Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Once again I agree with your premise, but I suspect that whoever she was with (Parcelman, most likely), may have been more than a few feet away. IMO, he may have been using the loo facilities or conducting some business in the club. I have difficulty in imagining that a man who had accompanied a woman for many hours that night would stand idly by while she was slaughtered. JMO.

Cheers, George

Except that the man who spent time with her was the slaughterer, IMO.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The point that I was trying to make is that Stride must have entered the yard either on her own or in company at perhaps about 12. 45 am, and Fanny M did not see this. Therefore if the Schwarz, BSM, and Pipeman story is correct, then Fanny could not have seen them, because she was not at her door when Stride entered the yard. Whether Stride was at the gateway for one minute, or ten minutes, Fanny didn't see her, which was the relevant point I was making, so she could not have witnessed the Schwarz, BSM, Pipeman incident.

Did Fanny go to her doorstep just after hearing Smith pass? This is important if you are going to suppose that Goldstein was seen around 12:55, because that puts you on 'Diemschitz/Mortimer time', not police time (Smith). So, Smith cannot pass through until about 12:40, placing Mortimer at her door right when you suppose Schwartz came along. You could choose to disbelieve the 'heavy, measured tramp' report, but that leaves you with Mortimer being quoted as being at her door nearly the whole time between 12:30 and 1am - not really compatible with her missing Stride standing in the gateway for 10 minutes.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

I am as well as can be expected of someone approaching seventy five years on this planet. Thank you for asking.

Good to hear, George.

I have long been baffled by the fixed point police concept. A police officer in place who can not respond to any policing emergency. But, it was was it was. I'm sceptical that when the fixed point officer completed his duty, that the beat officer then stood stationary in that position. I think it more likely that he continued his beat knowing that he had the additional responsibility of that of the fixed point officer, what ever that may have been.

I believe the idea was that in case of a serious incident, the fixed-point officer was there to alert the nearest station, saving a member of the public having to do it. As you know, it was Morris Eagle who was sent to Leman St by Lamb, and not the fixed-point officer!

I don't think the beat officer would have moved to the fixed-point roll at 1am, but just taken the additional responsibility, as you suggest. Smith did go for an ambulance, so I guess things sort of worked to theory.

Whatever the case, I think it worth considering that the timings given by Smith did not quite match his circumstances.

I am not convinced that Diemshitz, given the angles involved, could have even seen the Harris clock when he turned into Berner St. I may be wrong, but I suspect that he manufactured that detail at the inquest.

Cheers, George

Can you remind me what you think he gained by doing this?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Jon,

Once again I agree with your premise, but I suspect that whoever she was with (Parcelman, most likely), may have been more than a few feet away. IMO, he may have been using the loo facilities or conducting some business in the club. I have difficulty in imagining that a man who had accompanied a woman for many hours that night would stand idly by while she was slaughtered. JMO.

Cheers, George

So do I, but doesn't the notion of him conducting some business in the club, amount to a cover-up theory?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Israel Schwartz's account is fabricated for several reasons...


Nobody else saw or heard Stride being assaulted.

Bs man and Pipeman only exist through his story

In his account, Schwartz gets his sides of the street wrong in relation to him and pipeman, after passing Bs man.

Can you elaborate on the last point?

The reason why Schwartz claims that Stride cried out 3 times, but "not very loudly," is because he could then use her muted response as a reason why nobody heard her. We have all been trying to work out why Stride didn't just scream loudly, or cry out for help as she was assaulted; using the excuse that it might have been because she knew him and didn't think she was in danger....whereas the most obvious and logical explanation is...the assault never happened in the first place.

I think 3 screams is just as dubious as those screams oxymoronically being non-loud. Had Stride been thrown to the ground and screamed "ouch!" or similar, it might make sense, but "ouch! ouch! ouch!" sounds like a theatrical embellishment.

Schwartz plays the 'race card' by claiming that Bs man shouted out a racial slur toward him. But nobody else heard anything at all in relation to that claim. By incorporating into his story the idea that he was racially slurred, it helps to try and convince the police the man who assaulted Stride was the perpetrator.

It was very obliging of the man to shout a word that Schwartz understood.

His timing is convenient, yet questionable.
Any earlier and Pc Smith, Eagle etc...see him.
Any later and he must have been there when Stride was murdered, or at the very least he would have seen her killer.
Yet when we add Lave and Fanny into the mix, the window in which Schwartz, Bs Man and Pipeman could have been in that location is diminished beyond possibility.

Of course, any later and he's Goldstein.

Assuming Schwartz made an honest identification at the mortuary, where does that leave us?

Schwartz has the appearance of a man who's playing a role.

Did Schwartz take a risk in going to the police and press, and for whose benefit?

[c.d.]

It was very obliging of the man to shout a word that Schwartz understood.

How can Schwartz in any way be held accountable for what was said to him?

Did Schwartz take a risk in going to the police and press, and for whose benefit?

Perhaps he was simply a decent person and tried to do what he thought was right.

It seems like once you put on Schwartz must have made the whole thing up glasses that everything becomes suspicious even when there is a very logical explanation for it.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Sorry R.D. but people see and hear things all the time to which they are the sole witness.

Multiple witnesses tell us they would or likely would have heard screams, had there been any. That and not what has occurred at other crime scenes, is what is relevant.

Her crying out but not very loudly most likely is the result of a bad translation.

Why is that most likely the case? Did Abberline not question Schwartz carefully on this point, as he did regarding the Lipski matter?

If what he heard (and that is not completely determined) was Lipski then that is what he heard. Stating that is not playing the race card in any way.

According to the press report, he also heard the second man shout some sort of warning to the first. Seemingly the two men were known to each other, regardless of anyone wanting the truth to be otherwise. So, believing Schwartz's tale has to include considering the purpose of the two men. Were they partners in theft, or murder?

If Schwartz was determined to convince the police that the BS man was the the murderer he could have embellished the whole throwing down aspect a lot more and thrown in a knife for good measure. That is why Swanson considered the possibility of another murderer coming along believing Schwartz may just have seen a common street hassle.

So, if the first man had no knife in his hands, presumably the men were thieves. That would leave BS Man and Stride at the gateway, still unheard and unseen, and Pipeman pursuing Schwartz, while on his way home from the markets with his bag of goods.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How can Schwartz in any way be held accountable for what was said to him?

Because it was shouted, not said.

Perhaps he was simply a decent person and tried to do what he thought was right.

Being found by the press - a feat that no modern researcher can match - and accepting an interview, suggests that we cannot accept the "very logical explanation" of Schwartz being this decent person doing his civic duty. Schwartz attempted to shape public opinion. Why do you suppose he put a knife in the second man's hand?

[c.d.]

Because it was shouted, not said.


Being found by the press - a feat that no modern researcher can match - and accepting an interview, suggests that we cannot accept the "very logical explanation" of Schwartz being this decent person doing his civic duty. Schwartz attempted to shape public opinion. Why do you suppose he put a knife in the second man's hand?

My understanding is that antisemitism was fairly prevalent in the East End. Schwartz had a Jewish appearance. The BS man might easily have taken offense to some Jew interfering in his business. Why does a slur in these circumstances surprise you?. And would you not want to shout the slur to drive the point home?

How was Schwartz attempting to shape public opinion? The knife could very well be an invention of the press. It does not appear in the official police file does it?

c.d.

[c.d.]

A scream by definition is loud. So a scream but not loudly makes no sense. A bad translation is the best explanation for that.

If Schwartz did not speak English how could he determine that it was some sort of warning? How would he know they were known to each other? What is your source for that conclusion?

c.d.

[c.d.]

Being found by the press - a feat that no modern researcher can match - and accepting an interview, suggests that we cannot accept the "very logical explanation" of Schwartz being this decent person doing his civic duty.

Do you have any evidence to show that Schwartz deliberately sought out the press as opposed to the press seeking him out?

Do you have any evidence to show that Schwartz benefited from his story financially or became a local hero with people buying him drinks or dinner or did he seem to fade into obscurity. Both those situations can't be true can they?

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

A scream by definition is loud. So a scream but not loudly makes no sense. A bad translation is the best explanation for that.

If Schwartz did not speak English how could he determine that it was some sort of warning? How would he know they were known to each other? What is your source for that conclusion?

c.d.

An audible "scream" is a universal warning system that forms part of our inherent biology as a species.

In other words, Schwartz didn't need to speak English to understand a woman screaming and the implications behind that sound.

THe sound of a woman screaming transcends the more modern social construct of individual languages based on different nationalities.

An English woman screaming or a Swedish woman screaming, it doesn't matter.
If the person hearing the scream is English or Non-English speaking, they would still understand a scream.


RD

[Doctored Whatsit]

Did Fanny go to her doorstep just after hearing Smith pass? This is important if you are going to suppose that Goldstein was seen around 12:55, because that puts you on 'Diemschitz/Mortimer time', not police time (Smith). So, Smith cannot pass through until about 12:40, placing Mortimer at her door right when you suppose Schwartz came along. You could choose to disbelieve the 'heavy, measured tramp' report, but that leaves you with Mortimer being quoted as being at her door nearly the whole time between 12:30 and 1am - not really compatible with her missing Stride standing in the gateway for 10 minutes.

My comment was not really concerned with what time Smith or Goldstein passed, nor disbelieving the "heavy measured tramp" report, nor at what time nor for how long Fanny M was at her door. I was merely making the point that Fanny could not have witnessed the Schwarz, BSM, and Pipeman incident, if it happened, because she did not see Stride at the yard gateway. Therefore she was clearly not at her door at that time. It was relevant when I first wrote it because of what had previously been said.

The exact time that Smith or Goldstein passed by is not important in this context, but, for illustration, I was using the frequently accepted A - Z view that Goldstein passed by shortly before 1 am.

[c.d.]

An audible "scream" is a universal warning system that forms part of our inherent biology as a species.

In other words, Schwartz didn't need to speak English to understand a woman screaming and the implications behind that sound.

THe sound of a woman screaming transcends the more modern social construct of individual languages based on different nationalities.

An English woman screaming or a Swedish woman screaming, it doesn't matter.
If the person hearing the scream is English or Non-English speaking, they would still understand a scream.


RD

Except that Schwartz didn't say he heard the woman "scream" end of sentence. He qualified it by saying but not very loudly. Well then by definition he didn't hear what we would normally call a scream. A scream is loud which is its defining characteristic. So something got lost in translation. I think he was trying to convey that the sound she made was more indicative of surprise than fear and a cry for help.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

My understanding is that antisemitism was fairly prevalent in the East End. Schwartz had a Jewish appearance. The BS man might easily have taken offense to some Jew interfering in his business. Why does a slur in these circumstances surprise you?. And would you not want to shout the slur to drive the point home?

Drive what point home? Are you suggesting this wasn't the only word shouted? According to Schwartz, the word 'Lipski' was directed at the second man. Did Pipeman have a Jewish appearance? The scene seems to be more complicated than people are willing to accept, having already 'modelled' BSM as JtR. So, the did the communication between the two men consist of a single word, that the non-English-speaking Schwartz just happened to understand?

How was Schwartz attempting to shape public opinion? The knife could very well be an invention of the press. It does not appear in the official police file does it?

c.d.

The Star report claims the Hungarian was clear on there being a knife in the second man's hand. While it might be convenient to accuse that paper of making up the knife, why would they do so, having completely dismissed Schwartz's story in their editorial of the same edition?

As for Schwartz wanting to shape public opinion, something I think is missing from the analysis of the Star report, especially the mention of the knife, is how this account contrasts with the Echo, Oct 1 report (below). In the Star report, the behaviour of the first man is much milder than in the police report - he merely pushes the woman back into the yard, and then quarrels with her in the darkness. Hardly even an assault by the standards of the day. The second man, however, has a knife rather than a pipe, and he rushes at the 'intruder' after shouting a warning to his 'mate'. The second man is almost more of a villain than the first, in the press account. Why did Schwartz portray the second man in this manner, to the reporter? Does it have something to do with reversing who is the good guy and who is the bad guy, as per the Echo report?

A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the two latter running up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body. Complaint is also made about the difficulty there was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be called from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation. There is, notwithstanding the number who have visited the scene, a complete absence of excitement, although naturally this fresh addition to the already formidable list of mysterious murders forms the general subject of conversation.