FrankO]

The short answer is that I don’t know Frank There’s no interpretation of events which can encompass everything without assuming significant errors by someone.

We’ve discussed the possibility of errors by Mortimer and Smith but we only discuss Schwartz in terms of was he there or not. What if he was there but slightly later than stated? After all, if he didn’t own a watch, why would he have been more likely to have got the time right than anyone else? So what if....

Smith passes at 12.34
Mortimer comes to her doorstep at 12.35
She stands there for 15 minutes
She goes back inside at 12.50
The Schwartz incident occurs at 12.51
She hears the commotion from the club around 1.01 (meaning instead of 4 minutes inside had been 10?)

or

Smith passes at 12.34
Mortimer comes to her doorstep at 12.35
She goes back inside at around 12.45 for some purpose (maybe she went to the loo but didn't want to mention it)
She returned to her doorstep at around 12.47 (missing the Schwartz incident)
She stays there for 10 minutes then goes inside
4 minutes

Its like the worst game of join the dots ever Frank

Sorry for the late reply, Michael, but you’re right, it is like a bad game of join the dots!
I see that you keep holding tight to Smith’s estimate of 12:30 – 12:35, which is fine, of course. I like your first suggestion better than the second, because it fits better (or, perhaps, less bad) with the evidence.

I, actually, didn’t mention a 4^th possibility (not on purpose):
Mortimer heard Smith pass her house just before 12:45 and went to her doorstep at least 1.5 minute later (so that Smith and Stride & companion would be out of sight) and stood there for some 10 minutes.

The way I look at things, this possibility is a best fit for all the evidence we have. As you know my reasoning is that if we count back from Blackwell’s arrival in the yard at 1:16, we arrive at Johnson’s arrival/Smith’s departure at 1:12 -1:13 and if we’d assume that Smith stayed at the scene for 5 minutes before he left for the ambulance (which seems quite long to me, judging by his statement), he’d arrived at the scene around 1:07 – 1:08.

I know, this doesn’t fit with Smith’s assertion that he was at the corner of Commercial Road and Berner Street at around 1 o’clock, but he can’t have been there, yet, at that time, as he didn’t see Eagle running, he didn’t see PC 426 H going to get Dr. Blackwell and he didn’t see PC 426 H returning with Johnson from that corner. When Smith arrived at the north-western corner of Berner Street, PC 426 H must have been waiting in the doctor’s house, which was at the north-eastern corner of Batty Street, for assistant Johnson to get ready.

All the best,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

If what you propose would be true, Michael, the gap between going inside and hearing Diemshutz's pony cart pass her house would have been 13-14 minutes instead of 4. Or how do you see this?

So, there are 3 possibilities as far as I can see:

1. she heard Smith pass her house around 12:35 and went to her doorstep at least 1.5 minute later (so that Smith and Stride & companion would be out of sight) and stood there for some 10 minutes
2. she heard someone else pass her house just before 12:45 and shortly or immediately after went to her doorstep and stood there for some 10 minutes
3. same as 1, but she stood at her door for some 20 minutes

All the best,
Frank

The short answer is that I don’t know Frank There’s no interpretation of events which can encompass everything without assuming significant errors by someone.

We’ve discussed the possibility of errors by Mortimer and Smith but we only discuss Schwartz in terms of was he there or not. What if he was there but slightly later than stated? After all, if he didn’t own a watch, why would he have been more likely to have got the time right than anyone else? So what if....

Smith passes at 12.34
Mortimer comes to her doorstep at 12.35
She stands there for 15 minutes
She goes back inside at 12.50
The Schwartz incident occurs at 12.51
She hears the commotion from the club around 1.01 (meaning instead of 4 minutes inside had been 10?)

or

Smith passes at 12.34
Mortimer comes to her doorstep at 12.35
She goes back inside at around 12.45 for some purpose (maybe she went to the loo but didn't want to mention it)
She returned to her doorstep at around 12.47 (missing the Schwartz incident)
She stays there for 10 minutes then goes inside
4 minutes

Its like the worst game of join the dots ever Frank

[FrankO]

It is interesting however that he is standing where Brown claims he found a Copper on the corner of Fairclough and Christian Street?

most odd

That's an interesting observation by Jeff Leahy, indeed. Shortly after hearing screams of "Murder" and "Police", James Brown saw a man calling for a policeman standing where (or very close to where) Spooner deposed he stood.

[FrankO]

If she was simply wrong about the time that Smith passed, believing it to have been 12.45 instead of nearer to 12.35, then the 4 minutes might have been her just trying to fill in the gaps?

If what you propose would be true, Michael, the gap between going inside and hearing Diemshutz's pony cart pass her house would have been 13-14 minutes instead of 4. Or how do you see this?

So, there are 3 possibilities as far as I can see:

1. she heard Smith pass her house around 12:35 and went to her doorstep at least 1.5 minute later (so that Smith and Stride & companion would be out of sight) and stood there for some 10 minutes
2. she heard someone else pass her house just before 12:45 and shortly or immediately after went to her doorstep and stood there for some 10 minutes
3. same as 1, but she stood at her door for some 20 minutes

All the best,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
However, I doubt my analysis will make much difference to The Old Guardianistas, who will continue to interpret the report in a simple-minded way - taking everything in it at face value

Why are you so determined to brand people that might disagree with you? Cant it be possible that some just interpret some events/evidence/statements differently from yourself? You’re basically taking the Rubenhold approach by trying to brand and discredit so that you can pigeon hole. If someone disagrees with you they must have an agenda for doing so.

There are various theories and scenarios and opinions on this case. There are some that the majority believe one thing. There are some where it’s probably 50/50. I’m not dogmatically attached to anything just because it’s been around a long time. Equally I don’t feel the desperate need to accept something ‘new’ just for the sake of it being ‘new’ which appears to be the case with some.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
She said exactly that in both newspaper reports?

..............

NBFN post:

Evidently not. It was the journalist that said 'Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door', and 'shortly before a quarter to one', and 'about four minutes after she locked her front door for the night'.

She could not possibly have gone to her door immediately after hearing the PC pass, else she would have seen Stride and parcel man standing just yards away.

There was no careful checking of the time just before she went outside.

There was no four minutes between going inside and arrival of the pony cart.

Can you not see how the journalist regards the 'about four minutes' as a logical necessity, based on reasoning that is due to faulty assumptions, that are due to a lack of information? The journalist appears to be completely ignorant of Smith's witnessing of the couple, and the report should be regarded as partially redundant.

At the very least, people should realize that much of that report is just analysis, and it is not clear what parts of the report are owing to the 'important statement', and which are the result of the journalist's own theorizing, so who can say for sure what elements of that report are attributable to Fanny? To borrow a term from Mr Marriott, the report is unsafe to use as evidence

How do you know that these errors originated with the reporter and not from Mortimer herself especially after considering what appeared in the Evening News? If she was simply wrong about the time that Smith passed, believing it to have been 12.45 instead of nearer to 12.35, then the 4 minutes might have been her just trying to fill in the gaps?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

She said exactly that in both newspaper reports?

Evidently not. It was the journalist that said 'Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door', and 'shortly before a quarter to one', and 'about four minutes after she locked her front door for the night'.

She could not possibly have gone to her door immediately after hearing the PC pass, else she would have seen Stride and parcel man standing just yards away.

There was no careful checking of the time just before she went outside.

There was no four minutes between going inside and arrival of the pony cart.

Can you not see how the journalist regards the 'about four minutes' as a logical necessity, based on reasoning that is due to faulty assumptions, that are due to a lack of information? The journalist appears to be completely ignorant of Smith's witnessing of the couple, and the report should be regarded as partially redundant.

At the very least, people should realize that much of that report is just analysis, and it is not clear what parts of the report are owing to the 'important statement', and which are the result of the journalist's own theorizing, so who can say for sure what elements of that report are attributable to Fanny? To borrow a term from Mr Marriott, the report is unsafe to use as evidence.

What point are you trying to make???

That doing Ripperology sans inquest transcripts, makes an enormous difference.

Why is everything couched in hints and riddles with you?? You are constantly trying to see mystery where none exists.

However, I doubt my analysis will make much difference to The Old Guardianistas, who will continue to interpret the report in a simple-minded way - taking everything in it at face value.

And why haven’t you considered the possibility that Smith passed at the time that he said that he had 12.30-12.35?

Did the writer of the D/EN report do that?

Okay, I will consider that possibility...

The Foreman: Was the man or the woman acting in a suspicious manner?
Smith: No.
Inspector Reid: Did you see these people more than once?
Smith: No. When I saw deceased lying on the ground I recognized her at once and made a report of what I had seen.

How long did that report take to write?
Whatever the case, Smith's testimony is arguably the most reliable in the entire case, because he wrote down what he had seen, soon after seeing it. The reliability of his info, arguably includes his times.

And that Fanny was wrong?

Okay, I will consider that possibility too...

Aside from the fact that one is a direct quote, and the other is (at best) a description of a statement, if two statements contradict, either one or the other must be at fault, or, they both are. The issue can't be resolved without further information.

It may well be that '12:30-1:00' is quite wrong, but not because the EN report suggests otherwise.
For example, if one doubts Louis' 'exactly 1am' arrival time (as I do), then the real period may have been more like 12:30-12:48.
That is, the 12:30 is Greenwich Mean Time, and the 1:00 is Louis Diemschitz Time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

More baffling, convoluted stuff.

Fanny said she heard the policeman pass by, shortly before a quarter to one. No, she did not say that

She said exactly that in both newspaper reports?

Fanny said she heard the pony and cart pass by, about four minutes after she locked her front door for the night. No, she did not say that either

She said exactly that in both newspaper reports?

What point are you trying to make??? Why is everything couched in hints and riddles with you?? You are constantly trying to see mystery where none exists.

And why haven’t you considered the possibility that Smith passed at the time that he said that he had 12.30-12.35? And that Fanny was wrong?