Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Lewis C]

I thought Mortimer never mentioned about hearing the sound of a man walk past her door and that it was written in the 3rd person by a newspaper reporter.

She does however state herself about sering a man walk down Berner St with a black bag.

My suggestion is that the reporter attempted to combine Mortimer's sighting, with the sound of the man passing by her door, but incorrectly suggests himself that it was a Policeman.

In other words, because Mortimer didn't say about a Policeman passing her door, the reporter has assumed she meant a policeman, when she may have meant she heard someone walking past, went to her door and then saw the man with the bag.

I am suggesting it was all one sequence.

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.

The difference in pace is then significant because there's a change between "measured" footsteps to walking "hurriedly"...ergo, once Mortimer opens her door, there's a change of pace from Goldstein.

The clue being that at no point does Mortimer mention a Policeman.
The confusion being that the sequence is fragmented and the footsteps heard are never associated with Goldstein

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

[DJA]

lol

alternatively...

Why did Schwartz cross the road? because he was a chicken

350 × 549500 × 500S

Schwartz and BS Man

[Abby Normal]

Why did Schwartz cross the road?

Because he was chicken

lol

alternatively...

Why did Schwartz cross the road? because he was a chicken

[Abby Normal]

Thanks Mike, but we should not get too hung up about Pipeman. The police obviously saw him for what he was - just a bystander. They were confident that the Lipski insult was being hurled at the very Jewish looking Schwartz. Whether pipeman was by the Nelson or the Board School wall, he was just a bystander.

totally agree with this. and the last we hear of him hes leaving the scene just like schwartz.

[Sunny Delight]

"......and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.”

"On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road ‘Lipski’ & then Schwartz walked away…”

From these two versions it appears to me at least that Schwartz was in the act of crossing the road, when he turned to look at what was happening and as he looked back Lipski was yelled in his direction. It only works if Pipeman is on the other side of the road- Schwartz is in the middle of the road and BS man is beside the club. Schwartz couldn't tell who BS man was shouting at because they were both in the direction in which the shout was aimed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think Jon is right when he says it doesn't really matter where Pipeman was standing, as he was after all just an innocent bystander. One thing that seems somewhat puzzling however is that if Schwartz and Pipeman were on opposite sides of the street then how could Schwartz not discern who the call 'Lipski' was directed at? It would have been obvious as he turned to look at BS man who he was shouting at. If Pipeman was just further down the street to BS man then Schwartz could not have been confused as BS man would have been facing in the opposite direction to Schwartz. If however they were on the same side then BS man shouting in their direction would have meant it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to tell who BS man was shouting at.

That means it is far more likely Schwartz and Pipeman were on the same side of the road, or at least Schwartz had not fully crossed over and was possibly in the middle of the road.

It’s unlikely that Schwartz would have been continuously staring at BSMan as he passed the incident so if he wasn’t looking in his direction at the split second of the call ‘Lipski’ then how could he have known who it was aimed at?

[Sunny Delight]

Which side of the road was Pipeman on?


In the Swanson version we have Schwartz seeing Pipeman: “On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road ‘Lipski’ & then Schwartz walked away…”


Of course this isn’t the most helpfully worded piece of descriptive writing but it’s what we have. So was Pipeman ‘on the opposite side of the road..’to BSMan or to Schwartz? A case has been made for both sides but I’m confident that the stronger argument is that Pipeman was on the club side of the road. One small point is that if Pipeman was on the opposite side of the club why would Schwartz only have seen him ‘on crossing…’ ‘Surely he couldn’t have failed to see him by simply looking straight ahead and before he’d even stepped from the pavement?

The clincher for me though is that if BSMan called out to the ‘man on the opposite’ then it’s clearly being stated that there was only one man on that side of the road. Therefore Schwartz and Pipeman must have been on opposite sides of the road.


In The Star version we get: “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, but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.”


The ‘public house’ was clearly The Nelson beer house on the corner. So for me both versions clearly align on this point. At the moment that BSMan called out “Lipski” Schwartz was across the road and Pipeman was on the club side.

I think Jon is right when he says it doesn't really matter where Pipeman was standing, as he was after all just an innocent bystander. One thing that seems somewhat puzzling however is that if Schwartz and Pipeman were on opposite sides of the street then how could Schwartz not discern who the call 'Lipski' was directed at? It would have been obvious as he turned to look at BS man who he was shouting at. If Pipeman was just further down the street to BS man then Schwartz could not have been confused as BS man would have been facing in the opposite direction to Schwartz. If however they were on the same side then BS man shouting in their direction would have meant it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to tell who BS man was shouting at.

That means it is far more likely Schwartz and Pipeman were on the same side of the road, or at least Schwartz had not fully crossed over and was possibly in the middle of the road.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi RD,

Didn't Mortimer just say that she didn't see anything unusual? If correct and if she was indeed on her doorstep for the bigger of half an hour before 1 am, then she might very well have seen Letchford, Smith, Lave and Eagle at least.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Or, she wasn’t there for as long as she’d thought

The point that you’ve made is an important one though imo, in that just because a witness doesn’t mention seeing someone we shouldn’t assume that the witness hadn’t seen them. Letchford is perhaps a case in point:

“I passed through the street at half-past 12, and everything seemed to me to be going on as usual…”

So a man quietly talking to a woman on the East side of the road would have seemed entirely ‘usual.’ He saw nothing that stood out, no conflict, no one acting suspiciously, no one loitering in the club gateway. So perhaps we shouldn’t assume that he didn’t see the two people that PC Smith saw? And he and Smith must have narrowly missed each other too.

Then we have Joseph Lave (accepted that we have different times attributed to him in different reports) who said:

“So far as I could see I was out in the street about half an hour, and while I was out nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions."

So he didn’t see anyone moving around in such a way as to make him suspicious, which isn’t the same as saying that he saw no one.

Morris Eagle too:

“It was very dark, too dark to see if anybody was lying there and he did not remember seeing anybody in Berner Street.“

He didn’t remember seeing anyone. It’s not conclusive.

So for all that we know both Letchford and Lave may have seen the couple and Eagle might have seen someone in the street.

What we wouldn’t give to see the full police interviews.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon,

All good points showing that Pipeman would have been easily visible.

Thanks Mike, but we should not get too hung up about Pipeman. The police obviously saw him for what he was - just a bystander. They were confident that the Lipski insult was being hurled at the very Jewish looking Schwartz. Whether pipeman was by the Nelson or the Board School wall, he was just a bystander.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS

BS Man was in the process of swinging Stride about when he noticed Schwartz (and Pipeman) so BS Man could have been standing anywhere on that bit of pavement, allowing him a better view of the Nelson`s doorway. I don`t think he was walking up Berner Street with his right arm brushing the doors as he passed.
Also, the flame of a pipe being lit will draw the eye.

Hi Jon,

All good points showing that Pipeman would have been easily visible.

[FrankO]

I meant to say that Mortimer couldn't have been at her door BEFORE 12.47am, because she didn't see, Letchford, Smith, Stride, Parcelman, Lave, Eagle, Bs Man, Schwartz or Pipeman.

Hi RD,

Didn't Mortimer just say that she didn't see anything unusual? If correct and if she was indeed on her doorstep for the bigger of half an hour before 1 am, then she might very well have seen Letchford, Smith, Lave and Eagle at least.

Cheers,
Frank

[Jon Guy]

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.

Hi HS

BS Man was in the process of swinging Stride about when he noticed Schwartz (and Pipeman) so BS Man could have been standing anywhere on that bit of pavement, allowing him a better view of the Nelson`s doorway. I don`t think he was walking up Berner Street with his right arm brushing the doors as he passed.
Also, the flame of a pipe being lit will draw the eye.

[DJA]

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.

You Can't See Round Corners, Ep 5 - YouTube

Plenty of room.

[DJA]

Winner,winner.Chicken dinner.