Mrs. Fanny Mortimer, Time wrong?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.]

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.

[Sox]

Thanks. I just find the whole club conspiracy angle bordering on the ridiculous.

I'm going to have to agree with you Abby, being an anarchist/socialist and gathering to put the world to rights over a few beers, is a million miles away from a hangmans noose. As Mr Evans pointed out, a lot can happen is fifteen minutes, and it would be an error I think to mistake confusion for conspiracy.

I also agree that using newspaper reports, over police reports, is a mistake. Sensationalism was starting to rear it's ugly head in the press with the advent of these murders. C.D is quite right, the repercussions from club members lying to the police would have been severe, we are no longer talking about trivial charges like disturbing the peace here.

As everyone knows, eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. It is entirely possible that the timing is incorrect, however, that does not mean that the chain of events is wrong, or that witnesses are outright lying.

[Supe]

Dave,

that said dagger could be a simple mistranslation.

I would suggest that even more likely the knife the Star reported was the result of a leading question or three. Having worked (shame of it all) as a journalist most of my adult life, I can imagine just how the conversation went as the Star reporter sought something sensational. That the newspaper did go beyond the bounds of propriety might be one reason why it sought to disavow the validity of the Schwartz story just days later.

Don.

[lynn cates]

embroidery

Hello Dave. Thanks.

Regarding the transition from pipe to knife, an embellishment is possible. I maintain that the papers would not weave from whole cloth--but, they were not above a bit of "embroidery."

Spooner and Kozebrodski? Umm, Spooner was only guessing at the time; Kozebrodski was a kid (no offense to the young).

More troubling is PC Lamb's "A few minutes until 1.00." Recall, the club members had to run to him and Dimshits had to probe, light matches, etc. and go into the club before they were despatched. 1.00 is right out.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

poker face

Hello Abby.

"If they' had something to do with the murder they could have dumped the body somewhere else and keep quiet. . ."

Yes, and risk getting caught with a dead body.

1. Caught lying about dead body? Perjury, perhaps.

2. Caught with dead body? The gallows.

". . . or like I said could have just used Diemshitz and not Schwartz as the gentile seeing witness."

Some people are good liars; others, not. Perhaps Dimshits was very poor--no poker face?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

When life is a Leman.

Hello CD.

"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?"

Highly doubtful. Likely, only the upper echelons.

"If not, it seems to me that it would have been quite easy for someone to put their foot in their mouth."

I think some did--Lave and Kosebrodski, perhaps?

"The result? Well, the club would have some serious "splainin" to do."

Which is PRECISELY what I think happened at Leman st. station.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

leading

Hello Don.

"I would suggest that even more likely the knife the Star reported was the result of a leading question or three."

Precisely. (Think I may love you. heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Lynn

More troubling is PC Lamb's "A few minutes until 1.00." Recall, the club members had to run to him and Dimshits had to probe, light matches, etc. and go into the club before they were despatched. 1.00 is right out.

Well as pointed out earlier in the thread, there are at least three slightly differing accounts of PC Lamb's timings...the one in the Times states "about 1 o'clock as near as I can tell".

I'm a little confused as to whether the Fixed Point policeman No 426H, had just finished his fixed point stint, (due to end at 1am), or was just coming up for it...either way the timings are approximate...they have to be in the LVP...

I think the sequence of events is reasonable though

All the best

Dave