Mrs. Fanny Mortimer, Time wrong?

[drstrange169]

Every witness on the night has question marks in their story and as researchers we should be questioning them, but what is coming across, and perhaps it not meant, is that you're ignoring the questions marks in the stories you want to be true. You think Heshburg might have a clock in his house, fair assumption, but you won't credit Mortimer with the same assumption. You look for faults in stories that conflict with your theory but avoid anomalies in those whose tales you like.

Lets just look at the evidence we actually have, and when we do, two witnesses come out as the least credible, Heshburg and Kosebrodsky.

Heshburg bad mouths the club in the press, so we have to assume he doesn't like them, which isn't odd as many didn't. His evidence is at direct odds with the most credible witnesses on the night. He claims to have come out after hearing the police whistles at 12:45, but Lamb, is an independent witness and a trained one to boot, he says he walking towards Grove Street at 12:45, blissfully unaware of what the night would hold for him. That one witness is enough to discredit Heshburg, but he isn't the only one. Brown and the couple on the corner were within yards of the club when Heshburg claims to have heard whistles, crowds and confusion yet Brown was apparently oblivious to all the commotion.

No, Heshburg was wrong in his timing, pure and simple.

Kosebrodsky, spoke English poorly, so, as he wasn't at the inquest, we don't know if he actually said 20 to 1:00 or the reporter simply misunderstood him.
What we DO know is that timing was wrong. Brown once again proves him wrong. Acoording to Kosebrodsky, he was running down the road when Brown was walking down the same street. He also says he went alone, but Spooner, another truly independant witness, explictly states TWO jews came running down the road. Spooner also says he was outside the Beehive at 1:00 when it happened.

If the murder did happen earlier Heshburg certainly didn't know about it, unless of course he did it, but lets not go there;-)
Kosebrodsky's story is just too provably wrong to be taken seriously and that is probably due to bad translations by the press.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Blackwell, Blackwell, Blackwell

I think it is a losing fight to try and fit or remove witness accounts. Start with Blackwell and work backwards. I see a real possibility of Dimshitz arriving before 1:00. Blackwell's time. Maybe not much but a few minutes could make a big difference.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Question...

So is it more likely Stride was murdered before or after the last time Fanny went outside? Could she have bled for 15 minutes? Possibly putting Schwartz incident after she went inside?

[DRoy]

Digital,

There has been research trying to pin down how long it would have taken for Stride to bleed out. Witnesses say blood was still flowing which if the times are correct would be after 1:00. It may be a stretch that Stride was bleeding for 15 minutes or longer. It would be tough to argue against the on-the-scene doctors.

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

I suppose the simplest way to state what Ive been suggesting here is to say that when assessing witness testimony its very relevant to know whether the witness would have any compelling reason to alter any of the story details. Whether the witness would be liable for or suspected of something depending on how the story they provide evolves, and what it entails.

There are witnesses in this case that fall under that category, and there are some that do not.

The people who would have no stake in any outcome of the murder investigation, because they have nothing to do with the club but are most relevant to the case due to the timing of their witness accounts in relation to the timing of the fatal attack, are;

PC Smith
Fanny Mortimer
James Brown
Edward Spooner

People who stood to potentially lose either their employment, their residence, their social club and/or their reputation and/or freedom, depending on how this murder was perceived by the police....

Wess
Lave
Eagle
Diemshitz, Mr and Mrs

Is it really an accident that these various accounts, by group, do not match?
Is it really plausible that an Immigrant Jew was outside the club at 12:45am after a large meeting of local Immigrant Jews and yet had no affiliation with the club or any members?

All Ive been saying is that there is a burden of proof that is greater on the club affiliates due to the potential liability, and their stories do not satisfy that burden. There are no witnesses to any of their alleged activities....and outside witnesses that state no activities took place at the time they were claimed to have by the club affiliates.

Cheers

[Cogidubnus]

Thanks Mike...you've expressed more clearly than I ever could, the difficulties inherent in reconciling the evidence we have surrounding that night...yet I feel we're somehow coming from opposite directions.

I started out being very sceptical of Schwartz, and although I'm trying my best to keep an open mind, find myself veering towards belief in his account. I suspect, (unless I've misunderstood), you're hardening in your disbelief of his account.

I can see where your doubts arise, and can't knock your logic, but nonetheless...

All the best

Baffled of Bognor

[Bridewell]

She's the kind of witness for whom "being there" was not enough.
She had to be there all along.
A bit like Mrs Long

A bit like Mrs Long who didn't claim to be there all along?

who could tell the age and the origin of a man she did not see.

A man she did see, but only from the rear. She formed an impression as to the man's age which, to her, appeared to be over 40, and she described him as foreign-looking. I think Mrs Long is one of the more credible witnesses, because she admitted to uncertainty on some points. This, to me, lends weight to the points about which she claimed to have been sure - the time and the identity of the woman. She may have been mistaken, but there is nothing inherently ridiculous in what she claimed to have seen. If you saw (for example) Alan Sugar from behind, would you be able to tell that he was over 40 and Jewish? I would have thought so.

[Bridewell]

Is it really plausible that an Immigrant Jew was outside the club at 12:45am after a large meeting of local Immigrant Jews and yet had no affiliation with the club or any members?

Yes it is; perfectly plausible. 40% of the local population was Jewish. If there was a man outside the Club at that hour who was not it any way associated with it or its members, there is a 40% chance that he was Jewish.

[Wickerman]

Hi Michael.

I suppose the simplest way to state what Ive been suggesting here is to say that when assessing witness testimony its very relevant to know whether the witness would have any compelling reason to alter any of the story details.

I think the point is we do not know of a compelling reason.
Because a potential reason is suggested, here today, does not mean it was considered at the time.

People who stood to potentially lose either their employment, their residence, their social club and/or their reputation and/or freedom, depending on how this murder was perceived by the police....

But Michael, we don't know that.
It comes across to me as a contrived scenario with no historical backing.

By way of example, if we did read that these clubs were being systematically closed down by the county & police for a variety of infractions then there may be some substance behind the suggestion.
As it is, this is not what is happening.

There is a difference between an anarchist being a murderer, and anarchists carry out murder in the name of anarchy.
The police will see the difference if no-one else does, and only if the latter is the true cause then the club as a whole will come under scrutiny.
Anarchists may disrupt society with social unrest, strikes, and marches, but if they commit murder the target is typically a national figure, a leader or someone of influence.

Not a local prostitute/charwoman who nobody has ever heard of.

[DVV]

Hi Colin

A man she did see, but only from the rear. She formed an impression as to the man's age which, to her, appeared to be over 40, and she described him as foreign-looking.

It's already very difficult to tell the age of anybody, so in the dark and from the rear, when the man wears a deerstalker and is motionless...

I think Mrs Long is one of the more credible witnesses, because she admitted to uncertainty on some points.

Yes, she most probably saw the killer.

This, to me, lends weight to the points about which she claimed to have been sure - the time and the identity of the woman. She may have been mistaken, but there is nothing inherently ridiculous in what she claimed to have seen.

Imo she had Leather Apron in mind.

If you saw (for example) Alan Sugar from behind, would you be able to tell that he was over 40 and Jewish? I would have thought so.

!!!

All the best

[Michael W Richards]

Yes it is; perfectly plausible. 40% of the local population was Jewish. If there was a man outside the Club at that hour who was not it any way associated with it or its members, there is a 40% chance that he was Jewish.

Hi Bridewell,

If you remove the context that existed at that moment I can see your point....however, we are talking about a club that held a meeting that night to convince local Immigrant Jews that they should be Socialists. Almost everyone left at the club after the meeting are Immigrant Jews, and Israel Schwartz is also one....and he is supposedly just outside the gates when he claims to have seen the altercation. He says he was there because he was checking to see if his wife had moved what would amount to a suitcase or 2 of goods from their previous address to his new one.

It is unclear where he was staying before this move, but it is reported that he was staying on Berner Street...so it is within the realm of possibility that his "former" address was a cottage at 40 Berner. Which would likely make him a member of the club.

Circumstantially it would make perfect sense that he was at the meeting...or that he did stay in a cottage, otherwise, where did he live on Berner that would place him at that club at almost 1am?

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Jon,

I dont expect that you would agree with virtually anything I might suggest, ....but there are some real fact avoidance issues below;

I think the point is we do not know of a compelling reason.
Because a potential reason is suggested, here today, does not mean it was considered at the time.

At that moment in time there is no doubt that the club was seen as anarchist by the local authorities...(Id suggest checking that words' definition to see just how negative that assumption was), there is no doubt that it was known to have "low men" in the yard after 1am on meeting nights, and the Ripper investigations during the month of September were leaning towards a suspect that was an Immigrant Jew. They also are the same men that assault policemen in Dutfields Yard the following Spring, resulting in the arrest of Louis and Isaac, to name just 2.

They have very good reasons for wishing to avoid any further suspicions of wrongdoing or any legal complicity in this murder...and an ethnic makeup in the membership that was the same as the suspected ethnicity of the Ripper.

By way of example, if we did read that these clubs were being systematically closed down by the county & police for a variety of infractions then there may be some substance behind the suggestion.
As it is, this is not what is happening.

Jon....the government at that time feared the growing number of disenfranchised Immigrants might rise up against them....fears fed handily by Bloody Sunday the year before.

There is a difference between an anarchist being a murderer, and anarchists carry out murder in the name of anarchy.

Ive never said a member, or an anarchist killed Liz Stride Jon...Ive only said that if it was discovered that the murderer was at that club for whatever reason, of whatever ethnicity, (and because the murder takes place on their property),...they would suffer.

I can easily see a scenario where Liz Stride is waiting in the passage for someone inside the club, and a man who attended the meeting was in there with her...perhaps assuming, like so many Ripperologists, that she was seeking clients. She tries to blow him off rudely, he, having some drink in him, reacts violently. Done. Christian, Jewish, Atheist, whatever...if he kills on the clubs property it does become the clubs problem.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I dont expect that you would agree with virtually anything I might suggest, ....but there are some real fact avoidance issues below;

On the contrary Michael, I have been intrigued by a number of your thoughts and questions. In this case, I am not so compelled..

At that moment in time there is no doubt that the club was seen as anarchist by the local authorities...[edit].... They also are the same men that assault policemen in Dutfields Yard the following Spring, resulting in the arrest of Louis and Isaac, to name just 2.

Which tends to suggest they had little care about a confrontation with the authorities. On the one hand we are expected to believe 'The Club' organized false witnesses and a line of deception in order to avoid the attention of authorities. Now we are being told these same members of 'The Club' assaulted the police on the Club's property?

Not a consistent argument Michael.

Jon....the government at that time feared the growing number of disenfranchised Immigrants might rise up against them....fears fed handily by Bloody Sunday the year before.

The authorities actually prefer to monitor the radicals of society. You've heard the phrase, "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"?
If the police shut them down the remaining members will go underground.

This defeats the purpose, the authorities would sooner conduct surveillance and perhaps even infiltrate these groups rather than shut them down where both infiltration & surveillance become impossible.
You cannot monitor & control an enemy if you drive him underground.

Ive never said a member, or an anarchist killed Liz Stride Jon...Ive only said that if it was discovered that the murderer was at that club for whatever reason, of whatever ethnicity, (and because the murder takes place on their property),...they would suffer.

But its ok, to beat up coppers in your backyard?

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

A not completely unreasonble idea

If I do say so myself. What if what IS saw occured after Fanny went inside the last time? Stride couldn't have bled for 15min. So either she was attacked sooner to "1:00" or those who found her lied about that or they took much longer to take action than was related. Not many options. Sorry if attempt is too crude.

[caz]

Why is it that of Eagle, Diemshitz and Israel Schwartz Fanny Mortimer sees nothing, when she stated that she was at her door "off and on" from 12:30 until 1am, the last 10 minutes continuously? Why doesn't she see anyone leave via the gates...she is at her door during the period when Blackwell states the cut was made...where is that killer at 12:50?

Lots of questions...despite the continuing complaints from Caz and the like that this murder evidence is clear like a mountain stream.

Cheers

Hi Mike,

Where have I 'complained' that the murder evidence is as clear as anything but mud? I admit we don't even know if Stride's killer was seen or not.

But I have no problem with Fanny Mortimer missing the action if she is at her door "off and on" from approx 12.30 to 12.46, then continuously at her door from approx 12.46 to 12.56, when she goes back in, approx 4 minutes before she hears the pony and cart at approx 1am.

The killer could well have fled between 12.56 and 1am, or Diemshitz's instincts could have been spot on, and the killer could have been there hiding in the shadows when the pony and cart arrived, only fleeing when Diemshitz entered the club after finding the body.

Love,

Caz
X