Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[New Waterloo]

Morning Advertiser 3rd October 1888 (London) Covering Inquest

On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the "Bective," [Beehive] at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street, along with a young woman. We had been in a beershop at the corner of Settles-street, Commercial-road, and remained till closing time. I stood at the top of Christian-street for a few minutes, and then walked down the street. We had been standing there about 25 minutes, I suppose, when two Jews came running along.......

Well Herlock it appears sensible for Spooner to have walked up Christian Street which as you suggested would mean they didn't use Berner or Batty Street to walk through. Well not completely I suppose so I will keep going with the idea a bit more (The idea that the couple seen by Brown were Spooner and his girl/lady friend).

It is still a fact that Browns house adjoined the Beehive Pub but he does not see Spooner and friend when leaving or returning to his house. (well correction. He does not report seeing a couple by the pub) and I do believe is a bit odd considering how he (Brown) actually lives where he does. Also the wording in this press report lacks some clarity and seems a bit ambiguous.

And as we know Spooner does not give any details of his girlfriends identity

Will think some more about this.

Thanks Herlock

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your position amounts to supposing the following was the case.

Abberline to self: Now I know the chap just said she screamed three times, but not very loudly, but I don't think he really meant that. I think he meant she made three quiet noises but was just a bit careless in his choice of words. However, I will put his words into my report regardless, because everyone who reads it will know that I was thinking that he was thinking that he really meant something else. Everyone that is, except Andrew.

This is preposterous. We are not supposed to think Abberline thought Schwartz meant something other than what he wrote in his report.

I’d suggest that you stand completely alone with this drivel. Your position amounts to this:

Andrew: What happened?

Mr X: It made a noise but it wasn’t very loud.

Andrew: Ah ok, so it was loud.

What you are suggesting (trying to invent) is that Abberline (who according to you must have been depriving some village of the services of a first class idiot) was thinking: “When this Schwartz chap said ‘not very loudly’ he must have meant ‘loud’ because the word scream was used. So everyone in those houses would have heard them. Oh, hold on, no one heard them. Perhaps they were all singing along with the club members at the time. Yes, that will be it. Problem solved.”

Whilst I am suggesting, along with every other sentient being on the planet is that Abberline thought “ Those ‘screams’ couldn’t have been loud because no one heard them. But why did he say ‘scream’ when ‘screams’ are loud? Oh yes, the man couldn’t speak English. That explains it.”

I am repeatedly told that we should preference the police report over anything we see in the press. I then take the position that we should accept the summary of the police account, verbatim. In response, I am dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. You couldn't make it up.

I’d suggest that you stand completely alone with this drivel. Your position amounts to this:

Andrew: What happened?

Herlock: It made a noise but it wasn’t very loud.

Andrew: Ah ok, so it was loud.

Even Christer can’t rearrange the language to suit like that.

What you are suggesting (trying to invent) is that Abberline (who according to you must have been depriving some village of the services of a first class idiot) was thinking: “When this Schwartz chap said ‘not very loudly’ he must have meant ‘loud’ because the word scream was used. So everyone in those houses would have heard them. Oh, hold on, no one heard them. Perhaps they were all singing along with the club members at the time. Yes, that will be it. Problem solved.”

Whilst I am suggesting, along with every other sentient being on the planet is that Abberline thought “ Those ‘screams’ couldn’t have been loud because no one heard them. But why did he say ‘scream’ when ‘screams’ are loud? Oh yes, the man couldn’t speak English. That explains it.”

[JeffHamm]

It's not hard for me to understand why you want to believe that. The fact remains that Abberline accepted these words as valid, and so that is the evidence we have. If you don't like the sound of the evidence, the next step is not to change that evidence to something you do like.

So you agree that the three sounds Stride made were not very loud sounds, since it is recorded that way. And isn't the volume of the sounds the most critical aspect, whether they be called screams, yells, shouts, calls, or whatnot. In the end, it is whether or not they were very loud sounds, and since they are recorded as being not very loud, we have our answer - don't we?

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The purpose for making allowances of timings being off by a few minutes is to see if there's a way that all of the evidence can be fit together, to see how much common ground can be found between all of the witness statements, unless there's a reason for discounting a particular witness statement. So I don't have any problem with the allowances that you made for Eagle and Letchford's sister, provided that they are done for the purpose of helping to fit all of the evidence together rather than for the purpose of dismissing certain witnesses.

Fair enough.

The following does not seem to fit with other evidence.

It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so.

It seemingly does not fit because we assume that the woman in question was Fanny, and that had she gone to her door immediately on hearing the policeman's plod, she would have seen Stride with a man. Is that necessarily true, though? What if the couple had stood further up Berner St than Smith recalled? Then Fanny might have seen the couple talking together in the distance, just as she might have caught a glimpse of the board school couple at the corner. Do we have to assume she would have put two and two together, on seeing Stride's body by candlelight? Fanny spoke to the board school couple, so maybe she thought another couple further up that dark street, had nothing to do with the murder. Perhaps Fanny did indeed go to her doorstep seconds after Smith had passed by, and our timelines are incorrect.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You now have someone else telling you that you are wrong. Let’s see how many spring up to support your nonsense.

Your position amounts to supposing the following was the case.

Abberline to self: Now I know the chap just said she screamed three times, but not very loudly, but I don't think he really meant that. I think he meant she made three quiet noises but was just a bit careless in his choice of words. However, I will put his words into my report regardless, because everyone who reads it will know that I was thinking that he was thinking that he really meant something else. Everyone that is, except Andrew.

This is preposterous. We are not supposed to think Abberline thought Schwartz meant something other than what he wrote in his report.

You are a text book conspiracy theorist. Everything is a lie. Everything is a plot.

I am repeatedly told that we should preference the police report over anything we see in the press. I then take the position that we should accept the summary of the police account, verbatim. In response, I am dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. You couldn't make it up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It might transpire that any witness was found to be lying, but we don't see a similar disclaimer for any other witness. Only Schwartz.

Yes we do!

Why do you think it ok to say “I don’t believe Schwartz because of Fanny Mortimer” and not “I don’t believe Fanny Mortimer because of Schwartz?”

Why do you put so much weight on what she ‘said.’

We don’t know when she was on her doorstep but still think that she disproves Schwartz. Can anyone see even a smidgeon of logic in that?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you do not accept the word 'screams', then you do not accept the evidence as is. Changing the evidence to something you find acceptable, has nothing to do with trying to work out what happened, and more to do with protecting the reputation of a long dead witness. What motivates you do to that; I have no idea.

I am motivated by the desire to get as near to the truth as possible by not pursuing flights of fancy or agendas. You begin with a preconception (you’ve already admitted that you suspect Schwartz of being the killer) and so you have the motive to try and shape the evidence to fit that preconception. As anyone will tell you, that has even a rudimentary understanding of the English language, when someone says ‘not very loud’ they never mean ‘loud, but not very loud’ which is the way that you are blatantly trying to skew the evidence in favour of your theory. ‘Not very loud’ means quiet. It means of low volume. Everyone knows what a scream is. A scream is loud. When someone says that someone screamed there is no need for a follow on to explain it. Schwartz however added that it wasn’t very loud. Therefore he was saying that the woman made sounds which were not loud. As opposed to loud. It’s remarkable that on an adult message board I find myself having to explain this but, as everyone knows, this isn’t down to the fact of poor comprehension. You know full well that I’m right but you simply need an alternative to be the case to support your theory. You are absolutely, blatantly wrong and you are fully aware of the fact.

If the right choice of word as you see it was not 'screams', but rather a word that is compatible with the noises being of low volume, then there would be no reason to add the "not very loudly" qualifier. For example, "He began speaking to the woman in the gateway, but not very loudly" - the qualifier is redundant. Not so in the case of "screamed three times", so your claim that Schwartz chose the wrong word, fails.

I struggle to believe that you are trying to make a genuine point here. This has to be a wind up.

You want Schwartz to have told the truth and for Abberline to have accepted his words as at least plausible. On the other hand, you can't take the risk that Schwartz actually meant what he said. You are conflicted.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Had Abberline known of the singing in the club, and he probably did by the time he spoke to Schwartz, he might have assumed that the screams were not heard over the singing. Why didn't you think of that possibility?

So, you are in denial of the report in the Star. What a surprise.

Says this true believer.

You are a text book conspiracy theorist. Everything is a lie. Everything is a plot.

Why let people use the back yard for free?

You now have someone else telling you that you are wrong. Let’s see how many spring up to support your nonsense.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Everybody accepts that what Israel Schwartz said was translated into English as "The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly." A scream is, by definition, loud, so clearly this was a poor translation. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

It's not hard for me to understand why you want to believe that. The fact remains that Abberline accepted these words as valid, and so that is the evidence we have. If you don't like the sound of the evidence, the next step is not to change that evidence to something you do like.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I think that is going around some mental gymnastics that are unnecessary. It isn't a contradictory statement. Swanson is basically saying, If Schwartz is to be believed and the report from the guys below me cast no doubt upon it. He is being a little disingenuous and not nailing his own opinion to the mast, but rather leaving a little room, so that should it ever transpire Schwartz was found to be lying, Swanson has someone to blame.

It might transpire that any witness was found to be lying, but we don't see a similar disclaimer for any other witness. Only Schwartz.

[Fiver]

If you do not accept the word 'screams', then you do not accept the evidence as is.

Everybody accepts that what Israel Schwartz said was translated into English as "The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly." A scream is, by definition, loud, so clearly this was a poor translation. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Rubbish. They weren’t loud because no one heard them. Not very loud means just that. Low volume. It’s the word that’s wrong not the meaning. Scream was a poor choice of word…just as a non-English speaker might use. You are intentionally trying to manipulate evidence to support a half-baked theory that a toddler could see through.

If you do not accept the word 'screams', then you do not accept the evidence as is. Changing the evidence to something you find acceptable, has nothing to do with trying to work out what happened, and more to do with protecting the reputation of a long dead witness. What motivates you do to that; I have no idea.

If the right choice of word as you see it was not 'screams', but rather a word that is compatible with the noises being of low volume, then there would be no reason to add the "not very loudly" qualifier. For example, "He began speaking to the woman in the gateway, but not very loudly" - the qualifier is redundant. Not so in the case of "screamed three times", so your claim that Schwartz chose the wrong word, fails.

You want Schwartz to have told the truth and for Abberline to have accepted his words as at least plausible. On the other hand, you can't take the risk that Schwartz actually meant what he said. You are conflicted.

Rubbish. He believed Schwartz therefore he MUST have assumed (correctly) that the noise that she made wasn’t loud and so wasn’t heard by anyone fairly close.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Had Abberline known of the singing in the club, and he probably did by the time he spoke to Schwartz, he might have assumed that the screams were not heard over the singing. Why didn't you think of that possibility?

Rubbish. Schwartz was trusted. They went looking for an Lipski. They arrested at least one man on the strength of it. End of.

So, you are in denial of the report in the Star. What a surprise.

Rubbish. It was black and white.

Says this true believer.

Waves of rubbish. Deliberate attempts to bend the evidence to support another barking theory from the man that suggested that Mrs Richardson might have been running a brothel from the cellar of number 29 Hanbury Street.

Why let people use the back yard for free?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Back quicker than I thought. DJA recently posted an excellent photo of the Beehive Pub. Dare I suggest that the door on the very left of the photo is in fact the door to Browns House. (probably has been mentioned before) In any case the photo shows that there is no significant porch to the corner door of the pub. Not deep enough for a couple to stand in. I think we can strongly suggest that if Spooner and his girlfriend were standing on Fairclough street by the pub they would have been seen by Brown when he left his house and certainly when he returned to his house but he does not mention another couple.

Yes they could be round the corner in Christian Street that's the only problem.

NW

I would have thought that doorway is almost certainly Brown’s house NW.

When Brown went for his supper Spooner and his girl could still have been on Commercial Road. I’d estimate that the walk to Fairclough Street would have taken around 90 seconds so they could have arrived for when Brown returned with his food. It’s just a pity that we don’t know which pub on Commercial Road they had been to because if it was east at the top of Christian Street then my suggestion of a walk down Batty Street is almost certainly a non-starter. If it was to the west then they could have turned down Batty Street, stood at the Board School corner, been seen by Brown and then walked to The Beehive after he’d gone indoors.

Speculation of course but possible imo.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Don't engage with it is my own opinion on that matter. A thankless task.

[Sunny Delight]

Thread after thread after thread of conspiracist silliness. Why is it that some are so intent on pushing a theory that they try do anything to support it.

Don't engage with it is my own opinion on that matter. A thankless task.

[Lewis C]

I think it fair that I also get to move witnesses around.

I will start by moving Eagle's return to the club from 12:40 to 12:45. At that time, Stride had not yet moved to the gateway, and Schwartz was still a few minutes up Commercial Rd. He will not reach the gateway until almost 12:50.

Next, I will move Charles Letchford's sister back in time, so that she is on her doorstep by 12:48. That's only a couple of minutes.

Is everyone okay with this, so far?

The purpose for making allowances of timings being off by a few minutes is to see if there's a way that all of the evidence can be fit together, to see how much common ground can be found between all of the witness statements, unless there's a reason for discounting a particular witness statement. So I don't have any problem with the allowances that you made for Eagle and Letchford's sister, provided that they are done for the purpose of helping to fit all of the evidence together rather than for the purpose of dismissing certain witnesses.