Fanny Mortimer

[Observer]

The moral to this story is carefully digest what's being said before jumping to conclusions

Exchanges in opinion between you and I could fit on one hand, it's often a volatile Forum, don't take everything to heart. I'd wager your heated arguments outweigh mine though. Also, it wasn't I who labelled you a nasty piece of work.

Safe spaces? Here's a better solution, I certainly won't be replying to any post you make here in future, as I said I haven't made that many in the past

[Herlock Sholmes]

In response to posts 114 and 116.

Firstly, I misread your post and was influenced by past comments into making an assumption. So for that I certainly apologise for getting it wrong.

but,

In the past you’ve certainly popped up unexpectedly to make derogatory comments directed at me out of the blue. So I’d say that it’s perhaps not unexpected that I was on the defensive. I’ve pointed this out in private to 3 or 4 posters who have all noticed exactly the same thing. I was advised by them just to ignore you. Those posters certainly aren’t ‘nasty pieces of work.’ Ive also, along with others, had a torrent of insults on the Stride threads which I didn’t initiate. On the Wallace thread a poster went into such a meltdown of personal insults against me (again simply because I disagreed with him and without insulting him) that he got banned (and no I didn’t report him) So if being insulted and then reacting to it makes me the devil incarnate then there’s nothing I can do about it. Perhaps we need to introduce safe spaces on here where some posters can nurture their ideas or theories without someone disagreeing with them?

[Observer]

Furthermore, this is what I posted in reply to NBFN

"Looking at your record in this thread, I'd say it's you who is all at sea rather than Mr Sholmes"

Now, how anyone could take from the above that I was suggesting you were wrong, and I have a poisonous obsession with you takes the biscuit. Very strange.

[Observer]

How are you going there, in the backseat?
I hope all the motion hasn't made you feel seasick.

Yes but with you in the driving seat it's become somewhat of a car crash.

[Observer]

He was just gloating because he thought that you’d caught me out. Now that I’ve shown that you hadn’t caught me out there’s no comment. Of course.

Errrr the reason I haven't commented is unlike some, I'm not obsessed with this Forum, and have just returned this instant.

It also highlights your paranoia, I was not gloating, nor am I obsessed with any poster in this Forum, I actually agree with all your input in this thread. As Wickerman pointed out though it's been done to death, it's all been discussed before, nothing new. Mr Richards continues with his folly. We seem to have another deluded poster, however, when it comes to determining exactly how Liz Stride met her end

Looking at your recent discourse with me, I've got to agree with Aussie Dave, you're a nasty piece of work

[Herlock Sholmes]

How are you going there, in the backseat?
I hope all the motion hasn't made you feel seasick.

He was just gloating because he thought that you’d caught me out. Now that I’ve shown that you hadn’t caught me out there’s no comment. Of course.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Looking at your record in this thread, I'd say it's you who is all at sea rather than Mr Sholmes

How are you going there, in the backseat?
I hope all the motion hasn't made you feel seasick.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That’s not what I’m hinting at, Andrew.
The sequence of events I propose based on reading, at least, much of the evidence is as follows:

1. Stride & companion arrive close to the club
2. Smith arrives and sees Stride & companion opposite the club
3. Stride, now alone, is standing at the entrance of the yard when Schwartz sees an altercation between Stride and a man who had been walking ahead of him
4. couple arrives at the corner of the board school
5. Brown passes and sees the couple
6. Mortimer comes to her door

If I must put times to this sequence, then they might be as follows:
12:42 a.m. : Stride & companion move to the vicinity of the club
12:42 a.m. : P.C. Smith sees Stride and a man opposite Dutfield’s Yard
12:45 a.m. : Schwartz witnesses the altercation between a man and Stride
12:46 a.m. : a couple arrives at the Fairclough side of the board school and stand there for some 20 minutes (Evening News, 1 October)
12:47 a.m. : James Brown sees a couple at the corner of the board school
12:48 a.m. : Fanny Mortimer goes to stand at her door

Things could have been somewhat closer together as, for instance, the Schwartz incident could have been over in 30 or 40 seconds and Brown, undoubtedly, passed within 20 seconds.


I don’t see how or why it should be false and misleading to suggest there was a gap between Mortimer going back inside and her hearing the pony cart arrive. And if there was a gap, Stride and her killer simply did have a chance of going into the yard unseen. As we don’t know what really happened, nor when & how, it could have happened at any time the evidence allows for and the gap we’re talking about here is simply one of those times.


1:00:00 Diemshutz passes clock at corner of Berner Street
1:00:30 Diemshutz arrives in yard
1:01:00 Diemshutz alerts people inside
1:01:30 Diemshutz & Isaacs run out of the yard
1:02:00 Diemshutz & Isaacs reach Grove Street
1:02:45 Diemshutz & Spooner arrive in the yard

According to Lamb he arrived in the yard 10 to 12 minutes before Blackwell, so that would put his arrival at 1:04 to 1:06. If we’d assume it was 1:06 then Spooner arrived over 3 minutes earlier than Lamb instead of the 4 to 5 minutes that he deposed. If we’d assume he actually arrived at 1:04, then Diemshutz was closer to the truth, as according to him, Lamb and PC 426 H arrived when Spooner had just lifted Strides head. However, both are good enough for me, simply because timings are not the most reliable thing for us to lean on.


I wasn’t referring to his arrival time, but to his estimate of "two policemen, who arrived about seven minutes after the discovery."

Within your sequence, Stride and companion must arrive for a reason, and parcel man must very soon after, leave for a reason, and then Stride must have a reason for then going to stand in the gateway. Taken together, these movements seem inexplicable.
If parcel man were innocent, why did he not come forward?
If Stride went to the gateway to solicit, it was possibly the first time she had ever done so...

Wess: About twelve months ago I happened to go into the yard, and heard some chatting near the gate, and I at once went there and shut the gate.

Prior to Smith passing, no one seems to have seen her alone that night anywhere, let alone at the gates.
Quite suddenly, no less than three men see her there … or so the story goes.

Moving on to the 'Schwartz incident', you use the (apparently popular) argument that this might have been over in 30 or 40 seconds.
That might be true in terms of getting Schwartz away from Dutfield's Yard, but that is not the end of the story.
The supposed 30 to 40 seconds is from the point of view of Israel Schwartz - yet he is only one of four involved in the drama.
So what about...

The pipeman incident - does this character chase Schwartz, give up half way to 22 Ellen street, and then return to the scene? Why not...?

The Star: A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

Schwartz was the intruder.

By the way, how did Schwartz know that what Knifeman was shouting, was A) to the man (and not the woman), and B) a warning, if Schwartz could not understand English? Did Knifeman shout in Yiddish, perhaps?

The b-s man incident - after shouting 'Lipski', he does … what?

The Stride incident - after screaming not loudly enough to alert the neighborhood, she does … what?

So the term 'Schwartz incident' is misleading.
In more general terms, this is a time/risk related 'principle' (for want of a better word), to think about...

The closer we get to the arrival of Diemschitz, with Stride still alive, the more likely it is that Stride will be seen by others, from the point in time that Smith passes.

Ceteris paribus, Stride being killed by parcel man, is low risk - whereas just prior to 1am (assuming we get that far), is high risk.
Ceteris paribus, we should prefer low risk to high. The Worker's Friend seems to have done just that (assuming they don't know the murderer's identity).


Regarding the 4 minute gap, I posted on that at length, so I would rather comment on any critique of that, rather than making the same points over again.


As for Lamb's timing, what time did he arrive, and was he actually referring to Blackwell, or Johnston? He said (Times):

About 1 o'clock, as near as I can tell, on Sunday morning I was in the Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street. Two men came running towards me.
…
Dr. Blackwell, about ten minutes after I got there, was the first doctor to arrive.
…
Dr. Phillips arrived about 20 minutes afterwards;

So what at what time did Phillips arrive? Lloyd's Weekly News, Sep 30:

Dr. Phillips was sent for, who came at 1.30 in a cab.

A bobbie's sense of time, is not to be dismissed lightly.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Looking at your record in this thread, I'd say it's you who is all at sea rather than Mr Sholmes

Ive missed your poisonous obsession with me.

Even your attempt at humour is based on a misuse of a word. Keeping the standard up I see.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You may have been talking about Spooner, but you also gave an earliest arrival time for Lamb - 1:07.

Earlier in the same post, you said...



So after numerous posts on the subject of the Berner street timeline, you've reached a stage in which you have Smith arriving several minutes before Lamb.

Perhaps you could employ that admiral humility of yours, and explain to the forum how and why, in attempting to prove both Schwartz and Diemschitz essentially correct, you've managed to get yourself in to such a tangle?

I haven’t mentioned Smith arriving before Lamb. In fact in the timeline I did I wrote:

“According to Smith he gets back to Berner Street around 1.00 but, as Lamb was already there it must have been nearer to 1.07”


My time 1.07 for Lamb’s arrival is not exact (my use of the word ‘around’ was the clue.) So it may have been slightly earlier.

Smith said that at 1.00 he went into Berner Street. But as we cannot be exact as to the time that he actually arrived it is possible at it might have been later. I also confirmed in my timeline that Lamb was already there when Smith arrived.


And the phrase should be ‘admirable humility’ not ‘admiral.’ This is a mistake. You should learn to recognise them before indulging in an ego-driven attempt to find them in others.

[Observer]

Perhaps you could employ that admiral humility of yours,

Looking at your record in this thread, I'd say it's you who is all at sea rather than Mr Sholmes

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Id call this one error each actually.

When I quoted you Frank’s quote was incorporated and it was him that mentioned Mortimer at just before 12.45. An error on my part. (That’s how you accept an error btw. Not dodge around it or ignore it)

Now your error.

I was clearly talking about Spooner being there before Lamb arrived and not Smith.

You may have been talking about Spooner, but you also gave an earliest arrival time for Lamb - 1:07.

Earlier in the same post, you said...

If we thought that Kozebrodski was unreliable then Hoschberg is far easier to dismiss as very obviously mistaken. Firstly we know that it was Lamb who blew his whistle to tell everyone to get away from the body and we know that Lamb arrived somewhere around 1.07. Secondly, there were no people gathered around the gates at 12.45 but there were later on. This ties in with the time that Lamb was there. Hoschberg is dismissed as a reliable witness on timing. Absolutely no doubt.

So after numerous posts on the subject of the Berner street timeline, you've reached a stage in which you have Smith arriving several minutes before Lamb.

Perhaps you could employ that admiral humility of yours, and explain to the forum how and why, in attempting to prove both Schwartz and Diemschitz essentially correct, you've managed to get yourself in to such a tangle?

[FrankO]

If they have gone into the yard after 12:45, but before 12:47 or 48, then parcel man is surely the killer.
Not sure were that would leave the Schwartz tale - maybe that is what you're hinting at?

That’s not what I’m hinting at, Andrew.
The sequence of events I propose based on reading, at least, much of the evidence is as follows:

1. Stride & companion arrive close to the club
2. Smith arrives and sees Stride & companion opposite the club
3. Stride, now alone, is standing at the entrance of the yard when Schwartz sees an altercation between Stride and a man who had been walking ahead of him
4. couple arrives at the corner of the board school
5. Brown passes and sees the couple
6. Mortimer comes to her door

If I must put times to this sequence, then they might be as follows:
12:42 a.m. : Stride & companion move to the vicinity of the club
12:42 a.m. : P.C. Smith sees Stride and a man opposite Dutfield’s Yard
12:45 a.m. : Schwartz witnesses the altercation between a man and Stride
12:46 a.m. : a couple arrives at the Fairclough side of the board school and stand there for some 20 minutes (Evening News, 1 October)
12:47 a.m. : James Brown sees a couple at the corner of the board school
12:48 a.m. : Fanny Mortimer goes to stand at her door

Things could have been somewhat closer together as, for instance, the Schwartz incident could have been over in 30 or 40 seconds and Brown, undoubtedly, passed within 20 seconds.

Alternatively we are looking at Mortimer observing the street from about 12:47:00, until the end of 12:56.
So we would need Stride to leave the scene before this period, and then both Stride and killer to either enter the yard in that period, without Fanny noticing (another roll of the dice), or for both to enter in the few minutes prior to 1am.
The later (1am) point assumes there was a gap between Mortimer's lockup and Diemschitz' arrival, which I think is false, and just part of the highly misleading Daily/Evening News reports.
Even if there were a gap, what are the chances that Stride and killer would independently meet at the gates in this short period, or that they return together from some trip from around a corner or side street (and no one notices that either)?

I don’t see how or why it should be false and misleading to suggest there was a gap between Mortimer going back inside and her hearing the pony cart arrive. And if there was a gap, Stride and her killer simply did have a chance of going into the yard unseen. As we don’t know what really happened, nor when & how, it could have happened at any time the evidence allows for and the gap we’re talking about here is simply one of those times.

Doesn't Spooner arrive 4 or 5 minutes before Lamb?
How much time elapsed from the point Diemschitz sees the clock, to Spooner's arrival at the yard? It's more that 1 or 2 minutes.

1:00:00 Diemshutz passes clock at corner of Berner Street
1:00:30 Diemshutz arrives in yard
1:01:00 Diemshutz alerts people inside
1:01:30 Diemshutz & Isaacs run out of the yard
1:02:00 Diemshutz & Isaacs reach Grove Street
1:02:45 Diemshutz & Spooner arrive in the yard

According to Lamb he arrived in the yard 10 to 12 minutes before Blackwell, so that would put his arrival at 1:04 to 1:06. If we’d assume it was 1:06 then Spooner arrived over 3 minutes earlier than Lamb instead of the 4 to 5 minutes that he deposed. If we’d assume he actually arrived at 1:04, then Diemshutz was closer to the truth, as according to him, Lamb and PC 426 H arrived when Spooner had just lifted Strides head. However, both are good enough for me, simply because timings are not the most reliable thing for us to lean on.

Why did you refer to Diemschitz claimed arrival time, as an estimate?

I wasn’t referring to his arrival time, but to his estimate of "two policemen, who arrived about seven minutes after the discovery."

[Herlock Sholmes]

The word 'Smith' does not appear in post #101. Nor does any reference to a passing policeman.
As usual, you're just making things up.



That would mean Smith return's to the top of Berner street (Commercial Road), by 1am.
Yet in the sequence thread, you say...



So you now have Smith arriving about 7 minutes before Lamb, when in fact it was close to the other way around.

Id call this one error each actually.

When I quoted you Frank’s quote was incorporated and it was him that mentioned Mortimer at just before 12.45. An error on my part. (That’s how you accept an error btw. Not dodge around it or ignore it)

Now your error.

I was clearly talking about Spooner being there before Lamb arrived and not Smith.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why do you assume Mortimer to have been correct about the time that she heard Smith pass?

The word 'Smith' does not appear in post #101. Nor does any reference to a passing policeman.
As usual, you're just making things up.

Smith said that it was 12.30-12.35 of course. So If Smith passed at say 12.33 and Fanny went to her doorstep at 12.34 then we would have her on her doorstep for 10 minutes as she claimed but which might only have been 8 minutes or 9 minutes. Which would have meant that she could have been back inside as early as 12.42. She could have seen Goldstein at 12.40.

That would mean Smith return's to the top of Berner street (Commercial Road), by 1am.
Yet in the sequence thread, you say...

“I stood there about five minutes before a constable came.”

This is Lamb of course who couldn’t have arrived before around 1.07.

So you now have Smith arriving about 7 minutes before Lamb, when in fact it was close to the other way around.