Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t understand why this is considered problematic in any way. My comments are bracketed in red.

Swanson’s synthesis of the 30th September LSPS interview - written on Oct 19th

“12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [i.e. Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at that hour on turning into Berner St from Commercial Road & had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. (So at this point we have BSMan speaking to the woman at the gateway with Schwartz an unknown distance behind on the same side of the road.) The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. (So Schwartz moves to the opposite (east) side of Berner Street. We can’t distinguish if he saw Pipeman whilst crossing or when he had crossed). The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road (it’s important to note that we get ‘man’ on the opposite side of the road and not ‘men’ which would have been the case if Schwartz and Pipeman were on the same side of the road) ‘Lipski’ & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far. (So Schwartz then crossed back over and disappeared down Fairclough Street toward the arches with Pipeman going in the same direction but either he turned off or he entered a house on the way). Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other. Upon being taken to the Mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man who threw the woman down: – age about 30, height 5 ft. 5 in., complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered; dress, dark jacket & trousers, black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands. Second man, age 35, height 5 ft. 11 in., complexion fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown; dress, dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand.”


Conclusion: Without doubt Schwartz and Pipeman were on opposite sides of the road when ‘Lipski’ was called.



The Star, October 1st.

“Information which may be important was given to the Leman Street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder. This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter. He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch Lane. The reporter’s Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner’s English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man’s story was retold just as he had given it to the police. It is, in fact, to the effect that he saw the whole thing. It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner Street to others in Backchurch Lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner Street to see if his wife had moved. (I’ve heard it suggested that this meant that Schwartz was moving to Berner Street but this isn’t what was being said here. Only that he was walking along Berner Street to his new dwelling which could have been anywhere.) As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. (Again we have BSMan talking to a woman by the gates and Schwartz an undisclosed distance behind on the same side.) The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. (Schwartz crosses to the side of the road opposite the club [the east side]) Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, (in the Swanson synthesis we can’t tell if Schwartz saw Pipeman whilst he was crossing or after he’d arrived at the other side. This version suggests that it was the latter) but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off, (an apparent assumption as the beer house was long closed, I’d suggest that he was using the doorway to enable him to light his pipe with a match) and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder (he rushed forward, from the doorway that Schwartz believed that he’d exited from. The use of the word ‘forward’ clearly indicates that Pipeman was on the same side of the road as BSMan and the woman). The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man’s hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings. (He fled, as stated by Swanson, but there is no mention of Pipeman). He described the man with the woman as about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built, and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat. The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red. Both men seem to belong to the same grade of society. The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man’s statement is not wholly accepted.”


Conclusion: Without doubt Schwartz and Pipeman were on opposite sides of the road when ‘Lipski’ was called.

….

This seems pretty straightforward to me.

[DJA]

Look at the corner of the building above the entrance and compare that to the windows.

Consider that BS Man had pulled Stride out of the alley and was standing on the street.

At that angle Hagen/Pipeman would not be visible.

Those twin doors are~1.13 meters wide.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Previously, you said...

Was he in the doorway, but visible to BS, or did he step out of the doorway to make the theory work?

Swanson: ...he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

Did he light his pipe in the supposed shelter of the doorway, or did he step into the breeze, but kept trying?

I’m not trying to make any theory work. You only have to look at the photograph that Dave recently posted to see that a man couldn’t conceal himself in the nearby doorways but there is probably enough of a gap to stop the wind blowing out a match. Lighting a pipe takes a little longer than lighting a cigarette. Most pipe smokers will light their pipes, tamp down the tobacco and then light again. But once Pipeman had got his pipe to ‘take’ he could have stepped away from the doorway still with his match to his pipe.

No one knows for certain exactly what happened but this is a reasonable explanation. If Pipeman was seen moving away from a doorway it would have been understandable that an onlooker might think that he’d just exited from that doorway.

[JeffHamm]

OpenAI acknowledges that ChatGPT "sometimes writes plausible-sounding but incorrect or nonsensical answers".

Having graded student papers where they've "consulted" ChatGPT, I certainly can find no fault in that assessment.

- Jeff

[DJA]

OpenAI acknowledges that ChatGPT "sometimes writes plausible-sounding but incorrect or nonsensical answers".

[GBinOz]

George,

the fallacy of your argument is that while the statement comes from Schwartz, and is of his perspective, what we are reading in the Home Office extract is not the signed words of Israel Schwartz, rather it how his statement has been understood by the Home Office. [/I]

Hi Andrew,

WADR, I do not see this as a Home Office interpretation, but as a relating of Schwartz's statement and therefore from Schwartz's perspective.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

The answers are easy. The questions aren't because they are phrased from the wrong perspective.

The statement was made by Schwartz, not the man calling out, so the locations are from the perspective of the man making the statement - Schwartz. So the answers to your questions are both B), which is consistent with both the original police statement and The Star interview also made from the perspective of Schwartz.

Cheers, George

George,

the fallacy of your argument is that while the statement comes from Schwartz, and is of his perspective, what we are reading in the Home Office extract is not the signed words of Israel Schwartz, rather it how his statement has been understood by the Home Office. No one would be expected to interpret that 'Lipski' being called out to man across the road, was being called to a man on the same side of the road.

I entered the Home Office extract into ChatGPT, and asked the following question:

Where was the man being called to, relative to the man calling 'Lipski'?

This was the response:

In the statement provided, the man calling out "Lipski" is described as being on one side of the road, and the individual he is addressing is on the opposite side. This indicates that the person being called to, named Lipski, was across the road from the person shouting the name.

Therefore, the man calling out "Lipski" was positioned on one side of the road, and Lipski (whether a person or just a shouted name) was on the other side of the road.

[GBinOz]

If P/K man moves in Schwartz's direction starting from the Nelson corner, and Schwartz is still a few doors from Fairclough, what happens? Schwartz is followed straight back up the street, toward Commercial Rd. There is nothing in either account to suggest this occurred. The alternative is to suppose that P/K man moves toward Schwartz when Schwartz is stepping onto Fairclough. That is, just as is depicted in the Star. Once again, we are back to the issue of the Nelson not being a few doors off, rather it's a few yards across the road. Another issue would be that this particular scenario could easily result in Schwartz being followed east along Fairclough, yet seemingly Ed Spooner must remain oblivious.

In my scenario, Pipeman is near Hampshire Court when first spotted by Schwartz. This results in Schwartz being followed south, to either Ellen St or one of the nearby rail arches. This is compatible with the evidence we have, and it unifies the witnessed location of Pipeman and Parcelman.

Hi Andrew,

When I originally read the accounts of Schwartz's statements I was puzzled at the apparent suggestion that Pipeman was on the school corner and Schwartz was running away towards the perceived threat of Pipeman. When I reconsidered Schwartz's statements from his perspective I realised that Pipeman was on the opposite corner, outside the Nelson. The critical information is "just as he stepped from the kerb". At this stage Schwartz has crossed the road and is headed south. The only kerb available for "stepping from" is the kerb on the north eastern side of the Fairclough intersection. From there, IMO, Schwartz made his exit south on Berner rather than east on Fairclough.

Without disparaging your theory, if Pipeman were near Hampshire Court then when Schwartz had crossed the road and was proceeding south, Pipeman was behind him and would not have been seen until Schwartz turned around in response to the sound of the argument. Furthermore, Pipeman would have been nowhere near a public house. When Schwartz heard the quarrel that prompted the cry of Lipski he was at the Fairclough intersection, and there could have been no doubt as to whom the cry was directed if Pipeman was near Hampshire Court.

Cheers, George

[DJA]

William Smith, 452 H Division: On Saturday last I went on duty at ten p.m. My beat was past Berner- street, and would take me twenty-five minutes or half an hour to go round. I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock. I was not called. I saw a crowd outside the gates of No. 40, Berner-street. I heard no cries of "Police." When I came to the spot two constables had already arrived. The gates at the side of the club were not then closed. I do not remember that I passed any person on my way down. I saw that the woman was dead, and I went to the police-station for the ambulance, leaving the other constables in charge of the body. Dr. Blackwell's assistant arrived just as I was going away.


That leaves a thin margin of time for Sutton/JtR to slip out the front door and into the dark alley once Stride was in position.
He had obviously been observing or already knew Smith's beat.
Similar in that respect to the next murder.

[GBinOz]

Previously, you said...

Was he in the doorway, but visible to BS, or did he step out of the doorway to make the theory work?

Swanson: ...he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

Did he light his pipe in the supposed shelter of the doorway, or did he step into the breeze, but kept trying?

Hi Andrew,

I am a pipe smoker, and so is Herlock. You don't try to light a pipe with matches in a breeze.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If you look at the doorways in question you will see that they are only indented from the pavement by a very few inches. Not enough to provide any concealment for a man but enough perhaps to provide a break against the wind to allow a pipe but be lit or re-lit.

Previously, you said...

A distance of just 20 feet or so. Pipeman stepping out from the doorway. BSMan on the pavement. Yet again you see a problem which doesn’t exist. They couldn’t have missed each other.

Was he in the doorway, but visible to BS, or did he step out of the doorway to make the theory work?

Swanson: ...he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

Did he light his pipe in the supposed shelter of the doorway, or did he step into the breeze, but kept trying?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

She goes to lock her door to go to bed, but hears someone walk past her door. Being a curious neighbour she then immediately opens her door and looks out to see a man walking hurriedly with a black bag.

FM: It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and 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.

Had she seen the man walk from Commerical Rd, or just presumed that he had?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I find myself at a loss to understand how this is changing the story. When Schwartz was within a couple of yards of the Fairclough intersection he would have had an uninterrupted view of the doorway of the Nelson, an Pipeman sheltering there to light his pipe. As the noise of a quarrel attracted Schwartz's attention, and he turned to see what was happeneing, Pipeman also heard the noise of the quarrel and stepped out to gain a view of what was happening. At that time both Schwartz and Pipemn would have been visible to BSman, but it would be difficult to determine at whom a shout might have been directed.

A couple of yards from the Fairclough intersection is not a few doors off from the Nelson. In #1208 you said:

WADR, the reference is to Schwartz's perspective after he had crossed the street.

Presumably you meant that at this point (when Schwartz first sees Pipe/Knifeman), he is a few doors from the kerb, when counting doors on the opposite side of the road to which Schwartz is now on. Now you're saying that Schwartz sees the man a couple of yards prior to reaching Fairclough. Therefore "the doorway of the public house a few doors off" cannot refer to the Nelson.

Also, from #1208:

WADR, I think that Pipeman emerged from the doorway to see a man with a woman in distress and another man attempting to leave the scene. I don't believe that he had sufficient information at that stage to determine who had attacked whom. Schwartz's conflicting stories do not assist us in this regard.

Let's consider either scenario.

Firstly, that Pipe/Knifeman heads to the gateway and attacks BS Man. Schwartz continues to walk away from the scene. This is not compatible with Schwartz fleeing to either Ellen St or a railway arch.

Second scenario. Pipe/Knifeman heads toward Schwartz, possibly in a menacing manner, and holding a pipe or a knife. If P/K man moves in Schwartz's direction starting from the Nelson corner, and Schwartz is still a few doors from Fairclough, what happens? Schwartz is followed straight back up the street, toward Commercial Rd. There is nothing in either account to suggest this occurred. The alternative is to suppose that P/K man moves toward Schwartz when Schwartz is stepping onto Fairclough. That is, just as is depicted in the Star. Once again, we are back to the issue of the Nelson not being a few doors off, rather it's a few yards across the road. Another issue would be that this particular scenario could easily result in Schwartz being followed east along Fairclough, yet seemingly Ed Spooner must remain oblivious.

In my scenario, Pipeman is near Hampshire Court when first spotted by Schwartz. This results in Schwartz being followed south, to either Ellen St or one of the nearby rail arches. This is compatible with the evidence we have, and it unifies the witnessed location of Pipeman and Parcelman.

Another issue with the Nelson theory concerns this...

As the noise of a quarrel attracted Schwartz's attention, and he turned to see what was happeneing, Pipeman also heard the noise of the quarrel and stepped out to gain a view of what was happening.

The Star refers to this quarrelling, Swanson's report does not. Which report do we prefer? The police report says, "he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe". There is no mention of a doorway or a man pivoting around to find out what's going on. As Schwartz has already crossed the road to avoid the quarrel (in the Star), I'm wondering why P/K man does not notice what's going on until Schwartz is nearly at the kerb. Had he already swung around by the time Schwartz sees him, why would Schwartz suppose the man had come from the doorway of the Nelson?

Hi Andrew,

I submit that contrary to the Star report, in the incident described by Schwartz, no-one was seen butchered while another man watched. Press sensationalisation. Schwartz saw what he thought was a domestic.

Cheers, George

So, remove the sensationalism. The point remains, and it is a point that came out of your question - in what order did Schwartz speak to the duty manager, Abberline, and the Star man? I gave an answer that allowed me to make sense of comments on Schwartz by Anderson, and the 'doubts' report in the Star. I thought both your question and my answer were pretty interesting. It seems I'm alone in that regard.

[GBinOz]

Press accounts are the only accounts that we have for what Fanny said, and according the Evening News, a woman, who we assume was Fanny, made a statement. It then says, "It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured heavy stamp of a policeman passing the house on his beat." So this account is saying that she said this. There's always a chance that a press account could be wrong, but if Fanny never actually said it sounded like a policeman, that would be a pretty big error.

Hi Lewis C,

This is the account, which was one of three that appeared in the Evening News Oct 1:
. 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.


This is another account from the same newspaper on Oct 1:
Mrs. Mortimer, living at 36, Berner-street, four doors from the scene of the tragedy, says: 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. I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club-house, and on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the gate with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates. It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and 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 around the corner by the Board School. I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart. He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart. 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. The body was lying slightly on one side, with the legs a little drawn up as if in pain, the clothes being slightly disarranged, so that the legs were partly visible. The woman appeared to me to be respectable, judging by her clothes, and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets. A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.


It can be noticed that 36 Berner St was 2 doors from the club, as stated in the first account, not 4 doors as in the second. The first account has a woman hearing footsteps from inside her home at about 12:45, going to the door as a response, and staying at the door for ten minutes. The second account has no mention of the footsteps that bought the woman to the door, but claims that she was at the door for 30 minutes from 12:30 to 1 o'clock.

The third account published in the Evening News Oct 1 was quite different to the above.
INTERVIEW WITH A NEIGHBOUR.
Some three doors from the gateway where the body of the first victim was discovered, I saw a clean, respectable-looking woman chatting with one or two neighbours. She was apparently the wife of a well-to-do artisan, and formed a strong contrast to many of those around her. I got into conversation with her and found that she was one of the first on the spot.
TEN INCHES OF COLD STEEL.
"I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police. I ran to the door, and before I could open it I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.' I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway. Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife.
"Then I see a sight that turned me all sick and cold. There was the murdered woman a-lying on her side, with her throat cut across till her head seemed to be hanging by a bit of skin. Her legs was drawn up under her, and her head and the upper part of her body was soaked in blood. She was dressed in black as if she was in mourning for somebody.
MURDERED WITHIN SOUND OF MUSIC AND DANCING.
"Did you hear no sound of quarrelling, no cry for help?" I asked.
"Nothing of the sort, sir. I should think I must have heard it if the poor creature screamed at all, for I hadn't long come in from the door when I was roused, as I tell you, by that call for the police. But that was from the people as found the body. Mr. Lewis, who travels in cheap drapery things a bit now and again, had just drove into the yard when his horse shied at something that was lying in the corner. He thought 'twas a bundle of some kind till he got down from his cart and struck a light. Then he saw what it was and gave the alarm."
"Was the street quiet at the time?"
"Yes, there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club. There was music and dancing going on there at the very time that that poor creature was being murdered at their very door, as one may say."
A MAN WITH A BLACK BAG!
" I suppose you did not notice a man and woman pass down the street while you were at the door?"
"No, sir. I think I should have noticed them if they had. Particularly if they'd been strangers, at that time o' night. I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand."
"Did you observe him closely, or notice anything in his appearance?"
"No, I didn't pay particular attention to him. He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club., A good many young men goes there, of a Saturday night especially."
That was all that my informant had to tell me. I wonder will the detectives think it worth while to satisfy themselves about that black bag?

I have previously proposed that these interviews were with different women, a proposition which was vigorously opposed. Can Fanny have made three such differing statements on the same day to between one and three reporters?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

This is from a Home Office letter:

A statement has been made by a man named Schwartz to the effect that he had heard a person who was pulling about a woman identified as Elizabeth Stride 15 minutes before the murder off Berner Street took place, call out “Lipski” to an individual who was on the opposite side of the road. It does not appear whether the man used the word “Lipski” as a mere ejaculation meaning in mockery I am going to “Lipski” the woman, or whether he was calling to a man across the road by his proper name. In the latter case, assuming that the man using the word was the murderer, the murderer must have an acquaintance in Whitechapel named Lipski. Mr Matthews presumes that this clue has been one of the suggestions with regard to which searching enquiries have been made: although no tangible results have been obtained as regards the detection of the murderer; but he will be glad if he can be furnished with a report as to any investigations made to trace the man Lipski."

The woman was being pulled about. As with Abberline's reference to the woman being "ill-used", it would seem that the abuse lasted for much longer than a few seconds. Presumably her screams were cries for help. If only these screams had not been not very loud.

The man abusing the woman called out “Lipski” to an individual who was on the opposite side of the road. Relative to the man calling out, was the man being called to:

A) On the opposite side of the road
B) On the same side of the road

It is unclear if the word 'Lipski' was used as slang or as a proper name. Whatever the case, where was the man being called to in relation to the man calling out? Was he:

A) Across the road
B) On the same side of the road

Now I know these questions aren't easy, so take your time answering, and feel free to PM me if you need help.

Hi Andrew,

The answers are easy. The questions aren't because they are phrased from the wrong perspective.

The statement was made by Schwartz, not the man calling out, so the locations are from the perspective of the man making the statement - Schwartz. So the answers to your questions are both B), which is consistent with both the original police statement and The Star interview also made from the perspective of Schwartz.

Cheers, George