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

[lynn cates]

photograph

Hello Barbara, GUT. Thanks.

And now, I beg you to consider that Mary claimed that Jacob had gotten pinched in the face in his weeks of wandering.

So if you look at a photograph of Isenschmid whilst reading that description, well, it must have some slight effect.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

"The man did not look in the least like a butcher", it says. One wonders what that was about?

How does a butcher look...?

Fisherman

[Penhalion]

I believe the Victorian stereotype of a butcher was well-fed and somewhat rotund. Because of the easy access to meat, it was assumed that all butchers (and their families) would be plump and rosy-cheeked with health. Therefore a man who was thin and had sunken cheeks would look nothing like a butcher.

[Fisherman]

I believe the Victorian stereotype of a butcher was well-fed and somewhat rotund. Because of the easy access to meat, it was assumed that all butchers (and their families) would be plump and rosy-cheeked with health. Therefore a man who was thin and had sunken cheeks would look nothing like a butcher.

That makes sense, I guess. You may well be right - thanks for sharing!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

apron

Hello Christer. Thanks.

We DO know that Jacob had returned home and changed clothes just after the Nichols slaying and just after Chapman. So it is possible that he was not wearing his apron. Perhaps ALL butchers were expected to wear aprons?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

powerful

Hello Penhalion. Thanks.

There's a thought. He was likely never thin but he was powerfully built--less so, perhaps, after his months of wandering.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

We DO know that Jacob had returned home and changed clothes just after the Nichols slaying and just after Chapman. So it is possible that he was not wearing his apron. Perhaps ALL butchers were expected to wear aprons?

Cheers.
LC

My hunch is that this was something that stretched beyond the apron, to be honest. I think Penhalion makes a point that seems useful. And it makes me think that the man described could have had the features that sometimes go with a hollow-eyed appearance: being thin.

Not that there is enough in it to make any call either way, mind you!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

jocular

Hello Christer. Thanks.

Yes, and not to mention the supposed jocularity of such a one.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

"The man did not look in the least like a butcher", it says. One wonders what that was about?

How does a butcher look...?

Fisherman

Christer.
This is a period in history when people dressed according to their profession. You could tell a banker, from a clerk, from a journalist, just by their clothes.

[Sunbury]

Why is Schwartz believed over others?

Why do people study Schwartz's statement in the most intimate detail and write millions of words about him, when other witnesses flatly contradict his story?

Fanny Mortimer lived at 36 Berner St, two doors from Dutfiield's Lane.

I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by.

At 12.45am, she was on her door step and saw nothing that Schwartz claimed he saw.

She also made a comment on the killing that people seem to ignore as well

If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him. It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found.

There is another witness who also didn't see what Schwartz saw. is James Brown. He was at the corner of Berner and Fairclough St at 12.45am, again very close to Dutfields Lane. He didn't notice anything unusual either, he did see a couple in Fairclough St, nothing more.

Brown, a dock labourer of 35 Fairclough Street, testified to seeing a woman with a man at 12.45am, 30th September 1888 in Fairclough Street whilst he was getting his supper from a chandler's shop on the corner with Berner Street. He saw the couple standing by the Board School; the woman had her back to the wall, facing the man who had his arm up against it. Brown heard the woman say "No, not tonight, some other night" which attracted his attention. There was no trace of an accent in the woman's voice.

The man was described as being about 5ft 7in tall and stoutly built, wearing a long overcoat which went down almost to his heels. He was wearing a hat, but Brown was unable to describe it. It was quite dark, so he could not tell if the woman was wearing a flower on her jacket, but both appeared sober.

Two witnesses, both within 10 yards of Dutfield's Lane at the same time Schwartz was, saw nothing.

The couple James Brown saw may have been Stride and JtR and they moved into Berner St and Dutfiled's Lane but Fanny Mortimer still didn't see them do that.

So why is Schwartz seen as a credible witness? He tells a fantastic story, with himself as the victim but who heroically comes forward.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Sunbury

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 for 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 the pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband. Thus, presuming that the body did not lay in the yard when the policeman passed-and it could hardly, it is thought, have escaped his notice-and presuming also that the assassin and his victim did not enter the yard while the woman stood at the door, it follows that they must have entered it within a minute or two before the arrival of the pony trap.

The Daily News of 1st October and Evening News carry the above version, though in a subsequent follow-up the Daily News names the witness and quotes the 12.30 to 1.00am version.

It seems to me that there may well have been two contradictory agency feeds...but Mrs Mortimer only being at her door say 12.47 to 12.57 changes things a tad doesn't it?

I'd say all the other witnesses seeing things occuring in Berners Street, which Mrs Mortimer apparently didn't see, would tend to cast doubt on her 12.30 to 1.00am account rather than the other way round, and it may well be that the Daily News got things right first time round...

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

No-one saw what Israel says he saw....none of the witnesses that are documented as even being within earshot heard or saw anything at 12:45am.

Fanny saw Goldstein...Fanny saw the young couple. 2 elements of the story which we know were present, and proof in the first instance that she indeed was where she said she was at that time...from 12:50 until 1am. So how come she doesnt see or hear Louis either...he says he arrived at 1, Fanny could not have missed a cart and horse arriving if she was at her door during that few minutes to 1 And we know she was there...she saw Leon.

Seems to me Fanny beats out almost any other witness by her verifiable sightings. Lave didnt see anyone or thing, neither did Eagle...so where was Liz at that time...not out in front of the gates waiting to get accosted by BSM, thats for sure.

If BSM grabbed Liz coming up from behind her...which means she was facing away from him, and he tried to pull her into the street and while resisting, she fell back away from him, why isnt her right side dirty too?

Cheers

[lynn cates]

Fanny

Hello Mike. I have always been curious concerning why Fanny does not mention Eygle or Lave.

Thoughts?

Cheers.
LC

[Dr. John Watson]

There are only two things we can be fairly certain of relative to Mortimer's story:

First, she went to her door only after hearing the footsteps of a policeman passing by. Since PC Smith testified he entered Berner St. from Commercial Road at about 12:30 a.m., that would be about the time Mortimer opened her door.

Second, she remained at the open door for about 10 minutes according to the earliest press report, long enough to notice Goldstein with his black bag walk by and to observe a man and woman on the opposite side of the street near Fairclough. She then closed the door, opening it again only after discovery of Stride's body.

PC Smith, probably the policeman Mortimer heard, did not mention seeing Leon Goldstein and his shiny black bag, but he did observe a man and woman he identified as Stride on the opposite side of the street near Fairclough St., likely the same couple observed by Mortimer. Goldstein later identified himself as the man with a black bag, but the time he passed Mortimer's house is unclear. Since he was not seen by Smith, he was probably trailing the officer by a minute or so. Neither Goldstein or Mortimer were called to testify at the inquest, and Mortimer is mentioned nowhere in the police reports.

By her own words, Mortimer was standing in her open door from about 12:30 a.m. to about 12:40 a.m. Having then closed her door, she would not have been able to see either Schwartz or the encounter between BS man and Stride. Police failed to mention Mortimer anywhere in their reports, indicating they placed little or no value in her later claim that she was standing in her open door for the entire time she later claimed.

Dr. John Watson

[Cogidubnus]

Sweet FA

Sorry John

That's assuming the measured tread Fanny heard was indeed that of a policeman...and I believe that's the conclusion at least one news agency jumped to...

She didn't see a copper, and could only guess it was indeed a copper, so any guess at 1230 timings based on this testimony is surmise at the very best...

Personally I'd guess her timings at 1247 to 1257 or so...but it's only a guess...based on her going back in doors and being disturbed by the Diemschutz discovery about four minutes afterwards...

All the best

Dave