Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Which is why I, as a neutral, have suggested that the witness might have got the time wrong numerous times (and Wickerman made the suggestion that the witness might have got the place wrong)

So, you felt a need to give an explanation as to why the screams went unheard, other than the "she screamed three times, but not loud enough for anyone nearby to hear", rationalization.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

To me the word "scream" contains a connotation of fear, To "scream" at a low volume would seem incongruous.

Having just been thrown on the footway, an obvious explanation for the screams, is pain.

The problem is that we don't see any corresponding injuries or damage to clothing. Nothing about the state of the victim suggests a BS Man like character, which is a good reason to question his existence.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What I get from Fanny's reported statements is that she isn't saying that she saw a couple on the corner while she was at her door, but that after the murder she talked to a couple that said they were on the corner, and Fanny is reporting what they told her. I won't say that it's certain that she didn't see a couple on the corner while she was at her door, but that's how it sounds to me.

Even so, there's still the fact that if Fanny hearing what sounds like a PC passing seems to fit well with the idea that PC Smith passed right before she went to her door, then that raises the question of why Fanny didn't see Stride or Parcelman. I think that the most likely answer to that is that is that those two moved from where they were between the time that Smith passed and Fanny went to her door. Either because Fanny wasn't quite as prompt at getting to her door as she makes it sound, or she was rather prompt, but it didn't take long for Stride and Parcelman to move to where she couldn't see them.

You mentioned the possibility that Stride and Parcelman weren't quite where PC Smith thought they were, so if that's the case, then maybe Stride and Parcelman didn't need to move to be where Fanny couldn't see them. That is, they also weren't where she could see them when PC Smith saw them.

Another possibility is that what Fanny thought was a PC passing actually wasn't one, or at least, it wasn't PC Smith.

Thanks for this thoughtful reply. I thought it might get shot down (by someone), but a lot of our perceptions of what people could or would or should have perceived, are probably half right at best.

It has to be remembered that Stride was up against and facing the wall of the club, and only lit by candlelight, when Fanny entered the yard. What view would she have had of Stride and companion, if they had been at the location indicated by Smith? Was she obscured by the man, or side-on to Fanny, or something else?

A timeline in this scenario would have Smith passing at about 12:40, and Eagle returning just before. Fanny then spends her famous 10 minutes at the doorstep. She is then inside long enough for Stride to enter the yard, unnoticed. Fanny is then back at her doorstep, until Diemschitz is rounding the corner. So, Fanny is at her door for part of the time that Stride is on the street. She just doesn't realise who the woman is that she sees lying dead in the passageway.

[JeffHamm]

That is a fair point in regards the terminology. The best term I can think of is that Stride 'cried out', but I mean this was an Hungarian who did not speak English, with a friend translating for him. As I said in a previous post this was not as professional as today with professional interpreters available to Police quite freely. The word scream was likely a poor translation, it really is that simple.

I agree. Translation is a very difficult thing to get right, as often languages have words that capture a concept in a way that another language doesn't really have a suitable word for. A good translator will find a suitable phrase to replace the word, while less skilled translators will tend to just substitute in the closest word available. The former translates the "meaning intended" while the latter is translating the "word". The former is very difficult to get right, and those who are good at it can make a very good living as a result. Given we're not dealing with a professional translator, it is very possible we're dealing with one of these situations where there's a word in Hungarian that doesn't have an exact match in English, and "scream" was the best he could come up with.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hello Jeff,

Another point that might be added to George’s suggestion about the implication of fear is one of duration. It’s not solely the volume that contributes to whether a sound registers with those nearby but how long it goes on for. The sounds that Stride made might have amounted to an “oi” and “oh” and an “ah.” Short sounds as opposed to the movie screams of a woman seeing Dracula approaching. These have less time to register as something out of the ordinary as opposed to the everyday soundtrack of life.

Also I’d suggest that we might factor in that women like Stride had such tough lives that they were probably hardened to the occasional beating and so we shouldn’t assume that she was immediately in fear of her life and if she had indeed spoken to BSMan an hour or so earlier (seen by Marshall) then she may even have known him to some extent, perhaps just as a regular client or just some nuisance who wanted to know her rather more than she wanted to know him.

Hi Herlock,

Yes, scream, by itself, carries the implication of a long duration sound, but as you say, it seems unlikely that Stride was doing anything like the "Queen of scream" from horror movies, but rather 3 short sounds like you suggest. And such sounds are unlikely to be taken notice of. I think it is quite clear that in Schwartz account, Stride is not calling for help or assistance, but was reacting to the situation of being put to the ground, and while undoubtedly not pleased by things, she does not appear to be in fear of her life at that moment. That would tally with the 3 short "oi oh ah" type you suggest.

- Jeff

[Sunny Delight]

I agree, the club conspiracy idea falls apart at even the first step (Schwartz, by implying Pipeman's name might be Lipski would actually be directing attention to the club members, not away from them, so hardly a good "cover story"). And if Schwartz's "screamed not very loudly" was a self-contradicting statement, then Abberline would have pounced on that (that's what police look for in interviews, contradictions), so I would suggest that Abberline, like myself, allows for the context to modify the word's "default" meaning.

Which got me thinking. What is the word for a sound someone makes, that isn't directed "at someone" (i.e. Stride isn't saying "Jerk" at B.S., she's just making a sound in reaction to having been put to the ground unexpectedly), isn't an actual word, expresses some sort of emotion like fear/anger/shock, and isn't very loud? It's not a "call" or "yell" really, as those imply words but don't covey the emotional part ("yells" are loud too). I'm not sure there is a commonly used word that really fits, and so no individual word's dictionary definition is really going to capture the concept of what Schwartz seems to be trying to get across in his description. As such, "scream" may be the closest word to the concept, and one just has to shave off the volume component to get the gist of what is being described. This is how language works after all, we have specific words that relate to specific concepts, which we can then modify by embedding words in the context of other words (qualifiers), which as a whole create concepts for which we don't have a specific word.

- Jeff

That is a fair point in regards the terminology. The best term I can think of is that Stride 'cried out', but I mean this was an Hungarian who did not speak English, with a friend translating for him. As I said in a previous post this was not as professional as today with professional interpreters available to Police quite freely. The word scream was likely a poor translation, it really is that simple.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The "screamed, but not very loudly" issue is a good example of the difficulty in dealing with witness statements.

As everyone agrees, the dictionary definition of "scream" involves a loud sound. When used in isolation, the sound is generally presumed not to be an actual word, but it can be used to describe how someone spoke (The teacher screamed "Get over here!" at the unruly child, type thing), where again it means loud. But unless speech is explicitly included, screamed tends to just mean a "loud sound which is not itself a word" - of the "Ahhhh" or "Eeek" sort. I'll call this an "act".

George also points out that screamed, when not used to describe speech but an "act", carries the connotation of fear as well.

So in isolating the word "screamed" leads to all sorts of implied details, loud, possibily indicative of fear, and probably not a word. But, of course, when speech is explicitly included, that changes scream from the "act" version, and given the above example I would suggest the fear aspect gets removed as well (perhaps replaced with anger and/or frustration?), and in general just leaving the "loud" bit.

With the "screamed, but not very loudly", we see a similar stripping of the "default" meanings, and the volume aspect has been explicitly removed. That would suggest that what is being conveyed is she made 3 "non-word sounds", possibly including a note of fear to them, or at least some sort of emotion - anger, surprise, etc.

Now, some argue that screams have to be loud and then go on to show how 3 loud sounds create potential problems (why weren't they heard, etc). And because of those problems, they argue that Schwartz must be lying because he claimed 3 loud sounds that went unheard, which they feel is too improbable to be true.

I can see how 3 loud sounds might be indicative of a problem, but Schwartz didn't claim the sounds were loud, and explicitly indicates they were not. So the "problem" points to the interpretation imposing "loudness" on the sounds, because Schwartz's full statement doesn't contain loud sounds being made.

So if Schwartz is saying 3 screams not very loud, and one feels that the sound has to be loud to be properly called a scream, then that points to the problem being that Schwartz's choice of word might not have been the best word to choose. I personally think it's fine, as it is very common to choose a word and then explicitly "modify the definition" with qualifiers or by context (as in how screamed becomes a description of how someone spoke, when generally screamed refers to non-word sounds being made).

Regardless, if one thinks that screams cannot be "not very loud", then the problem is simply that they disagree with Schwartz's word choice. It is invalid to try and impose a paradox on the witness by trying to claim that in the same phrase Schwartz intended to say that the sounds were loud and not loud at the same time. It would be like saying "and then this tall man, who was very short, came into view". That is what one is trying to claim Schwartz meant when he said "screamed but not very loudly", if one doesn't allow words to be modified by qualifiers or context - but that is to basically deny how people actually use language. The paradox should signal that the interpretation we're giving is wrong, not that Schwartz was contradicting himself.

If one thinks that screams really shouldn't be qualified as being "not very loud", then one is focusing on Schwartz's word choice (or at least the word chosen by the translator when converting Schwartz's Hungarian into English). And critiquing the word choice of a translator, while fine if evaluating their translation skills, is a bit of a sideline issue with regards to the information about the case that Schwartz contributes. One can suggest perhaps alternative words that might have been chosen, but in the end, we're left with the same information that Stride made 3 sounds, probably not words, possibly indicative of some emotion like fear/anger/shock, that were not very loud.

But to argue that people suggesting alternative words, or suggesting it's a poor word choice, is somehow trying to "save Schwartz" is invalid. It is clear that going the "Schwartz is saying the sounds were both loud and not loud in the very same utterance" is heading down the wrong path - it's claiming that Schwartz is speaking gibberish, and that is nonsense. So either one feels words, even screamed, can be modified in speech by qualifying the concept explicitly (which I do), or one feels that screamed is not the best word to convey what Schwartz is trying to convey. In other words, suggesting alternative words isn't trying to "save Schwartz", but to simply properly understand what Schwartz is clearly trying to convey. Once we agree what he is trying to convey, then we can examine that information in the wider context of the events to then see if what he says creates conflict. And so far, it doesn't.

- Jeff

Hello Jeff,

Another point that might be added to George’s suggestion about the implication of fear is one of duration. It’s not solely the volume that contributes to whether a sound registers with those nearby but how long it goes on for. The sounds that Stride made might have amounted to an “oi” and “oh” and an “ah.” Short sounds as opposed to the movie screams of a woman seeing Dracula approaching. These have less time to register as something out of the ordinary as opposed to the everyday soundtrack of life.

Also I’d suggest that we might factor in that women like Stride had such tough lives that they were probably hardened to the occasional beating and so we shouldn’t assume that she was immediately in fear of her life and if she had indeed spoken to BSMan an hour or so earlier (seen by Marshall) then she may even have known him to some extent, perhaps just as a regular client or just some nuisance who wanted to know her rather more than she wanted to know him.

[JeffHamm]

Isolating the word scream to try and discredit Schwartz is quite frankly the most ridiculous thing I have come across. Then to label the club members as conspirators in the cover up of a murder- it defies all logic. An unknown attacker from the club with an unknown motive helped cover up his deeds by an unknown number of club members and an unknown number of 'witnesses' Used to misdirect Police. It isn't worth engaging with.

I have the most simple view of the Stride case. BS man was the Ripper and Schwartz saw him.

I agree, the club conspiracy idea falls apart at even the first step (Schwartz, by implying Pipeman's name might be Lipski would actually be directing attention to the club members, not away from them, so hardly a good "cover story"). And if Schwartz's "screamed not very loudly" was a self-contradicting statement, then Abberline would have pounced on that (that's what police look for in interviews, contradictions), so I would suggest that Abberline, like myself, allows for the context to modify the word's "default" meaning.

Which got me thinking. What is the word for a sound someone makes, that isn't directed "at someone" (i.e. Stride isn't saying "Jerk" at B.S., she's just making a sound in reaction to having been put to the ground unexpectedly), isn't an actual word, expresses some sort of emotion like fear/anger/shock, and isn't very loud? It's not a "call" or "yell" really, as those imply words but don't covey the emotional part ("yells" are loud too). I'm not sure there is a commonly used word that really fits, and so no individual word's dictionary definition is really going to capture the concept of what Schwartz seems to be trying to get across in his description. As such, "scream" may be the closest word to the concept, and one just has to shave off the volume component to get the gist of what is being described. This is how language works after all, we have specific words that relate to specific concepts, which we can then modify by embedding words in the context of other words (qualifiers), which as a whole create concepts for which we don't have a specific word.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I would argue Schwartz is probably at most a couple of minutes out- either side of 12:45am. I would maybe suggest the attack happened slightly later maybe 12:47am or so. But I don't see it as likely that he was well out with his time. The window is too narrow. Most witnesses were roughly in the ballpark of what they declared in my opinion.

I agree. When I was working on the simulation and trying to piece together all the events to align them as best I could with the time on Dr. Blackwell's watch (so trying to remove the "multiple clock problem"), the differences between Dr. Blackwell Time and the witnesses' stated times were for the most part within the range of minutes (generally +-5 as I recall). I think Spooner stood out, as many have noted, but other than that things generally fit together very well. Given how many witnesses and statements we have, I was surprised at how relatively small the differences were and how they lined up.

Since then, a few more events have been discussed (like Eagle going to the police station and arriving there at 1:10), which I went back to see how well that fit it with the simulation version, and it slotted in very easily, so one could see that as a "test" of the simulated model, which it passed because it held up to new information. I then did a 2nd test, where I "time stamped" to that 1:10, and worked backwards from there, and again, the time-stamps for the events that between Eagle's arrival at the police station back to Deimshutz's arrival at the scene, were very similar to the time-stamps for the same events based upon Dr. Blackwell's watch (within a couple minutes; which could simply reflect a slight difference between the time on the police clock and Dr. Blackwell's watch).

Having gone through the whole process, I've now got a better feel for how to deal with all the information first before getting to the reconstruction phase, and I think I can do a better job of it, and can include a few more things. There's a lot of organisation that I have to do first though, and that is the most time consuming part. In the end, though, I think it will be possible to isolate various "windows of opportunity" in which the events described by Schwartz could have occurred. And then it comes down to which of those possibilities seem more probable than the others.

But it is because, as you say, the witness statements we have do seem to be reasonably reliable that I think the effort is worthwhile. If they were too unreliable, and everyone's times and information conflicted to a large degree, then I doubt there would be a way to confidently sequence the events. Fortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.

- Jeff

[Sunny Delight]

I too endorse the idea that Schwartz may have gotten the time wrong, and I think that most of us will grant that.

I would argue Schwartz is probably at most a couple of minutes out- either side of 12:45am. I would maybe suggest the attack happened slightly later maybe 12:47am or so. But I don't see it as likely that he was well out with his time. The window is too narrow. Most witnesses were roughly in the ballpark of what they declared in my opinion.

[Sunny Delight]

Isolating the word scream to try and discredit Schwartz is quite frankly the most ridiculous thing I have come across. Then to label the club members as conspirators in the cover up of a murder- it defies all logic. An unknown attacker from the club with an unknown motive helped cover up his deeds by an unknown number of club members and an unknown number of 'witnesses' Used to misdirect Police. It isn't worth engaging with.

I have the most simple view of the Stride case. BS man was the Ripper and Schwartz saw him.

[JeffHamm]

The "screamed, but not very loudly" issue is a good example of the difficulty in dealing with witness statements.

As everyone agrees, the dictionary definition of "scream" involves a loud sound. When used in isolation, the sound is generally presumed not to be an actual word, but it can be used to describe how someone spoke (The teacher screamed "Get over here!" at the unruly child, type thing), where again it means loud. But unless speech is explicitly included, screamed tends to just mean a "loud sound which is not itself a word" - of the "Ahhhh" or "Eeek" sort. I'll call this an "act".

George also points out that screamed, when not used to describe speech but an "act", carries the connotation of fear as well.

So in isolating the word "screamed" leads to all sorts of implied details, loud, possibily indicative of fear, and probably not a word. But, of course, when speech is explicitly included, that changes scream from the "act" version, and given the above example I would suggest the fear aspect gets removed as well (perhaps replaced with anger and/or frustration?), and in general just leaving the "loud" bit.

With the "screamed, but not very loudly", we see a similar stripping of the "default" meanings, and the volume aspect has been explicitly removed. That would suggest that what is being conveyed is she made 3 "non-word sounds", possibly including a note of fear to them, or at least some sort of emotion - anger, surprise, etc.

Now, some argue that screams have to be loud and then go on to show how 3 loud sounds create potential problems (why weren't they heard, etc). And because of those problems, they argue that Schwartz must be lying because he claimed 3 loud sounds that went unheard, which they feel is too improbable to be true.

I can see how 3 loud sounds might be indicative of a problem, but Schwartz didn't claim the sounds were loud, and explicitly indicates they were not. So the "problem" points to the interpretation imposing "loudness" on the sounds, because Schwartz's full statement doesn't contain loud sounds being made.

So if Schwartz is saying 3 screams not very loud, and one feels that the sound has to be loud to be properly called a scream, then that points to the problem being that Schwartz's choice of word might not have been the best word to choose. I personally think it's fine, as it is very common to choose a word and then explicitly "modify the definition" with qualifiers or by context (as in how screamed becomes a description of how someone spoke, when generally screamed refers to non-word sounds being made).

Regardless, if one thinks that screams cannot be "not very loud", then the problem is simply that they disagree with Schwartz's word choice. It is invalid to try and impose a paradox on the witness by trying to claim that in the same phrase Schwartz intended to say that the sounds were loud and not loud at the same time. It would be like saying "and then this tall man, who was very short, came into view". That is what one is trying to claim Schwartz meant when he said "screamed but not very loudly", if one doesn't allow words to be modified by qualifiers or context - but that is to basically deny how people actually use language. The paradox should signal that the interpretation we're giving is wrong, not that Schwartz was contradicting himself.

If one thinks that screams really shouldn't be qualified as being "not very loud", then one is focusing on Schwartz's word choice (or at least the word chosen by the translator when converting Schwartz's Hungarian into English). And critiquing the word choice of a translator, while fine if evaluating their translation skills, is a bit of a sideline issue with regards to the information about the case that Schwartz contributes. One can suggest perhaps alternative words that might have been chosen, but in the end, we're left with the same information that Stride made 3 sounds, probably not words, possibly indicative of some emotion like fear/anger/shock, that were not very loud.

But to argue that people suggesting alternative words, or suggesting it's a poor word choice, is somehow trying to "save Schwartz" is invalid. It is clear that going the "Schwartz is saying the sounds were both loud and not loud in the very same utterance" is heading down the wrong path - it's claiming that Schwartz is speaking gibberish, and that is nonsense. So either one feels words, even screamed, can be modified in speech by qualifying the concept explicitly (which I do), or one feels that screamed is not the best word to convey what Schwartz is trying to convey. In other words, suggesting alternative words isn't trying to "save Schwartz", but to simply properly understand what Schwartz is clearly trying to convey. Once we agree what he is trying to convey, then we can examine that information in the wider context of the events to then see if what he says creates conflict. And so far, it doesn't.

- Jeff

[Lewis C]

Which is why I, as a neutral, have suggested that the witness might have got the time wrong numerous times (and Wickerman made the suggestion that the witness might have got the place wrong)

I too endorse the idea that Schwartz may have gotten the time wrong, and I think that most of us will grant that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=NotBlamedForNothing]

. Only one point of disagreement - a not very loud scream must still be loud, because 'loud' is in the definition.

You keep pushing this nonsense in the hope of getting some traction but it’s clearly not working. You are making the bizarre claim that Schwartz was saying “she screamed out loudly but it was perhaps not as loud as most screams that you would expect to hear.” Or something similar. If someone said that someone ‘screamed’ there is never any need for an addition comment as Schwartz made about the loudness because we all know that screams are loud, unless someone says ‘screamed loudly’ for emphasis. So unless the hearer is carrying a Decibel Meter at the time and can say “well one would expect a scream to have been of x volume but this one was slightly quieter” we can dismiss the silly notion. The fact that no one else heard it points clearly to the effect that ‘not very loud’ means what it always means in English….of low volume. And very obviously this is exactly how Abberline saw it….because there’s no other way of seeing it.

Now why would someone use the word ‘scream’ inappropriately? No one who could speak English would say “scream but not very loudly” would they? No….but hold on….could Schwartz speak English? What a coincidence…a word used in an inappropriate way by a man who couldn’t speak English and was using an interpreter of unknown competence.

Its a difficult one….

Another point about these screams is that this is not just a question of why no one heard them. A neutral investigator might wonder if the witness got the time and/or place wrong.

Which is why I, as a neutral, have suggested that the witness might have got the time wrong numerous times (and Wickerman made the suggestion that the witness might have got the place wrong)

If he were unable to say, he could not have supposed the man was calling a name.

He heard a word that he recognised. Lipski was a well known name within the Jewish Community. The fact that he couldn’t be sure who it was directed at is perfectly understandable. He was across the road and he wouldn’t have been staring constantly at BSMan.

[FISHY1118]

Just as an aside...

It's interesting that this is the only thread that has been commented upon in the past 24 hours.

The boards are very quiet at the moment it seems.

Especially "Pub talk" who knows why. One can only guess.