Mrs. Fanny Mortimer, Time wrong?

[Stewart P Evans]

A Note

Many know that I left the message boards (Casebook and JTRForums) for over a year recently.

This was because of senseless, and sometimes idiotic, debate and abuse I suffered. It will be seen (as I pointed out on JTRForums) that I do not address anyone by name or in referenced response to any point made. I do not wish to become embroiled in debate with anyone. I just like to put my point of view wherever I wish and where I think it might be of interest.

I do not consider myself a special case of any sort and if the way I post upsets anyone I shall be happy to leave the boards again. Just let me know.

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Stewart

Spratling in his original report on 31st August refers to it as a yard crossing...most folk seem to regard it as "outside a gateway", as does Neil, as quoted in the Times.

Returning to the Stride killing, I merely thought footway sounded unusual and followed it up. I'm sorry if that seems to you somewhat lacking in common sense...I always thought a sense of curiosity was a good thing...clearly not in this case.

All the best

Dave

[Stewart P Evans]

Amaze me

It never ceases to amaze me how so many of these debates descend into a question of semantics and common sense seems to fly out of the window. Here we have the seemingly straightforward word 'footway' being mulled over in the Ripperologically time-honoured way. The entrance to Dutfield's yard was around only nine feet wide and was a passageway for both vehicular (as witness Diemshitz's pony and trap) and pedestrian traffic.

That the police referred to the part of a public footpath at a yard entrance as a 'footway' is evidenced by Inspector Abberline in his report of 19th October 1888 on the Nichols murder where he writes, 'The body of a woman was found lying on the footway in Buck's Row, Whitechapel, by Charles Cross & Robert Paul...' In the inquest evidence the location of the finding of Stride's body is referred to as 'a passage leading into a yard', which seems to me to be a reasonable description of it. Dr Blackwell referred to it as 'the yard passage'.

But those of you who wish to refer to this passageway as a 'footway' please feel free to do so. Far be it from me to wish to browbeat anyone into my humble point of view.

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Lynn

"Well yes...or anybody's story. They obviously stayed put throughout her murder, however and whenever it happened, because the evidence says so..."

Yes. And so they provide a unique marker as to Liz's actions around the moment of death.

I agree they certainly prove that whatever happened to her was pretty sudden

(I knew you couldn't resist this thread in the end! )

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Stewart

The problem actually lies, in my opinion, in the fact that much official material, such as Schwartz's original statement, is now missing. And therein may have lain many answers to our puzzling mysteries.

You can say that again!

The fact that The Star gave a version of Schwartz's story, which was reported in several other papers as a domestic dispute, shows he was no 'secret'. I don't believe that the exclusion of Schwartz from the inquest has a straightforward explanation, it is more complex than that. But of significance is the date of the conclusion of the inquest which was 23 October 1888.

I suspect he'd blurted out a second statement to the Star before the police muzzled him (for his own safety as much as anything)...a man who'd perhaps seen the Whitechapel Murderer at work...

Schwartz's evidence would surely, more naturally, have been given well before the last day of the Inquest but I am intrigued by your mention of 23rd October...The only connection I can make of that is a regal one, but perhaps you'd care to elucidate?

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

marker

Hello Dave. Thanks.

"Well yes...or anybody's story. They obviously stayed put throughout her murder, however and whenever it happened, because the evidence says so..."

Yes. And so they provide a unique marker as to Liz's actions around the moment of death.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Lynn

Yes, maybe and Yes again

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jon

So the body did indeed lay on the regular paved section, which was the gutter, but as those paved sections were on a slight grade, it cannot be called a footway.

So a slight incline precludes the use of the word footway? Tell that to Donald Swanson!

I think we need a sound medical authority to explain how the muscular spasm works to clench the hands of a woman when physically threatened.
I think most of us of the great unwashed are divided on the subject.

How on earth, if Stride was pushed into the yard, did she fall and still retain those cachous? and this 'push' must also come before the knife attack, yet she held on to them damn cachous...unbelievable!

Well whoever killed her and whenever, the cachous apparently, (mostly). stayed put...and yes I'd love to hear a medic's explanation too, although I probably wouldn't understand half of it!

Hi Lynn

And this is the MAIN hurdle one must leap if one buys into the Schwartz story.

Well yes...or anybody's story. They obviously stayed put throughout her murder, however and whenever it happened, because the evidence says so...

Hi Harry

I am pretty much alone in my view that pipeman was also the man seen by Brown in the company of Stride,and that he is the more likely person to have killed her.

That's an interesting thought, and one that's just as likely in my view as a separate killer coming along later...but that's not to say either is impossible...

Hi again Jon

I think the dilemma we have always faced is that Stride appears to have suffered two physical assaults. The first in the gateway, and the second further within the yard. Some suggest the first assault was the only one. However, if that is so, then she held onto those cachous while being pushed to the ground, then also half strangled by the scarf (it was noted as 'tight'), then having her throat cut.
One might be forgiven for thinking she regarded those cachous as more precious than life itself.

If, as you suggest, no muscle spasm occurred then how was it that she did not drop them at any point during those three separate attacks (push/choke/cut)?

But if the killing is one swift move (cutting the throat as she's pushed/thrown to the ground?)...

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

clumsy of me

Hello Dave.

"If she happened to have the packet of cachous in her hand when confronted...a few were scattered in the gutter weren't they...suggesting some degree of violence."

Or a slightly clumsy doctor who admitted to spilling them?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Lipski

Hello Stewart.

"'In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterward found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.'

All this is very confusing and, despite the later mention of Schwartz in Swanson's report and those on the shout of 'Lipski', he receives no further mention by police or press after early November 1888. In my opinion there is only one explanation for this, especially as we know that his statement was not considered at the inquest."

Precisely. Not to mention that Abberline seems a bit perplexed by his questioning of Schwartz and his reply to exactly whom "Lipski" was shouted at.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

parcel man

Hello (again) Jon.

Let's discuss parcel man.

1. Smith spots him with Liz, on the east side of Berner, around 12.35.

2. Let's say they were striking a deal.

3. It would be reasonable to assume that he was headed north or south on the east pavement of Berner.

4. Given the "usual" scenario, Liz was in the gateway looking for "customers."

5. She spots him, crosses the street, and chats--beginning negotiations? (Enter PC Smith; exit PC Smith.)

6. They head for the yard.

7. Before anything happens, BSM shows up.

8. Parcel man, who had intended to kill someone all along, had to bide his time waiting for BSM to go away. He finally does.

9. He calms Liz down and gives her some cachous.

10. Whilst preparing to take one, he kills her.

Of course, one must assume that he had his knife, possibly in the parcel, and had been looking for a victim.

Do you really like this? I don't.

Cheers.
LC

[Stewart P Evans]

An Addition

Just a small addition to my earlier post on Schwartz. Mrs Mortimer cannot be drawn as a parallel to Schwartz in the witness stakes. Her story was widely reported and was confused and confusing. I get the impression, from the press reports, that she may well have been assessed as being in the same class of reliability as Packer and was thus discounted by the police. Also her story was not as direct as Schwartz's which involved an alleged sighting of Stride herself and a suspect for the murder.

Schwartz's evidence, if true and accurate, is hugely relevant. This makes it a real mystery as to why it wasn't heard, nor considered at the inquest. Warren, it seems, merely assumed that Schwartz had given evidence at the inquest. Suggesting secrecy on the part of the police is not really a viable consideration given the official reports that have survived and their content. The problem actually lies, in my opinion, in the fact that much official material, such as Schwartz's original statement, is now missing. And therein may have lain many answers to our puzzling mysteries.

The fact that The Star gave a version of Schwartz's story, which was reported in several other papers as a domestic dispute, shows he was no 'secret'. I don't believe that the exclusion of Schwartz from the inquest has a straightforward explanation, it is more complex than that. But of significance is the date of the conclusion of the inquest which was 23 October 1888.

[lynn cates]

time frame

Hello Jon.

"what happened in between, and how much time passed in between?"

According to Schwartz, Liz met BSM around 12.45. According to the story in "Der Arbeter Fraint," Liz was killed around 12.45. Given LVP time keeping anomalies (see, I got that in first!), perhaps 3-5 minutes?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

betwixt and between

Hello CD. Thanks.

"As we have discussed so many times, Schwartz never said that he saw Liz being killed only that he saw her being pushed to the ground."

Agreed. But . . .?

"That hurdle is easily cleared, if we assume her killer was not the B.S. man."

And hence the cachous came out between the BSM encounter and her killing?

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

I think the first step is to get away from using words like "assault" or "attack." Those are heavily loaded words. Schwartz only said that he saw a woman being thrown down. The simplest explanation is that she did not have the cachous in her hand when thrown to the ground but took them out later. It is hard to believe that she would have done that if she were in fear for her life. To me, it indicates that she took them out later when she felt safe meaning the B.S. man had left.

Hi CD

But if what Schwartz saw was indeed the murder (thrown down and throat slit in one movement) how is cadaveric spasm excluded? If she happened to have the packet of cachous in her hand when confronted...a few were scattered in the gutter weren't they...suggesting some degree of violence

All the best

Dave