Mrs. Fanny Mortimer, Time wrong?

[Michael W Richards]

If people would quit insisting that the Schwartz sighting was valuable evidence we could progress a bit here. Schwartz is a local Immigrant Jew standing outside a club for Immigrant Jews near 1am.....but he has no connection to the club or the meeting, right? So...where is this residence that his wife moved them from nearly 12 hours before he is standing there? Why would he assume that after 12 hours without him she would still need help moving a suitcase or two, when he left her to do it herself at noon? Isnt it far more plausible that he, like many local Jews, attended that meeting and thats why he was there at that time? If at all.

His statement is a very welcome gesture for the club, who could have been in deep crap for this murder.

He is absent from the formal Inquest in Strides death, so how is it again that we must believe him, and not the many people who didnt see anyone he claims to have seen in the street?

Cheers

[Abby Normal]

Hi Mike

Spooner is standing outside the Beehive at the corner of Fairclough Street and Christian Street. This is two streets away from the murder scene. He admits in his evidence that the only means he has of fixing his timings are the closing times of the pubs...it doesn't make for accurate timekeeping in the first place does it?

When was the last time you were in a pub on a Saturday night and it closed smack on time after a full ten minutes Last Orders? It simply doesn't often happen, and was quite possibly even less common in 1888...especially on a Saturday Night, the landlords best night of the week.

On top of that his 5 minutes and 25 minutes are nothing more than retrospective guesswork...there's no event or sighting of a clock or anything to tie them down to, and no reason why he should've kept track of the time...and he is after all preoccupied with a young lady, which might also explain why he's not being particularly observant of his environment until the panic-stricken jews attract his attention (perhaps the young lady had firmly said no by then too!)...

Brown says he saw the couple in the street "at about a quarter to one" as he was "going from my own house to get some supper from a chandler's shop". He subsequently obtained his supper (from the shop at the corner of Berner Street and Fairclough Street - presumably on the opposite corner to the Nelson Beer House) and returned home to 35 Fairclough Street. He'd nearly finished his supper when he heard the hullabaloo kicking off outside and estimated that was about a quarter of an hour after he got in..if the hullabaloo kicked off at about five past one, what time do you reckon he actually saw the couple (bearing in mind he saw them on his way to the shop and he had to have spent his time in the shop making his purchases)...I'm sure he saw them earlier than 1245, and he could well actually have been in the shop, and therefore unsighted at 1245.

Now I know it can be read into Browns statement that he saw the couple on his way back from the shop...I'm not so sure...the wording of the evidence in the Times and Telegraphs accounts differs...but if he did see them coming back from the shop then he was presumably indoors eating his supper when the Scwartz event/murder occured.

If the Daily News version of Fanny Mortimers story is correct, then she disn't see Lave, Eagle or any of the other players simply because she wasn't on the step at that time. Assuming she was there between 1250 and 1.00 then there's nothing for her too see until Goldstein passes by...it's all already happened.

This leaves just the young Kozebrodski with his far from perfect English...

Michael do you really think that the Police and Coroner just didn't notice minor timing discrepancies between all these different witnesses. These people may have been technologically less advanced than we are, but they weren't stupid...they knew full well how "flexible" peoples timing estimates were. They also would have known how witness accounts always differ in small details. They certainly know that today, and like today, they'd probably have been suspicious if all the timings/actions fitted together too well...

I'm sorry Mike but I think you're seeing the makings of a conspiracy amongst Club members, where it doesn't exist...I don't think they had time to conspire...and coming from the police states many of them originated in, I think most of them would've been exactly what they seemed...scared stiff and in a panic...

I doubt we're going to agree with one another though, so suggest we agree to amicably disagree!

All the best

Dave

Hi cog
I totally agree with your last paragraph. I don't think they had any time to conspire also. And if they did why use schwartz? They already had a real witness (if schwartz was put up to it) in Diemshutz who actually discovered the body. They could have just had him say he saw a man over stride as he entered the yard with a knife in his hand that yelled lipski at him and ran out past him. Then there would be no doubt at all that it was not someone from the club.

And you mentioned they would be scared stiff. Again totally agree. Same with Schwartz and I have argued this many times-do we really Beleive that some foreign Jewish person, new to the country and with family is really going to put himself and his family in any kind of legal jeopardy by lying to the police in a murder investigation? Don't think so.

And as far as fanny is concerned I really don't see what the big deal is. She was simply inside and missed the Schwartz/stride/BS man incident.

[Cogidubnus]

Quite Dusty/Jon

Spooner and Kozedbrosky both place the murder time earlier...if we take them at their word it doesn't work for one simple reason...if things really were kicking off at 1230 or 1235, then mightn't PC Smith, passing along Berner Street at that time, have noticed? Mightn't he then have been included in the police presence witnessed by Lamb, Spooner et al? Ludicrous...Spooner was out in his timings, and so must have been Kozedbrosky.

Just another thought before I dash off to work (late start today fortunately):

In the Times report James Brown implies, initially, that he witnessed the young couple on his way to the shop, but later on seems to imply otherwise.

In the Telegraph version he seems more clearly to say that he was on his way back...but crucially he emphasises he was only in the shop three or four minutes. Why does he do so...if he's already been to the shop when he sees the couple, of what relevance is this? He seemingly fixes his timings not by the shop, but by the time he was disturbed by the shouting in the street. However, I believe he emphasises his time in the shop simply because of it's criticality. If he saw the couple on his way to the shop, it is essential to his mentally tracking back the timings from 1.00/1.05am approx to the (approximate) time he saw them...I tend to favour the latter and think he might well've been just a few minutes out, and it quite possibly all kicked off while he was inside buying his pie and chips or whatever...

Just a thought...

All the best

Dave

[drstrange169]

"Edward Spooner, 26, Fairclough-street, employed as a horsekeeper by Messrs. Meredith, biscuit makers, deposed-On Sunday morning between 12.30 and 1 o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Tavern,"
...
"I had been standing there about five-and-twenty minutes when two Jews came running along hallooing out "Murder" and "Police."
...
"Dr. Blackwell was the first to come. I should think ten or twelve minutes after my arrival." ...
...
"I stood by the side of the deceased about five minutes, till Police-constable Lamb came."


We can fix Spooner's time by the events around him. Four separate estimates place the time at around 1 o'clock.

His quote,


"I believe it was about 25 minutes to one o'clock"


is clearly a misquote by the reporter or an error on his part.



Spooner admits he had no idea of the time,


"The only means I had of fixing the time was by the closing of the public houses."


The preponderance of evidenceplaces the event at or around 1 o'clock, why ignore it?

[Wickerman]

Dave, poetry, Pure poetry.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Mike

Spooner is standing outside the Beehive at the corner of Fairclough Street and Christian Street. This is two streets away from the murder scene. He admits in his evidence that the only means he has of fixing his timings are the closing times of the pubs...it doesn't make for accurate timekeeping in the first place does it?

When was the last time you were in a pub on a Saturday night and it closed smack on time after a full ten minutes Last Orders? It simply doesn't often happen, and was quite possibly even less common in 1888...especially on a Saturday Night, the landlords best night of the week.

On top of that his 5 minutes and 25 minutes are nothing more than retrospective guesswork...there's no event or sighting of a clock or anything to tie them down to, and no reason why he should've kept track of the time...and he is after all preoccupied with a young lady, which might also explain why he's not being particularly observant of his environment until the panic-stricken jews attract his attention (perhaps the young lady had firmly said no by then too!)...

Brown says he saw the couple in the street "at about a quarter to one" as he was "going from my own house to get some supper from a chandler's shop". He subsequently obtained his supper (from the shop at the corner of Berner Street and Fairclough Street - presumably on the opposite corner to the Nelson Beer House) and returned home to 35 Fairclough Street. He'd nearly finished his supper when he heard the hullabaloo kicking off outside and estimated that was about a quarter of an hour after he got in..if the hullabaloo kicked off at about five past one, what time do you reckon he actually saw the couple (bearing in mind he saw them on his way to the shop and he had to have spent his time in the shop making his purchases)...I'm sure he saw them earlier than 1245, and he could well actually have been in the shop, and therefore unsighted at 1245.

Now I know it can be read into Browns statement that he saw the couple on his way back from the shop...I'm not so sure...the wording of the evidence in the Times and Telegraphs accounts differs...but if he did see them coming back from the shop then he was presumably indoors eating his supper when the Scwartz event/murder occured.

If the Daily News version of Fanny Mortimers story is correct, then she disn't see Lave, Eagle or any of the other players simply because she wasn't on the step at that time. Assuming she was there between 1250 and 1.00 then there's nothing for her too see until Goldstein passes by...it's all already happened.

This leaves just the young Kozebrodski with his far from perfect English...

Michael do you really think that the Police and Coroner just didn't notice minor timing discrepancies between all these different witnesses. These people may have been technologically less advanced than we are, but they weren't stupid...they knew full well how "flexible" peoples timing estimates were. They also would have known how witness accounts always differ in small details. They certainly know that today, and like today, they'd probably have been suspicious if all the timings/actions fitted together too well...

I'm sorry Mike but I think you're seeing the makings of a conspiracy amongst Club members, where it doesn't exist...I don't think they had time to conspire...and coming from the police states many of them originated in, I think most of them would've been exactly what they seemed...scared stiff and in a panic...

I doubt we're going to agree with one another though, so suggest we agree to amicably disagree!

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Spooner's been standing outside the Beehive with his fancy piece since I don't know when...and in truth neither does he...the only key to his time of arrival is that Diemschutz had discovered the body, run indoors, related his tale and effectively sent out folk in search of coppers...two jews have run all the way down to Grove Street and doubled back, before meeting Spooner and acquainting him...he's then made his way up Berner Street to the murder site...fine...he's a reasonable witness from thereon but how on earth does he relate to what Mortimer saw or not? More to the point, how can he possibly be related to what Schwartz saw before Liz died?

Eagel returned at 12.35 and hence missed the action at about 12.45. Lave is reported, as far as I know only in the Evening News - another supposed witness that didn't make the inquest, yet is worth more than Schwartz?

Kozebrodski certainly stated he was advised of the murder earlier...but let's be honest, he was 18 years old and spoke the language imperfectly.

So Gillen? Leave surmise apart, who is he please?

You'd honestly set these up against the medical evidence, the police evidence, the evidence of your own witness Mortimer, plus the evidence of Schwartz? Sorry mate but it simply doesn't make sense

All the best

Dave

Ok...first off you need to get some facts correct Dave. For one, Spooner said he and his date walked from the pub that closed at 12 on Commercial Street to their location at the Beehive... at a leisurely pace. After 10 minutes there he sees the men from the club. Assuming a slow pace from the pub, 30 minutes? And the 10 minutes...gives you around 12:40. He then accompanies the men to the club...and at the Inquest gives that same statement, and he is told he must be incorrect because Louis says he arrived to find the body just after 1am!! And 12:40 is when Eagle says he arrived back at the club, not 12:35. Lave stated that he was at the gates from around 12:30 until 12:40. They did not see each other at the gates at 12:40.

Issac K said that about 10 minutes after he arrived back at the club, at 12:30...he was called to the passageway by Louis. Gillen is a member who was upstairs and said he was summoned at 12:40.

Israel Schwartz made a statement to the police that he saw Liz on the street with another man, and one came from out of a doorway across the street, at 12:45. He then ran away...into the street that Spooner and his date were on.

Spooner didnt see Israel...or Pipeman. Brown didnt see Israel, or Liz, or BSM when he was at the corner at 12:40. The young couple were interviewed and apparently saw none of any of these folks. Fanny didnt see Eagle, she didnt see Lave, she didnt see or hear Israel, or Pipeman, or BSM, and she didnt see Louis arrive. Even though we can state without doubt that she was at her door between 12:50 and 1:00am. Because of Goldstein.

Leaving us with a story that no-one can verify, even though we have outside witnesses on the street or viewing it at these critical times. And we have a number of witnesses....some from the club, and at least one from outside, that say they saw the dead woman about 10-15 minutes before 1am. Within 1 hour of the murder.

What Ive been saying is that Fanny Mortimer was at her door sporadically from 12:30 until 12:50.....why must we assume that she must have been "off" when all these people suddenly come into the street? The street that had been quiet since the meeting broke up? Because a club steward.....one of the few men most responsible for what happens on that property, says he came at 1am..therefore, no-one saw any dead woman before that.

Really poor logic to swallow that in my opinion.

And one key to all of this Dave is the belief that Israel Schwartz's story matters in the search for truth. I dont believe that it is myself. Look at the Inquest transcripts and tell me why he doesnt seem to be there. Hes a convenient way to put suspicion off the Jews and onto a Gentile from outside the club. It seems to be a successful answer to their problems since people still use it as a piece of evidence today. It wasnt then...it was simply a statement.....just like Hutchinsons. A finger point.

All the best Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Besides...

Been thinking about this today whilst at work (don't tell my employer!)...What if Mr Lave took his five minute stroll at about 1240 or a little earlier...that's still within the approximate range of his "fifteen to twenty minutes before the body was discovered" tale...

None of the timings are absolutely cast in stone as I've repeatedly said...almost everybody's recollection of timing is going to be a little sloppy, but nonetheless I don't think I'm applying any unreasonable shoehorning

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Spooner's been standing outside the Beehive with his fancy piece since I don't know when...and in truth neither does he...the only key to his time of arrival is that Diemschutz had discovered the body, run indoors, related his tale and effectively sent out folk in search of coppers...two jews have run all the way down to Grove Street and doubled back, before meeting Spooner and acquainting him...he's then made his way up Berner Street to the murder site...fine...he's a reasonable witness from thereon but how on earth does he relate to what Mortimer saw or not? More to the point, how can he possibly be related to what Schwartz saw before Liz died?

Eagel returned at 12.35 and hence missed the action at about 12.45. Lave is reported, as far as I know only in the Evening News - another supposed witness that didn't make the inquest, yet is worth more than Schwartz?

Kozebrodski certainly stated he was advised of the murder earlier...but let's be honest, he was 18 years old and spoke the language imperfectly.

So Gillen? Leave surmise apart, who is he please?

You'd honestly set these up against the medical evidence, the police evidence, the evidence of your own witness Mortimer, plus the evidence of Schwartz? Sorry mate but it simply doesn't make sense

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

So if the murder took place at roughly 1245 - Taking the least extravagant claim, her evidence says she saw virtually nothing between 1245/1250 and 1255/1300...that's fine with me...that's fine with the two beat coppers, that's fine with Wess, that's fine with Eagle, that's fine with Diemschutz, that's fine with Spooner, that's fine with Doctor Blackwood, that's fine even with bloody Schwartz...that's fine with everyone...except you...is that it Mike? Got anything else other than innuendo to suggest Mortimer is lying?

No I thought not

Sorry to fall out with you on this

Dave

I have no idea how you interpreted the above from what Ive been saying Dave, its essentially the opposite of what Ive been suggesting. Im saying that Fanny is trustworthy and the men with a lot at stake are not as trustworthy..for one, because no other outside witness sees or hears anything of what is contended by those club members. The ones that have to explain to the police why a dead woman is found in their passage...an issue that doesnt concern Fanny at all.

Spooner says he was in the passage before Louis says he even arrived....Isaac says the same thing...so does Gillen and a few other attendees. Eagle at 12:40 at the gates, Lave at 12:40 at the gates...neither sees each other.....Fanny sees Goldstein, which ultimately proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was at her door during the period she claimed. But Fanny, while at her door until 1am...does not see or hear the supposed approaching cart and horse with Louis at the helm. Even though he swears he arrived at 1am.

Re-read my arguments Dave before jumping on my throat.

And explain this.....Isaac Kozebrodski, the young apprentice to Louis says he arrived back at the club at "half past 12" and "about 10 minutes later" was summoned, by Louis, to the passageway. He was asked to go for help...which he did, alone....before Louis or Eagle left the gates. So...why do people think its Issac K that leaves with Louis after 1am? And why were we not told about 3 parties searching for help...instead of just 2?

Cheers

[Cogidubnus]

No Michael

I'm afraid that is most certainly NOT the case

There are evidentially two different versions of the story, possibly based around the same core evidence...

Ultimately, if you look fairly at both versions, she did at least spend ten minutes at the door...the ten minutes that as Hunter suggests, are firmly pinned down by both Fanny's/Goldstein's evidence of his passing by at roughly 1 am or maybe just before...anything in excess of that is based on what is perhaps an agency report based on conjecture.

Grotesquely you almost imply her evidence is worthless. On what basis?

So if the murder took place at roughly 1245 - Taking the least extravagant claim, her evidence says she saw virtually nothing between 1245/1250 and 1255/1300...that's fine with me...that's fine with the two beat coppers, that's fine with Wess, that's fine with Eagle, that's fine with Diemschutz, that's fine with Spooner, that's fine with Doctor Blackwood, that's fine even with bloody Schwartz...that's fine with everyone...except you...is that it Mike? Got anything else other than innuendo to suggest Mortimer is lying?

No I thought not

Sorry to fall out with you on this

Dave

PS - I don't get it Mike - you set up as if to suggest she's the world's most reliable witness, then sound off in such a way as if to suggest there's proof she's a liar...honestly mate, stand back and look at it all afresh...

[Michael W Richards]

Well Michael, it's clear there are two versions of the Fanny Mortimer account, the one which appears in the Times, the East London Advertiser and the Illustrated Police News (such an ill-assorted triumvirate it just has to originate with an agency), which you appear to endorse.

The second, which appears in the Daily News and the London Evening News suggests she went to the door for approximately a ten minute period culminating in Goldstein's passing.

I don't think it's unduly speculative to respect the witnesses and attempt to put all their evidence together coherently, do you? If you discredit Schwartz because he didn't appear at the inquest, then you have to sacrifice Mrs Mortimer too on the same grounds...How far down the line of ignoring witnesses do you wish to go?

Personally I'd rather attempt to fit the statements together before discarding too many!

If you really want me to be speculative, it occurs to me that. (if that's what it is), the agency-reported duration of Fanny Mortimer's stay at the door might've been calculated by somebody at the agency from the passing of PC Smith's heavy tread (1230 to 1235) to the reported time of the discovery of the body (just after 1 am), afterwards attributing the words to her as local colour - her own statement might've been rather more bland than we sometimes give her credit for...more like the Daily News one in fact...

Like so many things in the WCMs there's always more than one interpretation!

All the best Mike

Dave

Hi Dave,

The 2 versions of the story are not contradictory, and they may well be the result of the interviewer rather than Fanny. Ultimately her story is that she was at her door during the period of time from 12:30 until 12:50, sporadically, and that at 12:50 she remained there until 1am. She didnt see or hear Schwartz's altercation, she didnt see or hear Eagle return, she didnt see or hear Louis as he approaches for what he said was a 1am arrival....something that surely must have been visible and audible to someone at their door at that time. She didnt see Pipeman, She didnt see BSM.

She didnt see or hear any of the arrivals and events at the times stated by the individuals concerned....so are they are telling the truth and she is lying? What reason would she have to lie? For what reasons might club members modify their statements? When you have someone who has no agenda telling us that she didnt see people who Had an agenda that night....avoiding suspicion and arrest on suspicion,...why would I believe the people who have motivations to lie?

The problem here Dave, is that every account given by a Jewish member of the club does not fit into anyone elses account of what transpired....not Spooners, not Browns, and not Fannys. And we even have evidence that a person was sent out for help alone before Louis and Eagle left and yet neither of them made mention of it. Check Issac K's remarks that same night, within 1 hour of the murder.

Dave, their is no point in straddling a fence when a gate is right in front of you.

Cheers

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo again Cogi.

....Personally I'd rather attempt to fit the statements together before discarding too many!...
Dave[/QUOTE]

That is the approach I was taking also. Or to be more accurate, one of the approaches.

[Hunter]

I was going to post a response, but after reading Dave's post it won't be necessary at this time.

[Cogidubnus]

There are a few misleading statements above ....for one, Fanny stated the night of the murders that she was at her door "nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock ", which she later amended to be at her door "off and on" during that period. She also stated without reservation that she was at her door "continuously" from 12:50 until 1am. She did not see anyone but the young couple and later Goldstein, which Goldstein's statement Tuesday night and pass timing of approx 12:55-56 corroborates. The only speculation regarding her time at the door and what she didnt see is made by people who believe the stories of unsubstantiated events that occurred in front of the gates during that time. Who, in order to facilitate that belief, must claim that Fanny missed seeing it...or hearing it. Like Louis arriving at 1am for example....or Israels altercation.

Well Michael, it's clear there are two versions of the Fanny Mortimer account, the one which appears in the Times, the East London Advertiser and the Illustrated Police News (such an ill-assorted triumvirate it just has to originate with an agency), which you appear to endorse.

The second, which appears in the Daily News and the London Evening News suggests she went to the door for approximately a ten minute period culminating in Goldstein's passing.

I don't think it's unduly speculative to respect the witnesses and attempt to put all their evidence together coherently, do you? If you discredit Schwartz because he didn't appear at the inquest, then you have to sacrifice Mrs Mortimer too on the same grounds...How far down the line of ignoring witnesses do you wish to go?

Personally I'd rather attempt to fit the statements together before discarding too many!

If you really want me to be speculative, it occurs to me that. (if that's what it is), the agency-reported duration of Fanny Mortimer's stay at the door might've been calculated by somebody at the agency from the passing of PC Smith's heavy tread (1230 to 1235) to the reported time of the discovery of the body (just after 1 am), afterwards attributing the words to her as local colour - her own statement might've been rather more bland than we sometimes give her credit for...more like the Daily News one in fact...

Like so many things in the WCMs there's always more than one interpretation!

All the best Mike

Dave