Mrs. Fanny Mortimer, Time wrong?

[c.d.]

I was just thinking about all of the problems inherent in a made up story by the club. Would all of the club members be in on the conspiracy and know exactly what to say to the police so they were all on the same page? If not, it seems to me that it would have been quite easy for someone to put their foot in their mouth. The result? Well, the club would have some serious "splainin" to do.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

Just wanted to say that you made some excellent points in your post (#172). Like you said, why use Schwartz rather than Diemschutz? Also agree, that getting involved in a murder investigation by fabricating a story was the last thing these people probably wanted to do.

c.d.

Thanks. I just find the whole club conspiracy angle bordering on the ridiculous. If they' had something to do with the murder they could have dumped the body somewhere else and keep quiet or like I said could have just used diemshitz and not Schwartz as the gentile seeing witness.

Like the other poster said they were probably scared and the last thing they would want to do, even if they had the time, was come up with some convoluted story that had the chance of becoming totally unraveled and get themselves in real trouble for lying.

[c.d.]

Hello Abby,

Just wanted to say that you made some excellent points in your post (#172). Like you said, why use Schwartz rather than Diemschutz? Also agree, that getting involved in a murder investigation by fabricating a story was the last thing these people probably wanted to do.

c.d.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi cd/Lynn

You are of course quite right...We have to bear in mind it was night time and things seem to have happened quickly, so Schwartz mightn't have got everything...And he might well have been an honest witness, (even to his own detriment), who only described what he felt reasonably sure of.

There are differences of course between his police statement (as reported by Swanson) and his statement to the Star, most noticeable of course the appearance of a knife in Pipeman's hands, but I believe it's been pointed out elsewhere (can never find the damned thread when I want it!) that said dagger could be a simple mistranslation.

All I've tried to do is fit the various witness statements together with the least possible disruption to timings (Spooner and Kosebrodsky are the two most obvious cases) to see what emerged...

Wonder just how many cachous the doctor dislodged and just how much effort it took to open her hand?

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

Cast thy cachous upon the . . . ground.

Hello CD.

"As for the cachous being scattered, the doctor on the scene admitted that he had done that himself."

Precisely. Now if BSM had cut her throat as part of his throwing her down, would not those same cachous be scattered BEFORE the doctor spilled them?

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

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

Hi Dave,

What you describe is certainly possible but that is not what Schwartz said that he saw. Although Liz's small screams (or a gurgling sound?) might have been all that she was capable of if her throat had been cut. But then you have to wonder why the B.S. man would have killed her if he was aware of Schwartz right before he went through with it.

As for the cachous being scattered, the doctor on the scene admitted that he had done that himself.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi Stewart
Do you have an idea on why Scwartz was not at the inquest? Would love to hear it.

[lynn cates]

nothing escapes her

Hello Dave. Thanks.

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

Quite.

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

Only as it has changed. Mrs. Mortimer does not really interest me, given she missed Lave and Eygle.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Hi Stewart,

On the subject of Schwartz not appearing at the inquest, I agree that it is rather complicated, but I think a possible answer lies with Wynne Baxter himself and some of the circumstances at the time. He certainly knew about Schwartz and we have every indication that the police considered his testimony very relevant during that time. I am inclined to believe that Baxter let the police have this one for once. There were special provisions in the Coroner's Act to do so and the situation with this particular witness may have met that criteria.

Of course, this is off topic for this thread. It has been discussed before but I don't remember the title of that thread.

[Hunter]

To just put in my take on the question of whether Stride was actually soliciting or not I would make the following observations. She was a known casual prostitute of the same type as the other victims, it was well after midnight and she was 'hanging about' on the street, and there are witness reports that seem to indicate she was soliciting. Not least of all the police stated that she was a prostitute. Common sense would seem to dictate that she was soliciting. I appreciate the arguments of others who try to say she wasn't soliciting but, to my mind, they don't hold any strength.

Indeed.

[Cogidubnus]

No-one says 'footway' anymore.

Exactly Stephen...that in part explains why I thought the wording sounded curious and looked at the newspaper report...it could simply be that it's usage was more widespread in the LVP but I don't know

All the best

Dave

[Stephen Thomas]

Oxford English Dictionary: A path or way for pedestrians

No-one says 'footway' anymore. We say 'walkway'.

Meanwhile, back in the LVP.......

[Cogidubnus]

Oxford English Dictionary: A path or way for pedestrians

Nothing about a break in the footpath there until you add the word crossing

All the best

Dave

PS Apologies for pedantically descending to the level of semantics!

[Stephen Thomas]

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.

Yes, Stewart. The word 'footway' is quite precise and refers to the break in the footpath (US sidewalk) which allows entrance to side roads and passages.

ie 'footway' is neither road nor pavement.

In my part of London these footways are now raised to the level of the pavement with distinctive bricks to provide ease for pedestrians and a warning for drivers that they are approaching a footpath.

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Stewart

Wouldn't have you leave the boards mate...and in case you're in doubt there's never anything personal in my comments!

All the best

Dave