Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[erobitha]

People with cut throats can’t scream or shout. Or tell people what’s happening to them.

If she was yanked by her scarf in effect strangling her in order to subdue her, before the slicing of the artery takes place, then it was done to stop her reaching her desired destination. The perceived safety of the club.

I stand by the belief she was trying to raise alarm about someone she did not trust or like the look of and probably tried to discreetly get away from him. He was not going to allow that to happen. This is in no way a good place to commit your murders if you are JtR. You only take such a risk because you are worried you will get caught. Killing Liz there and then was the lesser of two evils.

I believe the Schwartz story was a concoction to try and throw the police off the theory that she was murdered by a Jew. It was right next door to a place full of Jews. The whole schtick of IWEC was to protect the interests of working Jews like them. Also, bear in mind the Leather Apron debacle was still very fresh on the minds of locals. They would be convinced a Jew would be suspected.

The fact Israel Schwartz cannot be found reliably in any records is something to consider. The fact the address that Swanson had was similar to where a young girl called Sarah Schwartz was “outraged” by numerous men a year or two before and the fact that Israel Lipski lived locally, screams to me this man was a character created by members of IWEC. A man calling himself Israel Schwartz gave a statement to Abberline, but I don’t believe a word of it. I am with Bruce Robinson on the belief Schwartz is a total red herring.

The Star is the only paper claiming to have interviewed Schwartz (and conveniently his interpreter).

Thats in itself is enough for me to be highly suspicious.

[Sunny Delight]

I wanted to move the recent discussion on the IWEC thread to a separate one, so here goes .

If BSM killed Liz then there are certain points of conflict [ in my humble opinion ], within this theory.

1 - Schwartz saw a man stop and speak to Liz in the gateway of the club. He then attempted to pull her into the street . First red flag, would BSM actually do that if he intended on murdering Liz ? Why not push her into the darkened passage and attack her there. And if Liz did get in the club before he managed to subdue her, he still could have got away. Yes the same could be said of attacking Liz in the street but there, he is running the risk of someone like Mrs Mortimer seeing him or someone looking through the window from the upper floors of the club for instance.

2- Schwartz says he got as far as the gateway when he saw the altercation happen . Now he must have been more or less mere feet, if that, away from broad shoulders when he witnessed the assault. Again would the perpetrator then go on to deliberately murder Liz when he knows someone was very close to him at the start of the attack and probably got a decent look at him.

3- Schwartz crossed the street and saw pipeman . There seems to be little doubt that BSM saw pipeman as well, since Schwartz first thought the calling out of the word Lipski was aimed at the man with the pipe. Even if Lipski was aimed at Schwartz and not pipeman, again there can be little uncertainty that pipeman was not hid in any shadows etc, and viewable otherwise Schwartz would not think this. So in effect two witnesses.

4- Broad shoulders draws attention to himself by the cry of Lipski. Now are we really to believe he would do this if his main intention was to kill and mutilate poor Liz ?

The only scenario I can think of if BSM was Liz's killer is it was more manslaughter than premeditated murder IE The argument possibly escalated [ or Liz fought back ], and he struck out.
Trouble with this is there is little evidence for it . Liz was probably strangled, possibly by her scarf and then her throat cut swiftly and silently with no one hearing a sound, and yes those damned cachous in her hand plus no defence wounds .
If broad shoulders did kill Liz I would expect more of a full frontal assault with defence wounds , stabs by the knife, perhaps bruising on the face etc

BSM was not Jack, the whole scenario for the two to be one is wrong . Jack did not act the way BSM did [ pre murder ]. Yet if BSM was Liz's killer how come the killing was so similar to JTR. Again , strangulation, sudden and quick strike in the shadows , throat cut .

The answer is someone else murdered Liz that night other than BSM and the prime candidate is JTR.

Regards Darryl

The issue is not really whether BS man was likely to be the killer based on what Schwartz saw. The issue is whether anyone else could possibly have had the opportunity after the even Schwartz saw. We know if we accept Schwartz timings that he saw the attack at around 12:45am. We know from Fanny Mortimer that she was at her door and witnessed Leon Goldsten at 12:55am. She stated she had been at her door nearly the whole time between 12:30 and 1am when the body was found. If she was at her door at 12:55am and had been there for a few minutes it would be very very tight for her not to have seen the real JTR solicit Stride or vice versa.

[c.d.]

Hello Sunny,

A few points:

The timing for a second killer other than the B.S. man is tight I will concede but not tight enough to completely eliminate the possibility of a second killer.

I wouldn't treat Fanny as the fourth member of the Trinity. Remember "nearly" the whole time is not the same as "the entire time." I think she was inside (if only for a few minutes) and missed what took place.

Swanson, in his report (who had all the facts at his fingertips) allows for the possibility of second man as her killer.

c.d.

[c.d.]

In almost every murder investigation Ive come across since studying these crimes, the motivation for the crime seems to be the most pertinent to solving them. We can say with a high level of certainty that Annie Chapmans killer was primarily motivated by a desire to mutilate, to cut into human flesh. Its within the physical evidence, the circumstantial, and the medical opinion. Now....Liz Stride. What was the apparent motivation for her murder? There really isnt one apparent other than she died because her killer wanted to cut her throat.

I think you would need to hear from the killer himself to determine with absolute certainty what his intent was. Failing that you are just speculating.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

1 - Schwartz saw a man stop and speak to Liz in the gateway of the club. He then attempted to pull her into the street . First red flag, would BSM actually do that if he intended on murdering Liz ? Why not push her into the darkened passage and attack her there. And if Liz did get in the club before he managed to subdue her, he still could have got away. Yes the same could be said of attacking Liz in the street but there, he is running the risk of someone like Mrs Mortimer seeing him or someone looking through the window from the upper floors of the club for instance.

The first red flag is the notion of Liz standing in the gateway. Doing what? Soliciting? Stride was approaching 45 - the men in the club seem to have been aged from late teens to late 20s. No one from the club had ever seen a woman soliciting at that location. Was Stride the first to do so? What are the odds of both this and her almost immediately getting killed? Then there is the cleaning lady theory. So, what's the cleaning lady doing standing in the gateway? Why didn't anyone recognise the cleaning lady? Quick, make something up, otherwise Schwartz's story might look like bullshit.

2- Schwartz says he got as far as the gateway when he saw the altercation happen . Now he must have been more or less mere feet, if that, away from broad shoulders when he witnessed the assault. Again would the perpetrator then go on to deliberately murder Liz when he knows someone was very close to him at the start of the attack and probably got a decent look at him.

As far as the gateway. Indeed. It's about time the implications of this sunk into a few skulls. Almost all of the residences on Berner St, south of Fairclough St, were on the club side. That is, the side of the street from which Schwartz claimed to watch the incident. Schwartz crossing the street at this point therefore has nothing to do with wanting to avoid the incident - for that he could just continue walking south, but he apparently does not. Why? Because he already intended to cross the street, because he already intended to turn left onto Fairclough St. Having done so, there is a strong possibility that the railway arch in question is the one at the end of Christian St. Leon Goldstein lived at the same end of Christian St. This is not a coincidence.

3- Schwartz crossed the street and saw pipeman . There seems to be little doubt that BSM saw pipeman as well, since Schwartz first thought the calling out of the word Lipski was aimed at the man with the pipe. Even if Lipski was aimed at Schwartz and not pipeman, again there can be little uncertainty that pipeman was not hid in any shadows etc, and viewable otherwise Schwartz would not think this. So in effect two witnesses.

Two witnesses who seem to know each other. One who attacks Stride and the other who runs after Schwartz, who had been out all day, which suggests he had been at the markets, which suggests he would have been carrying a bag. Just like Leon Goldstein did. Again, not a coincidence.

4- Broad shoulders draws attention to himself by the cry of Lipski. Now are we really to believe he would do this if his main intention was to kill and mutilate poor Liz ?

No, he and his buddy are just common thieves.

The only scenario I can think of if BSM was Liz's killer is it was more manslaughter than premeditated murder IE The argument possibly escalated [ or Liz fought back ], and he struck out.
Trouble with this is there is little evidence for it . Liz was probably strangled, possibly by her scarf and then her throat cut swiftly and silently with no one hearing a sound, and yes those damned cachous in her hand plus no defence wounds .
If broad shoulders did kill Liz I would expect more of a full frontal assault with defence wounds , stabs by the knife, perhaps bruising on the face etc

BSM was not Jack, the whole scenario for the two to be one is wrong . Jack did not act the way BSM did [ pre murder ]. Yet if BSM was Liz's killer how come the killing was so similar to JTR. Again , strangulation, sudden and quick strike in the shadows , throat cut .

The answer is someone else murdered Liz that night other than BSM and the prime candidate is JTR.

Especially so, given that neither BSM nor Pipeman seem to have ever been identified, therefore we cannot even be certain of their existence.

[Sunny Delight]

Hello Sunny,

A few points:

The timing for a second killer other than the B.S. man is tight I will concede but not tight enough to completely eliminate the possibility of a second killer.

I wouldn't treat Fanny as the fourth member of the Trinity. Remember "nearly" the whole time is not the same as "the entire time." I think she was inside (if only for a few minutes) and missed what took place.

Swanson, in his report (who had all the facts at his fingertips) allows for the possibility of second man as her killer.

c.d.

A second man is a possibility. On the balance of probability however I would suggest that it is unlikely verging on very unlikely. We can't rule it out and we will never know for sure- like much of the case. In the end it comes down to one's own interpretation really. For me BS man is the killer so most likely JTR though we can't even be 100% sure on that either.

The two key elements I base my thinking on is the very tight timings that would be required for another man to kill Elizabeth Stride and the fact that Joseph Lawende's description of a suspect he saw with another victim tallies very well with Israel Schwartz considering both were quite fleeting looks. Granted Schwartz had more reason to remember more accurately.

[c.d.]

The first red flag is the notion of Liz standing in the gateway. Doing what? Soliciting? Stride was approaching 45 - the men in the club seem to have been aged from late teens to late 20s

I can't rule out Stride soliciting based on her age. And while I am reluctant to disparage one of my own, sometimes with men it's any port in a storm, if you get my drift. And did these working men have the means and the opportunity to avail themselves of a $500 a night Vegas hooker?

Especially so, given that neither BSM nor Pipeman seem to have ever been identified, therefore we cannot even be certain of their existence.

Well, when it comes down to that, JTR has never been identified either.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We both know that of all the murders assumed to be by JtR, this one is the anomaly. The consistencies seen in the "circumstances" of the other 4 assumed Ripper victims indicates that the post mortem mutilation objective was repetitive. I believe now is the time for you to suggest an interruption as the excuse for its absence, but the absence of any supporting evidence trumps that supposition.

As you know, we’ve been here numerous times on this particular issue. You cannot expect to see evidence of an intention. You might see evidence of interruption but it’s not a case of there having to be evidence of something that never, in the end, occurred. If someone is prevented from doing something before he even began to carry that act out then there will often be no evidence of it because it never went further than an intention. Even if you suggest that, for example, there was no raised skirts, then that also proves nothing if the killer was interrupted before that point.

Stride certainly might not have been killed by the ripper. The possibility exists but we have no way of proving it or disproving it if the killer was interrupted just as he was cutting her throat or a second or two afterwards - before he moved on to the next stage (mutilation) It’s even possible that it might not have been Diemschitz that originally interrupted him. Maybe the club door opening or some other noise distracted him for a few seconds just before he heard Diemschitz’ horse?

From what we know of the crime scene there is just nothing in the way of evidence that points us to or away from interruption. Both are possible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The first red flag is the notion of Liz standing in the gateway. Doing what? Soliciting? Stride was approaching 45 - the men in the club seem to have been aged from late teens to late 20s. No one from the club had ever seen a woman soliciting at that location. Was Stride the first to do so? What are the odds of both this and her almost immediately getting killed? Then there is the cleaning lady theory. So, what's the cleaning lady doing standing in the gateway? Why didn't anyone recognise the cleaning lady? Quick, make something up, otherwise Schwartz's story might look like bullshit.

.

Do we have proof that Stride was the club’s cleaning lady?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The first red flag is the notion of Liz standing in the gateway. Doing what? Soliciting? Stride was approaching 45 - the men in the club seem to have been aged from late teens to late 20s. No one from the club had ever seen a woman soliciting at that location..

Why is this an issue? She was certainly there so she must have been there for a reason but we have absolutely no way of deducing what she was doing. How can something be seen as suspicious when we have no clue why she was there. Perhaps she’d used the loo? Perhaps someone that she was with went inside the club or to use the loo? Perhaps she’s arranged to meet someone there? The only mystery is that we don’t know why she was there. It’s not a mystery that she was there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As far as the gateway. Indeed. It's about time the implications of this sunk into a few skulls. Almost all of the residences on Berner St, south of Fairclough St, were on the club side. That is, the side of the street from which Schwartz claimed to watch the incident. Schwartz crossing the street at this point therefore has nothing to do with wanting to avoid the incident - for that he could just continue walking south, but he apparently does not. Why? Because he already intended to cross the street, because he already intended to turn left onto Fairclough St. Having done so, there is a strong possibility that the railway arch in question is the one at the end of Christian St. Leon Goldstein lived at the same end of Christian St. This is not a coincidence.


.

You have no evidence for that. ‘There is no such thing as a coincidence’ should have no place in serious discussion. Leon Goldstein is a complete nonentity in this case.

[Fiver]

The issue is not really whether BS man was likely to be the killer based on what Schwartz saw. The issue is whether anyone else could possibly have had the opportunity after the even Schwartz saw. We know if we accept Schwartz timings that he saw the attack at around 12:45am. We know from Fanny Mortimer that she was at her door and witnessed Leon Goldsten at 12:55am. She stated she had been at her door nearly the whole time between 12:30 and 1am when the body was found. If she was at her door at 12:55am and had been there for a few minutes it would be very very tight for her not to have seen the real JTR solicit Stride or vice versa.

Fanny Mortimer did not see Elizabeth Stride or her killer, regardless of whether her killer was the Ripper. Sorting Mortimer's statements out is tricky, since the newspaper accounts are full of contradictions.

[kjab3112]

Has anyone ever considered that the Cachou were drugged and induced Stride to pass out?

Then the killer gently lowers her down and cuts her throat... her hand still holding the drugged Cachou.

Is there a drug that could have induced syncope and was untraceable?

Stride, like her brother, suffered from Fits.

Could this have played a part in her demise?

It then opens up the possibility that the person who cut Strides throat wasn't the Ripper

RD

I’ve previously considered drugging as the first stage of the attacks. At the time, neither barbiturates nor benzodiazepines had been developed; ether and chloroform are inhaled and were available, but ether causes a long excitation phase first and chloroform takes five minutes to cause unconsciousness. Curare (poison arrow venom) was available and is quick acting, but is only active by injection.

My overall conclusion was that a rapid acting drug to cause unconsciousness (thereby explaining the lack of defence wounds) is a non-starter.

Paul

[The Rookie Detective]

I’ve previously considered drugging as the first stage of the attacks. At the time, neither barbiturates nor benzodiazepines had been developed; ether and chloroform are inhaled and were available, but ether causes a long excitation phase first and chloroform takes five minutes to cause unconsciousness. Curare (poison arrow venom) was available and is quick acting, but is only active by injection.

My overall conclusion was that a rapid acting drug to cause unconsciousness (thereby explaining the lack of defence wounds) is a non-starter.

Paul

Thanks Paul for your response.

I have wondered whether some form of sedation was used by the killer, but as least it's an area that can be ruled out based on what you've mentioned.

RD

[GBinOz]

Why is this an issue? She was certainly there so she must have been there for a reason but we have absolutely no way of deducing what she was doing. How can something be seen as suspicious when we have no clue why she was there. Perhaps she’d used the loo? Perhaps someone that she was with went inside the club or to use the loo? Perhaps she’s arranged to meet someone there? The only mystery is that we don’t know why she was there. It’s not a mystery that she was there.

Hi Herlock,

I agree with your possibilities, and the fact that we can only speculate on the answer, but IMO the probability is the possibility that "someone that she was with went inside the club or to use the loo".

Cheers, George