Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Michael W Richards]

Fanny Mortimer heard a cart and pony arriving at the time Diemshutz said he was arriving.

Which leaves the following possibilities.
* Fanny Mortimer heard Diemshutz arriving with his cart and pony at the time he said he was arriving.
* Mortimer lied to support Diemshutz' story even though she had no possible motive for doing so.
* Mortimer heard another cart and pony that no one else could hear. By pure coincidence, it entered the street at the time Diemschutz claimed he arrived. This cart and pony stopped making any noise once it reached Dutfield's yard and drove silently the rest of the way down the street and disappeared into the night. Diemshutz' cart and pony were so quiet that Mortimer never heard them.

But you see the last option as the most credible.

What I think is that the cart and horse she heard may have been THE cart and horse in question, but being led off to stabling in George Yard. Because as Ive stated, from my perspective I see an earlier arrival than is currently believed. And I dont recall anyone discussing getting the cart and horse out of the way when quite a few men were gathered there. Seems to me its likely that when it became crowded there someone would have thought of moving that obstacle.

[Michael W Richards]

Fanny Mortimer heard a cart and pony arriving at the time Diemshutz said he was arriving.

Which leaves the following possibilities.
* Fanny Mortimer heard Diemshutz arriving with his cart and pony at the time he said he was arriving.
* Mortimer lied to support Diemshutz' story even though she had no possible motive for doing so.
* Mortimer heard another cart and pony that no one else could hear. By pure coincidence, it entered the street at the time Diemschutz claimed he arrived. This cart and pony stopped making any noise once it reached Dutfield's yard and drove silently the rest of the way down the street and disappeared into the night. Diemshutz' cart and pony were so quiet that Mortimer never heard them.

But you see the last option as the most credible.

What I think is that the cart and horse she heard may have been THE cart and horse in question, but being led off to stabling in George Yard. Because as Ive stated, from my perspective I see an earlier arrival than is currently believed. And I dont recall anyone discussing getting the cart and horse out of the way when quite a few men were gathered there. Seems to me its likely that when it became crowded there someone would have thought of moving that obstacle.

[Michael W Richards]

...I dont see this case as very complex at all, just muddied by assumptives and the desire by many to see Jacks hand here.

As Herlock correctly pointed out, there is no "team Jack" in play here trying to up his body count. Simply those (like myself) who believe Jack was the one who killed her.

c.d.

What I was referring to cd is this, the facts as they are presented do not include any real evidence that a serial killing abdominal mutilator was at that address that night. To place Jack there despite that vacuum requires the creation of a story, one that fits the known evidence but also fills in the unknowns in favour of the Ripper premise. Im more for face value evaluation, lets take what is there and really breakdown how cohesive and believable it is when fit back together. We have evidence in the form of statements made that do not work when used together. And in this case, we have multiple statements that support each perspective. So, which group of statements can be considered as potentially biased and with self interest at its core, and which ones seem acceptable at face value, also having secondary validation.

Simply put, if a man who makes his living sell umbrellas on the street approaches me on a clear sunny day and suggests it looks like rain, I can understand why he would say that.

[Michael W Richards]

Fanny Mortimer heard a cart and pony arriving at the time Diemshutz said he was arriving.

Which leaves the following possibilities.
* Fanny Mortimer heard Diemshutz arriving with his cart and pony at the time he said he was arriving.
* Mortimer lied to support Diemshutz' story even though she had no possible motive for doing so.
* Mortimer heard another cart and pony that no one else could hear. By pure coincidence, it entered the street at the time Diemschutz claimed he arrived. This cart and pony stopped making any noise once it reached Dutfield's yard and drove silently the rest of the way down the street and disappeared into the night. Diemshutz' cart and pony were so quiet that Mortimer never heard them.

But you see the last option as the most credible.

What I think is that the cart and horse she heard may have been THE cart and horse in question, but being led off to stabling in George Yard. Because as Ive stated, from my perspective I see an earlier arrival than is currently believed. And I dont recall anyone discussing getting the cart and horse out of the way when quite a few men were gathered there. Seems to me its likely that when it became crowded there someone would have thought of moving that obstacle.

[Michael W Richards]

...I dont see this case as very complex at all, just muddied by assumptives and the desire by many to see Jacks hand here.

As Herlock correctly pointed out, there is no "team Jack" in play here trying to up his body count. Simply those (like myself) who believe Jack was the one who killed her.

c.d.

What I was referring to cd is this, the facts as they are presented do not include any real evidence that a serial killing abdominal mutilator was at that address that night. To place Jack there despite that vacuum requires the creation of a story, one that fits the known evidence but also fills in the unknowns in favour of the Ripper premise. Im more for face value evaluation, lets take what is there and really breakdown how cohesive and believable it is when fit back together. We have evidence in the form of statements made that do not work when used together. And in this case, we have multiple statements that support each perspective. So, which group of statements can be considered as potentially biased and with self interest at its core, and which ones seem acceptable at face value, also having secondary validation.

Simply put, if a man who makes his living sell umbrellas on the street approaches me on a clear sunny day and suggests it looks like rain, I can understand why he would say that.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

That would all be fine if Schwartz had told Abberline that B.S. "called me Lipski", but he didn't. He told Abberline that B.S. called out "Lipski" to Pipeman, and given the police then started looking at talking to all the Lipski families in the area, it is clear that Schwartz's story was the Schwartz took it that "Lipski" was Pipeman's name. Therefore, Schwartz's story was that a Jewish offender was involved, which if anything would increase interest in the club and its members.

It was only when Abberline, knowing of how Lipski is used as a slur, questioned Schwartz on that detail, as to how sure was he that B.S. shouted it to Pipeman and not at Schwartz himself, does it appear that Schwartz realised that maybe he misinterpreted things and he then admits that could be possible, which in turn would leave him unsure of who the intended target of the Lipski was by the end of the interview, which Abberline's summary indicates was the case.

My personal view is that Abberline is probably right, which would make B.S. a gentile, and Pipeman uninvolved entirely. However, Schwartz's story as originally told implicates a Jewish offender (Pipeman) being part of a team, and therefore Schwartz cannot be said to have gone to the police to direct their attention away from the Jewish club members because Schwartz's original story directs the police to a Jewish offender being involved. Schwartz may have gotten it wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that Schwartz's statement directs the police to a Jewish offender, which increases the risk the club would be investigated.

- Jeff

Since you mention this, I do recall some discussions we had here some time ago about the frictions between some Jewish sects in addition to the locals animosity, Orthodox vs Reform, that kind of thing. If your suggestion holds water then perhaps we see evidence of that Jew vs Jew anger.

I do believe though that Abberlines interpretation was likely accurate, the coincidental idea that the name used, closely associated with a despicable act a street over just happens to be Pipemans as well seems too convenient. I think it was claimed because the club wanted to be sure that the men onsite at the time, surely all Jewish immigrants if not all Socialists too, were not seen as the most likely suspects. For their own sake and probably all the local jews for that matter. Think what happened later that night.....a senior investigator erased a potential clue to this and maybe both murders because he feared the Jews would be persecuted if anyone saw it. Now back to Berner Street, a club full of immigrant Jewish men who the police thought were anarchists, and the neighbours referred to as "low men", suddenly find themselves in the spotlight...maybe not their doing at all, but the fact remains that once the stories are told there are only immigrant jewish men within striking distance of Liz Stride at the time of her murder. No other men seen in the immediate area, unless of course you take Israels word for what he says he saw.

If Wess translated for Israel, as he does Tuesday for Goldstein, and the research that uncovered that Wess and Schwartz knew each other prior to that night reveals a kinship or something like it, then perhaps the details might be shaped to favour an innocent club. And maybe for good measure, a probable gentile killer.

[c.d.]

What I was referring to cd is this, the facts as they are presented do not include any real evidence that a serial killing abdominal mutilator was at that address that night. To place Jack there despite that vacuum requires the creation of a story, one that fits the known evidence but also fills in the unknowns in favour of the Ripper premise.

Simply saying Jack the Ripper always mutilates his victims and since Stride wasn't mutilated she could not have been a Ripper victim seems extremely simplistic to me and of no real value in trying to determine what actually happened that night. If juries employed that type of reasoning verdicts would always be rendered in just a few minutes as they have all the evidence and there is no need to evaluate it, sift through it and consider different interpretations and conclusions.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

What I was referring to cd is this, the facts as they are presented do not include any real evidence that a serial killing abdominal mutilator was at that address that night. To place Jack there despite that vacuum requires the creation of a story, one that fits the known evidence but also fills in the unknowns in favour of the Ripper premise.

Simply saying Jack the Ripper always mutilates his victims and since Stride wasn't mutilated she could not have been a Ripper victim seems extremely simplistic to me and of no real value in trying to determine what actually happened that night. If juries employed that type of reasoning verdicts would always be rendered in just a few minutes as they have all the evidence and there is no need to evaluate it, sift through it and consider different interpretations and conclusions.

c.d.

What is clearly indicated by the linking of Pollys murder with Annies? The idea that they believed the killer also sought to mutilate the abdomen..at the very least. What is seen in the next 2 unsolved murders in the area.....mutilated women, to varying degrees, but mutilated nonetheless. What I see in this 5 victim group is 4 women that share the unusual characteristic of not only being murdered, but also having their bodies mutilated, and one woman who was just killed with one cut.

I believe that if you take away the impulses that seem to have driven this killer so you can explain why it doesnt happen one time....youve negated everything that had been learned about the killer to that date, and after it. If you see a square peg and a round hole, simply rounding the edges to make it fit the round hole is your call....its not my preferred approach. I believe that a round peg would exist to match that hole.

[c.d.]

You are certainly entitled to your preferred approach. I simply don't share it. I don't see a robotic killer. Victims and circumstances change and killers respond accordingly.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

You are certainly entitled to your preferred approach. I simply don't share it. I don't see a robotic killer. Victims and circumstances change and killers respond accordingly.

c.d.

4 out of Five Canonicals say he was predictable to some extent. Youve decided he is a murderer, who might mutilate if he has time, and thats where we differ. Ive decided that the man that killed Polly, Annie and perhaps Kate was a mutilator who kills so he can mutilate. The killing is a step in his process, thats all. I think a man who chooses to kill outside, just out of public view, isnt looking for lots of alone time to enjoy the kill, so to speak. He wants what he wants and then he wants to be gone as soon as he is finished.

[c.d.]

4 out of Five Canonicals say he was predictable to some extent.

"To some extent" being the salient point here. Not to mention that that is not a huge database from which to draw conclusions.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I also cannot see any reason to link Parcelman with BSman or Pipeman, but Stride had the semblance of a person waiting for someone. Since she had likely been with Parcelman since being spotted by Best and Gardner in the doorway of the Bricklayers Arms at a little before 11pm, and again by Smith at 12:35, I believe it would be reasonable to suspect that it was he upon whom she was waiting. Had he gone home, I think that she would also have, and I have difficulty contemplating that she had started soliciting after his departure.

I consider the key questions to be, why was Stride standing in the gateway, and where was Parcelman. To me the most reasonable explanation is that Stride was waiting for Parcelman to return from the Loo, or the club, or the print shop.

Best regards,
George

Hi George,

That's an interesting idea, certainly not unreasonable. I suppose it depends upon how one interprets Strides behaviour that evening; were all the men she was seen with men she was soliciting, or at least flirting with to try to get them to buy her beer (when at the pub), and after the pub closed did she just go somewhere nearby to try and earn a bit of money? If so, then Parcelman's departure may be just that, he's left the area. We don't know when Stride and Parcelman met, so I'm not sure I would base anything on the idea that they met up shortly after the Best and Gardner sighting. For all we know, Parcelman and Stride had just met when Smith sees them, and he spends a couple minutes with her before leaving.

Of course, if she did spend all of that time since 11ish with Parcelman, then I think there would be a good reason to consider that she's waiting for his return as you suggest. If so, he does not, as far as we know, arrive at the club after he discovery, but then, there was a crowd there and maybe he was among them. I know that is pure speculation of course, but just following some ideas other than Parcelman returns and kills her, since anything becomes possible we must consider everything and bet on nothing!

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

4 out of Five Canonicals say he was predictable to some extent.

"To some extent" being the salient point here. Not to mention that that is not a huge database from which to draw conclusions.

c.d.

Its 80% of that sampling, so not insignificant, and the "some extent" comment refers to the fact that ALL of that 80 had mutilations of the abdomen but some went much further than that. You like to use modern serial killer data to do comparatives, so tell me, of those killers how many had substantially more than 5 victims? Would you put more thought into these if it was 80% of 10 murders, or 80% of 20? We dont know that one man killed all Five, but of those Five, 4 have similar injuries...1 did not.

Waiting to make some conclusions on this issue because the total number of victims is "not huge" is just reluctance, not pragmatism.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Jeff,

That's an interesting idea, certainly not unreasonable. I suppose it depends upon how one interprets Strides behaviour that evening; were all the men she was seen with men she was soliciting, or at least flirting with to try to get them to buy her beer (when at the pub),....

She was found to have no alcohol in her system.

....and after the pub closed did she just go somewhere nearby to try and earn a bit of money?

On a deserted street over an hour after many men had exited that same club? Is it soliciting if there are no clients in the area?

If so, then Parcelman's departure may be just that, he's left the area. We don't know when Stride and Parcelman met, so I'm not sure I would base anything on the idea that they met up shortly after the Best and Gardner sighting. For all we know, Parcelman and Stride had just met when Smith sees them, and he spends a couple minutes with her before leaving.

Parcel man has no obvious play in this murder, so its just debating about someone who is not a significant character in the story. For me, I think he likely knows she is supposed to be there and greets her as he goes on his way.

Of course, if she did spend all of that time since 11ish with Parcelman, then I think there would be a good reason to consider that she's waiting for his return as you suggest. If so, he does not, as far as we know, arrive at the club after he discovery, but then, there was a crowd there and maybe he was among them. I know that is pure speculation of course, but just following some ideas other than Parcelman returns and kills her, since anything becomes possible we must consider everything and bet on nothing!

Why create a scenario that already exists,...you dont know whether Parcel man returns or is intent on returning, but you do already know that Eagle is.

- Jeff

The innocuous in this story are best left aside when sussing out a viable storyline.

[JeffHamm]

Since you mention this, I do recall some discussions we had here some time ago about the frictions between some Jewish sects in addition to the locals animosity, Orthodox vs Reform, that kind of thing. If your suggestion holds water then perhaps we see evidence of that Jew vs Jew anger.

I do believe though that Abberlines interpretation was likely accurate, the coincidental idea that the name used, closely associated with a despicable act a street over just happens to be Pipemans as well seems too convenient. I think it was claimed because the club wanted to be sure that the men onsite at the time, surely all Jewish immigrants if not all Socialists too, were not seen as the most likely suspects. For their own sake and probably all the local jews for that matter. Think what happened later that night.....a senior investigator erased a potential clue to this and maybe both murders because he feared the Jews would be persecuted if anyone saw it. Now back to Berner Street, a club full of immigrant Jewish men who the police thought were anarchists, and the neighbours referred to as "low men", suddenly find themselves in the spotlight...maybe not their doing at all, but the fact remains that once the stories are told there are only immigrant jewish men within striking distance of Liz Stride at the time of her murder. No other men seen in the immediate area, unless of course you take Israels word for what he says he saw.

If Wess translated for Israel, as he does Tuesday for Goldstein, and the research that uncovered that Wess and Schwartz knew each other prior to that night reveals a kinship or something like it, then perhaps the details might be shaped to favour an innocent club. And maybe for good measure, a probable gentile killer.

Hi Michael,

Yes, there was some use of Lipski by Jewish people whose family had been in the UK for a long time (or at least those who considered themselves English) as an insult towards immigrant Jews. In an earlier post I had acknowledged that (...most probably a gentile), but I got lazy in this post and overlooked that point. So thanks, I should have said that Abberline's re-interpretation tips the balance towards a gentile rather than the more conclusive phrasing that I used (...which would make B.S. a gentile,).

But either way, Schwartz's statement, as he originally gives it, directly implies a Jewish offender is involved. That is not a story designed to deflect suspicion away from the club's Jewish members - the murder happened in the club's location, and Schwartz indicates a Jewish offender is involved, that would point a line of investigation to include the club's members. It is only Abberline's reinterpretation of Schwartz's statement that can be said to divert the focus away from the club. I am sure we all agree that it would be a bit of a stretch to suggest that Abberline was working with the club to divert attention.

- Jeff