Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Jon Guy]

I did neglect to put in my post that I think that the indication from Swanson's report was that BSman wasn't identified, but I feel that the tone of the statement regarding Pipeman left the possibility that he was identified and his statement indicated that he was a bystander in a domestic. As Andrew pointed out, there were conflicting press reports on whether it was just Schwartz who witnessed the incident, or it was "those who saw" the incident. Swanson referred to the "numerous statements that were made to police". While the press was inclined to be unreliable, I think that the report that a man was arrested on the basis of the Schwartz description provides enough latitude to suspect that the man was Pipeman, although I can appreciate your reservations in this regard.

Hi George

I see where you`re coming from regarding those press reports.
However, in his Oct 19th summary, Swanson writes "Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other".
Which strongly suggests (to me) that neither man had been identified.

[Sunny Delight]

Hi George

Swanson would have mentioned that the men had been identified. The quote you mention seems to be just confirmation that they thought Pipeman was just a bystander, as there is nothing to suggest both men were identified. Wouldn`t this be mentioned in his report ?

Also, Swanson is putting forward the possibility that Stride may have been attacked by someone else after her altercation with BS Man. Would he do this if BS Man was identified ?

Absolutely correct and one of the reasons we have to be so careful with Newspaper reports. Newspapers were the social media, radio and TV of their day- literally the only place to get the news so we have to be careful and then careful again when evaluating their reports.

It is abundantly clear from Swanson's report that BS man and Pipeman have not been identified.

[GBinOz]

Hi George

Swanson would have mentioned that the men had been identified. The quote you mention seems to be just confirmation that they thought Pipeman was just a bystander, as there is nothing to suggest both men were identified. Wouldn`t this be mentioned in his report ?

Also, Swanson is putting forward the possibility that Stride may have been attacked by someone else after her altercation with BS Man. Would he do this if BS Man was identified ?

Hi Jon,

I did neglect to put in my post that I think that the indication from Swanson's report was that BSman wasn't identified, but I feel that the tone of the statement regarding Pipeman left the possibility that he was identified and his statement indicated that he was a bystander in a domestic. As Andrew pointed out, there were conflicting press reports on whether it was just Schwartz who witnessed the incident, or it was "those who saw" the incident. Swanson referred to the "numerous statements that were made to police". While the press was inclined to be unreliable, I think that the report that a man was arrested on the basis of the Schwartz description provides enough latitude to suspect that the man was Pipeman, although I can appreciate your reservations in this regard.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

It may have been 'witnesses' plural in the Star. Not so in the Echo or the People.

Yes, you're quite correct in pointing out this contradiction, but we are by now used to there being contradictions.
I don't quite understand what you mean by 'not actually an "assault"'. If a woman being thrown to the ground is not an assault, what is it?

Hi George.

Would that be because they had reason to doubt the truth of the story?

Hi Andrew,

I believe I addressed some of your points in my post #1133, but I'll cut and paste some of it here:

If BSman was holding Stride's right arm with his left hand, and Stride decided to attempt to break free by spinning in an anti-clockwise direction and pulling her arm away, and when she had achieved about a 135 degree rotation BSman loosened his grip and Stride overbalanced and fell, it would appear to Schwartz that he "spun her around and threw her to the ground". Protestations that are "not very loud" would indicate that Stride wanted to keep their dispute between the two of them rather than express fears for her safety.

Appearances can be deceptive and open to interpretation.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

That old chestnut.

The Coroner’s Act is an ‘old chestnut.’ There’s little point in continuing if you are going to make statements like that.

The CORONER, in summing up, said the jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time.

If the jury did not agree with the coroner on this matter, which witness would be supposed could elucidate this mysterious case? Schwartz? Mortimer? Either way, why would the inquest have to be adjourned again? Has an important witness gone missing?

He appears to be saying that there would have been no point in adjourning in inquest in the hope of new evidence being uncovered ie new witnesses coming forward. So he ended it.

Time after time….mystery created where none exists.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Aside from this timing resulting in Smith returning at some time between Diemschitz returning and Lamb being located, it is also when Charles Letchford said he was walking on Berner St. You will need to move him out of the way for this to work.

Again, you make the assumption that times were synchronised. Why?

Smith: I noticed the woman had a flower in her jacket.

So you know that Liz Stride was the only woman in the East End wearing a flower? Ok.

As for me supposedly treating Smith as absolutely unchallengeable, try the following...


Make sure you forget this overnight, so that you can accuse me of the same thing next week.

But have you suggested that the woman that he saw wasn’t Stride? If so, I haven’t seen the quote.


To make sense of Israel Schwartz's account, it is necessary to change it.

It can be taken literally.


You're substituting specifics with generics. If the notion of Stride leaving the scene with man and returning minutes later, alone and with no money on her, made sense, this would not be necessary.

What a bizarre statement. You are saying that just because we can’t give a specific reason for those actions it makes them unlikely. Only unlikely actions can be considered unlikely and leaving a spot and returning shortly isn’t one of them.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon,

I have re-read Swanson's report, but am unsure of the content that leads you to conclude that he made it clear that they had not identified Pipeman or BSMan. Can you be more specific please?

There was an extensive marginal note saying that Abberline was suggesting that Schwartz' man need not have been the murderer, and "Police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street & who followed Schwartz". To me, that wording suggests the possibility that they had questioned Pipeman, but YMMV.

Cheers, George

Hi George

Swanson would have mentioned that the men had been identified. The quote you mention seems to be just confirmation that they thought Pipeman was just a bystander, as there is nothing to suggest both men were identified. Wouldn`t this be mentioned in his report ?

Also, Swanson is putting forward the possibility that Stride may have been attacked by someone else after her altercation with BS Man. Would he do this if BS Man was identified ?

[GBinOz]

Hi George

Doesn`t Swanson`s summary report (19th Oct?) make it clear that they had not identified Pipeman or BSMan ?
There were snippets in The Star saying that people had been arrested etc etc but that is surely made up newspaper rubbish, or fed to them by the desk Sgt at Leman Street?

Hi Jon,

I have re-read Swanson's report, but am unsure of the content that leads you to conclude that he made it clear that they had not identified Pipeman or BSMan. Can you be more specific please?

There was an extensive marginal note saying that Abberline was suggesting that Schwartz' man need not have been the murderer, and "Police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street & who followed Schwartz". To me, that wording suggests the possibility that they had questioned Pipeman, but YMMV.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And the fact that after all of the research that’s been posted and all of what we know about inquests you still keep harping on about Schwartz non-appearance. It’s simply nonsense. We know that he wasn’t ‘omitted’ because he wasn’t trusted. I’m not going to keep responding on those points about the inquest. I don’t think that we should do stuff just to promote our own viewpoint and anyone who keeps bringing this up is doing just that.

That old chestnut.

After The Star report has anyone found any outcry in the papers as to why Schwartz wasn’t called? No.

Why wasn’t Fanny Mortimer called? Wasn’t she trusted? They called Maxwell to the Kelly inquest and she contradicted the medical evidence.

The CORONER, in summing up, said the jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time.

If the jury did not agree with the coroner on this matter, which witness would be supposed could elucidate this mysterious case? Schwartz? Mortimer? Either way, why would the inquest have to be adjourned again? Has an important witness gone missing?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No, the problem is having a thought-process which goes along the lines of - if we don’t have an explanation for some action then that action couldn’t have happened. We will never know the answers to most, if not all of these questions.

Firstly, why do you say 5 minutes? Smith said that he saw them at some point between 12.30 and 12.35. So that could have been 12.31with Stride and Parcelman gone by 12.32. That has the incident occurring 13 minutes later. You can do a lot in 13 minutes.

Aside from this timing resulting in Smith returning at some time between Diemschitz returning and Lamb being located, it is also when Charles Letchford said he was walking on Berner St. You will need to move him out of the way for this to work.

Secondly, why do we appear to treat Smith as an absolutely unchallengeable witness? Policemen have been wrong before. Whilst I accept that it’s very likely that he did see Stride it can’t be impossible that at 12.30 at night in a poorly lit street with Smith thinking that his wife was at home in their warm bed and he was trudging around the backstreets that he saw a woman of similar build and dress. He then saw the body and convinced himself that it was the same woman. Who knows?

Smith: I noticed the woman had a flower in her jacket.

As for me supposedly treating Smith as absolutely unchallengeable, try the following...

Why wasn't Smith back at the same spot, close to when he said he was? This is possibly related to the handover of responsibilities from the fixed-duty officer to the beat officer. Smith probably should have been at the top of Berner St at 1am but was 'behind time'. At the inquest he bent the truth a little.

Make sure you forget this overnight, so that you can accuse me of the same thing next week.

Thirdly, can we be sure that Stride was standing in the gateway? Busman was between Schwartz and Stride so he may have assumed that she was standing there because that’s where BSMan halted. Sp perhaps Stride wasn’t standing there; perhaps she was walking north on Berner Street? I made a suggestion that she may have been avoiding BSMan after being seen with him by Marshall so she ducked into the gateway hoping that he hadn’t seen her. But he had. Hence the pulling.

To make sense of Israel Schwartz's account, it is necessary to change it.

Someone leaving the scene and returning a little later isn’t mysterious or unlikely. It’s normal, everyday behaviour.

You're substituting specifics with generics. If the notion of Stride leaving the scene with man and returning minutes later, alone and with no money on her, made sense, this would not be necessary.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

what is she supposed to stay rooted like a tree to the spot he left her?

If she is to avoid being at the gateway when Eagle returns, for a while, yes. Yet that would imply she was hanging around on the street, alone. Why would she do that?

Are you not even willing to speculate on Stride's purpose in standing in the gateway?

in his pocket?

Do you know how large the parcel was said to be?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The police also referred to "witnesses" that observed the incident thought it was a quarrel between man and wife. It seems to me that these statements indicate that the police were not suggesting that Schwartz fabricated the story, but that the incident was not actually an "assault" that led to a murder. JMO.

It may have been 'witnesses' plural in the Star. Not so in the Echo or the People.

It's interesting that these reports refer to both a throw down and quarrelling. Sort of a merge of what we see in the police and press accounts. Was she pushed, pulled, thrown down, or verbally abused? Apparently, it was all of the above. Strange that the women in the kitchen did not hear this quarrelling through the half open door. I guess they must have been quarrelling, but not very loudly.

I don't quite understand what you mean by 'not actually an "assault"'. If a woman being thrown to the ground is not an assault, what is it?

Hi Andrew

I don't think the police expected that there would be anyone else stepping forward to supply additional facts, and that the statements they already had could not proceed to an arrest for murder.

Cheers, George

Hi George.

Would that be because they had reason to doubt the truth of the story?

[Jon Guy]

I don't know that I am engaging in excessive speculation in concluding that the police may have identified Pipeman, or BSman, or both, and concluded from their statements that the incident was, as Schwartz thought, a domestic.

Hi George

Doesn`t Swanson`s summary report (19th Oct?) make it clear that they had not identified Pipeman or BSMan ?
There were snippets in The Star saying that people had been arrested etc etc but that is surely made up newspaper rubbish, or fed to them by the desk Sgt at Leman Street?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

The police stated that there was an arrest made on the basis of the Schwartz descriptions, and a second arrest as a follow up. The only descriptions proffered by Schwartz were of BSman and of Pipeman. The police also stated that witnesses to the incident thought it was a quarrel between man and wife, and didn't intervene. The only witnesses that we know of were Schwartz and Pipeman. The police subsequently announced that they would not pursue this line of enquiry unless further evidence came to light.

I don't know that I am engaging in excessive speculation in concluding that the police may have identified Pipeman, or BSman, or both, and concluded from their statements that the incident was, as Schwartz thought, a domestic.

Of course they may have arrested two people who had no involvement, but then, to whom were they referring as "witnesses"?

Cheers, George

Hi George,

That’s a very fair point. I don’t think the men that the police arrested get enough of a mention and we almost assume that Pipeman was never found but perhaps he was and he might have indicated that he felt that it was a drunken, domestic-type incident. If they’d spoken to BSMan though and let him go this would have given them a headache as it introduces a non-BSMan killer who arrived to commit murder in a short space of time. Here’s an interesting bit of speculation George - if they found BSMan what evidence could he have given that would have convinced the police that he wasn’t the killer. After all, he would have been a bit like the little kid with chocolate all over his face standing next to the mangled chocolate cake saying “it wasn’t me!”

Maybe another ‘candidate’ might have been Lechford who didn’t see the couple. So the police might have suspected that he’d walked along Berner Street after Smith and so 12.35ish? Then again, he wouldn’t have been arrested.

Another possible might be that they took in two men who they felt could both have been Pipeman? Maybe someone in the street said “Mr X often stands there smoking his pipe.” But the same as above, Mr X wouldn’t have been arrested.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I think that all your speculations as to his whereabouts are possibilities.

My preferred speculation is that he went into the printing office to drop off his parcel and returned to discover Stride in the process of having her throat cut. He then becomes Wess's man that gives chase to the killer, but doesn't want to be named because he is married or engaged to be married.

My other speculation is that BSman was Eagle, and after being spotted by Smith he walked to his home at 4 New Road to drop off his parcel and returned just ahead of Schwartz. It's about a twelve minute return walk.

I think it has to be considered as to why Stride was standing in the gateway:
1. She was soliciting
2. She was waiting for someone, possibly Parcelman, to return from his trip home, the loo in the yard, the club or the printing office.
3. She had a job cleaning the club after the meeting and was waiting for the last attendees to leave.

Perhaps the word "avoided" was not the best choice. It just seems that Parcelman is often overlooked with the focus on BSman. Still all pure speculation, of course.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

To be clear, the speculations I listed aren't all my own, just ideas that have been suggested by various different people. My own adventures into this was to suggest that the "kissing man" seen with Stride at the Bricklayer's arms, is also Parcelman, and he left Stride at the gates while he returned to the pub, perhaps hoping to get one more drink to take with him, perhaps at Stride's insistence. He returns now as B.S., angry because of course the pub is closed (and perhaps he had been saying so type thing), which is the dispute they have that Schwartz sees. Now, either it escalates after Schwartz and Pipeman leave and he kills her (seems the most parsimonious), or he leaves and JtR shows up. Given I would not be at all surprised if JtR frequented the services of prostitutes, Kissing man/Parcelman/B.S could be JtR. But this evening he was out not on a hunt, but as Stride angers him, and he's killed her, that is why he goes so much more fierce on Eddowes - his rage has exploded sudden and unexpectedly. However, it is also possible that what I've described could be seen to point away from Stride being a victim of JtR. I'm on the fence with Stride, and always have been, so I have no preference for either of those.

I also don't strongly believe that Kissingman, Parcelman, and Broad Shoulders are one in the same. It's just one of those ideas that occurred to me and I couldn't find a way to really dismiss it. Witness descriptions are often very unreliable, so the differences in the details seem "not entirely unexpected." Also, Stride is seen twice, maybe 30 minutes apart, with a "kissing man", so she does seem to have spent quite a bit of time with that fellow. As such, it got me to thinking maybe she continued to stay with him the whole time? And perhaps she even intended to meet him (the flower, her dressing with care, etc), which would mean that Stride's killer may be someone she actually knew. I suspect, though, she didn't know him well and this may have been a first date. And she didn't tell anyone for fear word would get to Kidney.

Again, I'm way out on thin limbs here, and really just sort of pondering possibilities, not suggesting solutions, or even anything that anybody else has to think is even worth thinking about. Most of our speculations are, in the end, likely only to be of interest to ourselves given none of us can back any of it up.

- Jeff