Who was the best witness to have seen Jack the Ripper?

[c.d.]

"And do you think a foreigner , a jew, new to a country is going to lie in a huge murder investigation jeopardizing, his family his freedom his life? No way in hell."

I can only think of my reaction if I had been asked to take one for the team like Schwartz did according to some posters. It would have involved telling those making the request to stick it in a particular orifice.

c.d.

[c.d.]

With regard to watches and clocks, the individual in question has to be looking at them in order for them to relay the necessary information. Just because you are in possession of a watch or have access to a clock doesn't necessarily mean that you know what time it is.

c.d.

[Bridewell]

I fail to see how Schwartz is somehow at fault because no one else can substantiate his account

I am similarly bemused.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Caz, the core point about dear Fanny is that she saw nothing out of the ordinary, where as Schwartz saw dancing elephants in tutu's. No one can substantiate any of Schwartz's testimony at all. So he contributes absolutely nothing to JtR besides wasting everyone's time. The same can be said of Fanny to but her account seems the more honest. She doesn't place herself in the centre of a fantasy where she is the victim, she simply says she saw nothing.

Actually Marshall, possibly the PC and Lawendes all corroborate Schwartz in that they all describe a suspect with a peaked cap.

Anyway Eye witness testimony does not need to be corroborated to be valid in a court of law or useful in police investigations. Many a criminal has been put away based on uncorronorated eye witness testimony.

It is fanny who actually contributes nothing. Well she saw Goldstien and his shiny black bag. I'll give her that.

And do you think a foreigner , a jew, new to a country is going to lie in a huge murder investigation jeopardizing, his family his freedom his life? No way in hell.

[Dr. John Watson]

Its very revealing when a "Cadet" seems to grasp the obvious better than a senior member ....a reasonable overview Sunbury.

Sure.

Reasonable overview? Hardly. With regard to the remainder of your message, it's obvious you're trying very hard to sell something, but I'm not sure just what. Admittedly, I haven't gone back over your earlier posts, but can you state simply and briefly what you believe happened that night and the evidence that you rely on? No need to justify anything; I'd just like know where you're coming from.

John

[Dr. John Watson]

Hi Caz, the core point about dear Fanny is that she saw nothing out of the ordinary, where as Schwartz saw dancing elephants in tutu's. No one can substantiate any of Schwartz's testimony at all. So he contributes absolutely nothing to JtR besides wasting everyone's time. The same can be said of Fanny to but her account seems the more honest. She doesn't place herself in the centre of a fantasy where she is the victim, she simply says she saw nothing.

This is a terribly simplistic and naive summation, betraying a complete failure to grasp the significance of either statement. Apparently you possess greater knowledge and experience than the investigating officers who considered the Schwartz statement extremely important and all but ignored Mortimer's various stories. Mortimer, incidentally, did provide some information of value, if interpreted correctly. Of course, interpretation of the meager evidence we have is the key to reconstructing what happened between 12:30 and 1:00 that night.

John

[GUT]

G'day cd

As for Fanny, what exactly was she staring at the whole time?

Maybe she was just staring into space thinking how nice life would be if she lived somewhere descent.

[c.d.]

I fail to see how Schwartz is somehow at fault because no one else can substantiate his account. As for him seeing "dancing elephants in tutus", I think a better description might be "a fairly common interaction between a prostitute and a drunken inhabitant of Whitechapel." And PLEASE don't start the whole prostitute argument again. Seriously.

As for Fanny, what exactly was she staring at the whole time? I mean it is not like she was experiencing a state of rapture by looking out at a Grand Canyon sunset. Would her attention have been completely held by what she saw from her doorway? Did she mark the time she started observing and exactly when she stopped? Did she take any bathroom breaks? I would take her testimony with a grain of salt not as Gospel.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Caz, the core point about dear Fanny is that she saw nothing out of the ordinary, where as Schwartz saw dancing elephants in tutu's. No one can substantiate any of Schwartz's testimony at all. So he contributes absolutely nothing to JtR besides wasting everyone's time. The same can be said of Fanny to but her account seems the more honest. She doesn't place herself in the centre of a fantasy where she is the victim, she simply says she saw nothing.

Its very revealing when a "Cadet" seems to grasp the obvious better than a senior member ....a reasonable overview Sunbury.

As to your point concerning times Caz, Brown, Schwartz, Diemshutz, Eagle and Lave were not wearing watches, and Kozebrodski, Gillen, Heschberg and Mortimer were in dwellings........... with clocks. I don't hold anyone accountable to a minute or 2, its just a fact that using Kozebrodski's, Gillen's, Spooner's and Heschberg's remarks.... that same morning.... it appears they all were standing by the dying woman between 12:35 and approximately 12:45....(there, you have ten minutes to dilly with), and using Fannys remarks, no cart and horse were seen or heard approaching the gates between 12:50 and 1am, while she stood continuously at the door to the street, nor did she see or hear any altercation involving 2 men and a woman outside the gates at around 12:45am.

As you can see, the evidence contrary to Louis, Eagle and Lave, and Israel is right there in print, and its not a matter of a minute or two in deviation.....for Louis to have told the truth at the Inquest Issac , Heschberg, Spooner and Gillen would all have to be wrong by about the same amount....20 minutes.

4 witnesses, 3 from a club with a clock, are out by 20 minutes? When one of them had just marked his return to the club by checking the clock and verifying it was half past twelve?

Sure.

[Sunbury]

Hi Caz, the core point about dear Fanny is that she saw nothing out of the ordinary, where as Schwartz saw dancing elephants in tutu's. No one can substantiate any of Schwartz's testimony at all. So he contributes absolutely nothing to JtR besides wasting everyone's time. The same can be said of Fanny to but her account seems the more honest. She doesn't place herself in the centre of a fantasy where she is the victim, she simply says she saw nothing.

[caz]

Can anyone deny that if Fanny gave her statement accurately, that she would have to have seen Louis arrive...since he claimed it was at 1am sharp?

For Gawd's sake, Mike. I'm not alone in telling you more than once that you simply cannot expect pinpoint accuracy regarding witness timings. When Fanny Mortimer heard the horse and cart, shortly after going indoors, she had no idea a murder had been committed and had no possible reason to note the time, even if there had been a reasonably accurate timepiece nearby. She had to guesstimate with hindsight that she went indoors around 1am and heard the horse and cart about 4 minutes later. If she was out in each case by just a couple of minutes, she could have gone in around 12.58 and heard Louis D arriving at 1am sharp. Job done.

She didn't see or hear Schwartz and co, nor did she see or hear a horse and cart arriving appreciably earlier than 1am. So you cannot use her testimony to take the former out of the equation or insert the latter.

Where does BSM go? Or Pipeman, how does Liz get to that spot after Israel leaves, does she march past the gates as soon as BSM helps her up? If so, how could anyone suggest that BSM, if a real character in a real incident, would not be the most probable man to have killed her? Why wouldnt he be actively sought and why wouldnt Israel become a star witness? Can anyone dispute that Jack the Ripper sought to evade capture and avoided being identified, and would likely not just kill someone just after being seen assaulting the victim in the middle of the street?

Some questions cannot be brushed away.

No, but most can never be answered, except with speculation. And there are way too many possibilities here.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

She heard a cart and horse, she assumed it was arriving after she had been to the spot where the woman was and heard the story about Louis. However, the cart and horse may have been leaving....off to George yard. I find no mention of the horse and cart during the police investigation on site, or by members called to see the body.

Speculation then, just like Mortimer's? The fact remains that she was there and you were not, and she was clearly able to hear the horse and cart passing from inside the house, whichever way it was going.

First off, 3 witnesses stated that the body was there by 12:45am and that they saw it, so, its hardly just "my theory".

But if your theory involves Louis D lying to protect the club by putting his discovery of the body forward to 1am, to cover up a 15-minute delay while they discussed how to handle this 'problem' and get their stories straight, it was the worst conspiracy ever, because they evidently didn't get their stories straight, and in fact your 3 witnesses sang like canaries about the body being there since 12.45! How does that even work as a theory?

Fanny essentially stated that she was at her door off and on from 12:30 until 12:50, I dont presume to know where she was when indoors, and where she had to be to hear outside noises, I do know that she didnt see or hear anything that Israel Schwartz contends happened, and that she may have been standing at her door at that very moment.

But you also speculate that Louis D's horse and cart arrived around 12.45. Since we know that Mortimer never saw or heard it at that time, your speculation is either wrong or she could just as easily have missed Schwartz and co when she was too far inside the house even to hear Louis D. You simply cannot have this both ways.

Louis may have arrived just after the policeman left, according to the 3 witnesses I mentioned stories...which they provided with 1 hour of the discovery....she may not have been where she could hear it.

Therefore she may not have been where she could hear or see Schwartz and co.

To be continued...

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

1. Firstly, we don't know she saw the young couple until after the body was discovered, do we?

2. We do know she heard a horse and cart around 1 am, shortly after going back indoors - she remarked on it to her husband and assumed this was Louis D, which would tie in nicely with his own account, given her timing would have been approximate.

3. If your theory is that Louis D returned and discovered the body 15 minutes earlier, and was lying for some reason about the time, surely Fanny Mortimer would have heard the horse and cart earlier and seen it, if she was at her door when Schwartz, BSM, PM and Stride were meant to be active. Yet you believe she was there and saw nothing, making Schwartz a liar.

4.So how did she miss Louis D's return, if your theory is correct?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Ive numbered the key questions above, and in order, my responses....

1. Fanny stated that the only people that she had seen on the street was the young couple, she didnt narrow that sighting to a time after the body was discovered. During the time she was at her door off and on, from 12:30 until 12:50...when she was at her door continuously until 1am....was the period in question.

2. She heard a cart and horse, she assumed it was arriving after she had been to the spot where the woman was and heard the story about Louis. However, the cart and horse may have been leaving....off to George yard. I find no mention of the horse and cart during the police investigation on site, or by members called to see the body.

3. First off, 3 witnesses stated that the body was there by 12:45am and that they saw it, so, its hardly just "my theory". Fanny essentially stated that she was at her door off and on from 12:30 until 12:50, I dont presume to know where she was when indoors, and where she had to be to hear outside noises, I do know that she didnt see or hear anything that Israel Schwartz contends happened, and that she may have been standing at her door at that very moment.

4. Louis may have arrived just after the policeman left, according to the 3 witnesses I mentioned stories...which they provided with 1 hour of the discovery....she may not have been where she could hear it.

There is one witness who says Liz Stride was seen alive on Berner Street between 12:35 and 1am, and 1 witness who thinks he saw her at the very same time, a few dozen yards away. There are 3 witnesses that stated they saw her lying dead in the passage before or near to that time.

Can anyone say that Israel is more credible than 3 separate witnesses, 2 from the club itself? Can anyone deny that if Fanny gave her statement accurately, that she would have to have seen Louis arrive...since he claimed it was at 1am sharp? Can anyone dispute that the medical evidence allows for Liz Stride to have been on the spot where she dies within a minute of Israels story timeline? Where does BSM go? Or Pipeman, how does Liz get to that spot after Israel leaves, does she march past the gates as soon as BSM helps her up? If so, how could anyone suggest that BSM, if a real character in a real incident, would not be the most probable man to have killed her? Why wouldnt he be actively sought and why wouldnt Israel become a star witness? Can anyone dispute that Jack the Ripper sought to evade capture and avoided being identified, and would likely not just kill someone just after being seen assaulting the victim in the middle of the street?

Some questions cannot be brushed away.

Cheers Caz

[GUT]

G'day Rocky

And welcome.

It seems quite a few witnesses make mention of the strange eyes

But I guess he was one strange character.

Certainly his pastime anyway.

[RockySullivan]

It seems quite a few witnesses make mention of the strange eyes