Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    I never said its suspicious, I said it is provably false. Fanny was at her door until 1, which would make seeing an approaching cart, horse and steward arriving at 1 a guarantee. If one was arriving. Apparently one wasnt.
    Oh dear! One of many quite different statements made by Fanny Mortimer in newspapers is proof of something! Not really. We don't know which of her different statements she may have made to the police, but we do know that they chose not to call her as a witness. She therefore has made no statement on oath that we are aware of. She has proved nothing to be false.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
      Hello Fiver,

      In all fairness, I don't think the above quote is saying that Fanny saw the horse and cart herself. Rather she seems to be quoting what Louis said. That is my take on it. Besides, how could Fanny know that his horse had shied unless she heard it from him?

      c.d.
      No doubt she got some information from Diemschutz, but Fanny Mortimer also said she heard his cart.

      "A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband." - 1 October, 1888 Evening News.​
      "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

      "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

      Comment


      • Well that is quite different than simply quoting Louis. So if the newspaper is correct, although she never actually saw the horse and cart she claims she did hear it.

        I had never seen that story before so thank you, Fiver.

        c.d.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

          No doubt she got some information from Diemschutz, but Fanny Mortimer also said she heard his cart.

          "A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband." - 1 October, 1888 Evening News.​
          We see that it says “It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o’clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman….” The only passing policeman was Smith who said that he passed at 12.30/12/35. So she could have gone onto her doorstep just after 12.30 and stayed there for around ten minutes meaning that she went back inside just before 12.45.

          Basically what is likeliest? Schwartz lied about being in Bucks Row as part of a conspiracy created because club members felt that the police might close them down for hosting a ripper murder……..or, Mortimer just missed the Schwart by a very few minutes?

          And we get this because a couple of witnesses Kosebrodski and Hoschberg estimated times incorrectly. If there was a plan wouldn’t Diemschitz have made sure that they got their stories straight. Why were those two told about the ‘amended times?”

          So we have 3 plausible options.

          1. Diemschitz interrupted the killer.
          2. Something else disturbed the killer before he arrived.
          3. It wasn’t the ripper and the killer simply cut her throat and left.

          All far more plausible than an imagined plot with the weakest possible motive.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            We see that it says “It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o’clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman….” The only passing policeman was Smith who said that he passed at 12.30/12/35. So she could have gone onto her doorstep just after 12.30 and stayed there for around ten minutes meaning that she went back inside just before 12.45.

            Basically what is likeliest? Schwartz lied about being in Bucks Row as part of a conspiracy created because club members felt that the police might close them down for hosting a ripper murder……..or, Mortimer just missed the Schwart by a very few minutes?

            And we get this because a couple of witnesses Kosebrodski and Hoschberg estimated times incorrectly. If there was a plan wouldn’t Diemschitz have made sure that they got their stories straight. Why were those two told about the ‘amended times?”

            So we have 3 plausible options.

            1. Diemschitz interrupted the killer.
            2. Something else disturbed the killer before he arrived.
            3. It wasn’t the ripper and the killer simply cut her throat and left.

            All far more plausible than an imagined plot with the weakest possible motive.
            That should be Berner Street and not Bucks Row of course.

            Also, instead of “Why were those two..” it should read “Why weren’t…”
            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-17-2023, 08:54 AM.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

            “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

              We don't know which of her different statements she may have made to the police. She therefore has made no statement on oath that we are aware of.
              Very true. It's a shame Fanny wasn't called to the inquest, we're left to guess at that which was implied by journalists, repeated by journalists second hand and that which Fanny actually stated.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                We see that it says “It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o’clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman….” The only passing policeman was Smith who said that he passed at 12.30/12/35. So she could have gone onto her doorstep just after 12.30 and stayed there for around ten minutes meaning that she went back inside just before 12.45.

                Basically what is likeliest? Schwartz lied about being in Bucks Row as part of a conspiracy created because club members felt that the police might close them down for hosting a ripper murder……..or, Mortimer just missed the Schwart by a very few minutes?

                And we get this because a couple of witnesses Kosebrodski and Hoschberg estimated times incorrectly. If there was a plan wouldn’t Diemschitz have made sure that they got their stories straight. Why were those two told about the ‘amended times?”

                So we have 3 plausible options.

                1. Diemschitz interrupted the killer.
                2. Something else disturbed the killer before he arrived.
                3. It wasn’t the ripper and the killer simply cut her throat and left.

                All far more plausible than an imagined plot with the weakest possible motive.
                You miss the most obvious, the killer is BS man, he is NOT aware of Schwartz before he attacks Stride, on becoming aware of Schwartz and Possible Pipeman, he simply silences Stride, and walks away.
                It is, Schwartz, I argue who causes him to flee. Thinking he will be caught in a few minutes.

                It is possible him, that Fanny heard, not a policeman.

                Speculation of course, but based on what we have.


                Steve

                Comment


                • bingo el. bingo.

                  Comment


                  • In all of the reports from Fanny, whichever one you go with, there is no mention of Fanny hearing Schwartz and associates, and Fanny often heard that type of commotion outside of the club. Brown didn't see them either when he went to the chandlers shop.

                    'Decent room for doubt there.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                      Hello Fiver,

                      In all fairness, I don't think the above quote is saying that Fanny saw the horse and cart herself. Rather she seems to be quoting what Louis said. That is my take on it. Besides, how could Fanny know that his horse had shied unless she heard it from him?

                      c.d.
                      Correct.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • You miss the most obvious, the killer is BS man, he is NOT aware of Schwartz before he attacks Stride, on becoming aware of Schwartz and Possible Pipeman, he simply silences Stride, and walks away.
                        It is, Schwartz, I argue who causes him to flee. Thinking he will be caught in a few minutes.


                        Hello Steve,

                        I think there are a few problems with that scenario. Stride wasn't found on the street where she was seen by Schwartz but back in the yard. But why kill Stride after being seen by two witnesses when at that point he was only guilty of shoving a woman?

                        c.d.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                          Oh dear! One of many quite different statements made by Fanny Mortimer in newspapers is proof of something! Not really. We don't know which of her different statements she may have made to the police, but we do know that they chose not to call her as a witness. She therefore has made no statement on oath that we are aware of. She has proved nothing to be false.
                          In fact her statements about the status of the street during that half hour is initially corroborated by Wess, then Lave, then Eagle. All 3 saw no-one on the street at all. Then we have her sighting of the man with the black bag at 12:55...something that was only verified when Leon came in Tuesday night to give his statement. She saw something that no-one else had seen, and was vindicated for it by Leons statement. She wasnt called as a witness for a very simple reason, in my opinion, ...she didnt see Liz, she didnt see Liz with someone, and she didnt see someone fleeing. The Inquest is to establish by what means she died, based on those factors Fanny had nothing to offer to help answer that question. However Israel statement, which features the soon to be victim being assaulted just a minute or 2, and a few feet from where she is found cut, is relevant to that Inquest mandate. IF believed it would certainly lend credence to a finding of Wilful Murder, rather than receiving an accidental or self inflicted wound. His story went to the heart of the Inquest question, yet he is not called. Why? There is only 1 reasonable answer to that, his statement, like Fannys, was determined to offer nothing to the question of how Liz dies. Despite the obvious inference by that assault, the location and the timing.

                          On hearing a cart and horse, as has been said she said she heard one, not that she saw the cart, the horse, and the driver. Plus, could she positively identify which way the cart was travelling when indoors? I dont recall seeing statements made by anyone who gathers by the woman lying on the cobbles that refers to the cart and horse being there at that time. Might they have been led away to be stabled for the night? They werent stabled in that yard.

                          In Issac K's statement that night he says that after being called to the passageway around 12:40 he is then asked by Diemshitz, or some other member, to go for help. He leaves, alone, to do so. Might the tramp of boots Fanny heard be him seeking the police around 12:45? He finds no help, but on his way back to the club he sees Eagle returning with a PC. He joined them. The PC said this was at "just before 1am". Issac K's story matches that timing.

                          One last thing,...a statement is made that Louis and Issac[s] went out for help after Morris had left. If Issac left when he said under the instructions he said he was given..by himself...then why would people assume this Issac[s] fellow with Louis was actually Kozebrodski? And if Issac K was honest, why do the club staffers not mention he was sent out alone? Why do we only hear that Eagle went one way and Louis and Issac[s] another? Maybe because it was a different person than Issac K, or perhaps that the statement was a lie.
                          Last edited by Michael W Richards; 08-17-2023, 01:08 PM.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                            in my opinion, ...she didnt see Liz, she didnt see Liz with someone, and she didnt see someone fleeing. The Inquest is to establish by what means she died, based on those factors Fanny had nothing to offer to help answer that question.
                            Agreed, and it's a shame for us that we do not get to hear Fanny's statement at the inquest, whereby we could infer that it's a more reliable account of that which Fanny actually stated, saw and heard.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                              Agreed, and it's a shame for us that we do not get to hear Fanny's statement at the inquest, whereby we could infer that it's a more reliable account of that which Fanny actually stated, saw and heard.
                              If Fanny gave multiple conflicting accounts, wouldn't the inquest be the means to determine which of those accounts was actually correct? And even if she did not see the victim she certainly could have been called to help establish some sort of timeline.

                              c.d.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                                If Fanny gave multiple conflicting accounts, wouldn't the inquest be the means to determine which of those accounts was actually correct? And even if she did not see the victim she certainly could have been called to help establish some sort of timeline.

                                c.d.
                                I agree with Michael on this one. I reckon Fanny was deemed to be not needed at the inquest for the reasons Michael stated.

                                We know Fanny was verified by Leon Goldstein and so there's no good reason to doubt that she was at her door.

                                I'd imagine the police would have interviewed her and taken down her statement, but unfortunately that statement hasn't survived. Except Walter Dew claimed, years later, that Fanny saw Jack.

                                I don't think Fanny did necessarily give 'multiple conflicting accounts'. We don't know what was implied by journalists, what they were repeating second hand, and what they embellished a bit out of a desire for sales.

                                Personally, I think this is one witness who we know was where she said she was and did in fact see something of possible importance. Unfortunately, we don't know which parts of that which Fanny stated, was accurately reported by journalists.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X