An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Well, you quoted Dew’s description and then asked “Would it make more sense to suppose this occurred out on the street?”

So my point was that you’re using a description from forty years after the fact, a description of an incident that we know did not occur, and you’re trying to take elements of it (the man turning his head or whatever) and fitting them to other sources that you’re wondering about. That is not possible.

I should have left Dew out of it. LOL

We can read Dew as placing Mortimer in Dutfield's Yard, but Dew implicitly has black bag man killing Stride while Mortimer is at her 'gate'. How does that work without her seeing Stride? That is why I suppose that "opposite the court" means "across the road from the gateway". I could be 100% wrong.

Wondering about whether F Mortimer and the neighbor are the same is another matter.

I think they are, the only inconsistency is the neighbor saying the man she saw might have come from the club, whereas Mortimer says he came from Commercial street and just looked at the club.

Not the only inconsistency, as discussed in #1. Also, GBinOz has argued that the neighbour's appearance - "apparently the wife of a well-to-do artisan" - is not a good fit for Fanny Mortimer.

I also think your reading of “up” and “down” is too literal. People use such terms interchangeably, you think up means north and down south - we don’t know that.
People might say up about someone coming towards them and down about people moving away, for instance, disirregardles of compassial directions.

This up/down issue has been discussed several times in the past. Witness statements seem to consistently refer to the Commercial Rd end as 'up', and the southern end as 'down'. I believe the street has a slight gradient, consistent with this.

[Kattrup]

The TL;DR for post #1 is:



I see three possible responses:

1. Fanny didn't say that - the journalist got that wrong too.

2. Fanny did say that about a man who walked right by her as she stood at her doorstep.

3. Another woman said this, who saw the man at a greater distance and over a longer time span.


Which of these or otherwise was what happened?

#2, except it’s not clear that he walked “right by her”, he may have walked on the opposite side of the street.
Fanny M said the man she saw looked up at the club, so perhaps he was not on the same side as the club.

[Kattrup]

Off course he is wrong. I'm simply wondering if two women had similar stories which have been conflated.

Well, you quoted Dew’s description and then asked “Would it make more sense to suppose this occurred out on the street?”

So my point was that you’re using a description from forty years after the fact, a description of an incident that we know did not occur, and you’re trying to take elements of it (the man turning his head or whatever) and fitting them to other sources that you’re wondering about. That is not possible.
Wondering about whether F Mortimer and the neighbor are the same is another matter.

I think they are, the only inconsistency is the neighbor saying the man she saw might have come from the club, whereas Mortimer says he came from Commercial street and just looked at the club.

I also think your reading of “up” and “down” is too literal. People use such terms interchangeably, you think up means north and down south - we don’t know that.
People might say up about someone coming towards them and down about people moving away, for instance, disirregardles of compassial directions.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The TL;DR for post #1 is:

Does it make sense for Fanny to say, "I didn't pay particular attention to him"? To me, that sounds like someone who is in a position to observe the man at some length (but chose not to), and from some distance. Fanny Mortimer was not in a position to do either of those things. However, a woman who lived on the opposite side of the street and further toward Commercial Rd, would have been in a position to do both.

I see three possible responses:

1. Fanny didn't say that - the journalist got that wrong too.

2. Fanny did say that about a man who walked right by her as she stood at her doorstep.

3. Another woman said this, who saw the man at a greater distance and over a longer time span.


Which of these or otherwise was what happened?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Thank you George for the map. I wrongly assumed that the numbering on Christian Street ran lower and rising from the Commercial Road end. Where 22 is on your map clearly shows his route home was sensible and understandable. Sorry all.
the route is interesting in that I guess he must have walked by some main characters on his way. Thanks for clearing that up George. Got to get my brain engaged again!

NW

Goldstein's route from along Commercial Rd and ultimately down to 22 Christian is arguably the same route taken by Israel Schwartz, who ran to a railway arch. Goldstein lived a stone's throw from a railway arch.

In the Star report of "the Hungarian" ...

... he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, ...

According to Fanny Mortimer ...

... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the board school.

Uncannily similar.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Faulty memory and a reliance on a small stash of newspaper reports from the time. Initially, it was believed that Stride was murdered earlier than 1am and that Mortimer's Black Bag Man was her likely killer. Moreover, since Chapman there rose a train of thought that the Whitechapel murderer was a medical man (i.e. black bag). Police confusing characters from the case years later is rampant and, perhaps, to be expected. IIRC Dew confused Paul and Cross, and Macnaghten appears to put three Jews in Berner Street (instead of Mitre Square) and makes PC Smith a City PC witness (which he excises in his second draft). In fact, you see it all the time on Casebook posts. It's easy to confuse John Davis with John Richardson or Wynne Baxter with Bagster Phillips if you haven't thought about the case in some years to any depth. It's no different for men writing in the 20th century about something that occupied their time only briefly in the century prior.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Can we be sure that that was all Dew was relying on? What about police documents like witness statements?

Thanks again.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

you’re trying to make sense of something that did not happen.

Mortimer did not see the man in the court, in Dutfield’s yard. Dew’s description is wrong.

Off course he is wrong. I'm simply wondering if two women had similar stories which have been conflated.

[New Waterloo]

Thank you George for the map. I wrongly assumed that the numbering on Christian Street ran lower and rising from the Commercial Road end. Where 22 is on your map clearly shows his route home was sensible and understandable. Sorry all.
the route is interesting in that I guess he must have walked by some main characters on his way. Thanks for clearing that up George. Got to get my brain engaged again!

NW

[GBinOz]

Hi NW,

This map reveals all, showing Goldstein's presumed walk home from the Spectacle Coffee House.

https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVPMy6zMo=/

Cheer, George

[New Waterloo]

Having said that i guess it depends where no 22 Christian st is. I am assuming its more towards Commercial rd but may be wrong
NW

[New Waterloo]

Thanks Herlock very helpful. It looks to me that if going home to 22 Christian Street from Spectacle alley. I would walk to commercial road head West along Commercial Road till i reached Christian street. It would seem to suggest that Goldstein intended walking through Berner Street and by the club. I cant see why he would walk up tp fairclough and then back track down christian street towards Commercial road again. I think he wanted to look at the club for whatever reason or go there. Maybe he did. Seems slightly odd to me.

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think this may be important. Leon Goldstein says that he came from Spectacle alley (which I cannot find in the map) towards home. But he lived at 22 Christian Street. It seems as if he walked past the club on purpose because there were lots of opportunities to not go past the club in my opinion. He goes past the club would have to turn left into Fairclough and then walk along taking a left into Christian street and walking back down to 22. Unless i have got it wrong. I am assuming Spectacle alley was North of Commercial Street. Help please thank you

N W

Hi NW,

Im about as good with geography as I am with tech but I just checked on JtRForums and saw it mentioned that Spectacle Alley is now called Whitechurch Passage E1 which is off Whitechurch Lane which in turn is off Whitechapel High Street. It’s the left turning after Altab Ali Park which was the site of the old St Mary Matfelon church.

[New Waterloo]

I think this may be important. Leon Goldstein says that he came from Spectacle alley (which I cannot find in the map) towards home. But he lived at 22 Christian Street. It seems as if he walked past the club on purpose because there were lots of opportunities to not go past the club in my opinion. He goes past the club would have to turn left into Fairclough and then walk along taking a left into Christian street and walking back down to 22. Unless i have got it wrong. I am assuming Spectacle alley was North of Commercial Street. Help please thank you

N W

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks. Why do suppose Dew was so convinced that Fanny Mortimer was probably the only person to have seen the Ripper at a crime scene?

Faulty memory and a reliance on a small stash of newspaper reports from the time. Initially, it was believed that Stride was murdered earlier than 1am and that Mortimer's Black Bag Man was her likely killer. Moreover, since Chapman there rose a train of thought that the Whitechapel murderer was a medical man (i.e. black bag). Police confusing characters from the case years later is rampant and, perhaps, to be expected. IIRC Dew confused Paul and Cross, and Macnaghten appears to put three Jews in Berner Street (instead of Mitre Square) and makes PC Smith a City PC witness (which he excises in his second draft). In fact, you see it all the time on Casebook posts. It's easy to confuse John Davis with John Richardson or Wynne Baxter with Bagster Phillips if you haven't thought about the case in some years to any depth. It's no different for men writing in the 20th century about something that occupied their time only briefly in the century prior.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Kattrup]

Your reading of Dew makes sense, but not entirely. Consider this snippet.

The man's movements had been so quiet that she had not seen him until he was abreast of her. His head was turned away, as though he did not wish to be seen.

That would mean he walked right by her, in the backyard of the club, but she didn't see him until he was in the near darkness of the alleyway. At that point, he would have no need to turn his head away - he would be facing away from her. Yet somehow, she noticed the man had a shiny black bag. Would it make more sense to suppose this occurred out on the street?

you’re trying to make sense of something that did not happen.

Mortimer did not see the man in the court, in Dutfield’s yard. Dew’s description is wrong.