Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Sunny Delight]

I don't think he is referring back to the opinion in the Star, specifically.

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and (if) the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows", etc.

If "the police report casts no doubt upon it", then Swanson can't say "if Schwartz is to be believed", in the same sentence - it already is believed justified by the police report.
Which is contradictory, and suggests we are not reading it right.

Swanson's statement is illogical without the second "(if)", inserted by me.

Then the logic becomes apparent - Schwartz's story was still being investigated by the police. They had not completed their report which may, or may not, verify Schwartz. Therefore, Swanson is permitted to begin with "if Schwartz is to be believed" (his story has not yet been established).

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.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis, yes that’s a possible.

I only do this in a light-hearted way (just in case I get accused of arrogance) but i wrote a few maxims just like Sherlock Holmes and Herlock’s Maxim No 4 is - “Something cannot be proven or disproven by using unknowns as factors.”

The time that Fanny spent on her doorstep is an unknown. We don’t know when she was on there or for how long. Therefore we can’t dismiss Schwartz based on Fanny but this is exactly what some try to do. Why are they so desperate to do this? Often because they have a theory.

I agree, but I'll add that if the report that she was at her door for 10 minutes is true, then there's no need to dismiss either Fanny or Schwartz. There's room for both of them. If the "nearly the whole time from 12:30 to 1:00" is accurate, then Schwartz wouldn't be the only witness we'd need to call into question. That's why I think that the 10 minute estimate is far more likely.

[Wickerman]

...

Swanson's "If Schwartz is to be believed..." is arguably a subtle reference to the doubts mentioned in the Star report.

I don't think he is referring back to the opinion in the Star, specifically.

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and (if) the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows", etc.

If "the police report casts no doubt upon it", then Swanson can't say "if Schwartz is to be believed", in the same sentence - it already is believed justified by the police report.
Which is contradictory, and suggests we are not reading it right.

Swanson's statement is illogical without the second "(if)", inserted by me.

Then the logic becomes apparent - Schwartz's story was still being investigated by the police. They had not completed their report which may, or may not, verify Schwartz. Therefore, Swanson is permitted to begin with "if Schwartz is to be believed" (his story has not yet been established).

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's right, they weren't very loud, but they were screams and therefore they were loud.



No, it does not always mean that. 'Not very loud' refers to anything less than very loud, including 'loud', 'moderately loud, 'average', and 'quiet'. If you are near a driver revving his engine, it might not be very loud. Is it therefore 'low volume'?

There is no such thing as a 'low volume scream', which is a contradiction.

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.


Wrong again. Abberline appears to have accepted Schwartz's description of the noises. That would suggest he understood Schwartz to mean that although the woman screamed, the screams weren't loud enough to wake the entire neighbourhood.

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.

It's not a question of trusting one over the other. The Leman St police were part of the police force, and the Star had a source at that station.

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

No, don't try to explain it away. Accept what the report says and accept that the situation wasn't black and white.

Rubbish. It was black and white.

Swanson's "If Schwartz is to be believed..." is arguably a subtle reference to the doubts mentioned in the Star report.

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.

If you can’t make sensible contributions…

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You just can’t help yourself. The ‘screams’ were ‘not very loud’ because the person that heard them said that they were ‘not very loud.’ So we have Schwartz (again…the man that heard them) saying that they ‘weren’t very loud.’

That's right, they weren't very loud, but they were screams and therefore they were loud.

‘Not very loud’ is a commonly used phrase and it always means ‘of low volume.’

No, it does not always mean that. 'Not very loud' refers to anything less than very loud, including 'loud', 'moderately loud, 'average', and 'quiet'. If you are near a driver revving his engine, it might not be very loud. Is it therefore 'low volume'?

There is no such thing as a 'low volume scream', which is a contradiction.

What you are trying to do, by using semantics, is to change the phrase from ‘not very…loud,’ to ‘not…very loud.’ Your deliberate misinterpretation would have Schwartz meaning ‘well the screams were loud but not incredibly loud,’ or something similar. Every singly person breathing will understand that this was clearly not what he meant. He was using the phrase a way that everyone uses it. There is no way that Schwartz was trying to distinguish between loud and very loud. He added the phrase to indicate that Stride wasn’t loud.

Wrong again. Abberline appears to have accepted Schwartz's description of the noises. That would suggest he understood Schwartz to mean that although the woman screamed, the screams weren't loud enough to wake the entire neighbourhood.

You trust the Press, I prefer to trust the police who never showed any doubt about Schwartz.

It's not a question of trusting one over the other. The Leman St police were part of the police force, and the Star had a source at that station.

Perhaps they made an assumption due to the fact that no further action was taken with the arrested man?

No, don't try to explain it away. Accept what the report says and accept that the situation wasn't black and white.

And you would have to consider Abberline, Swanson and Anderson but, as authority figures, they were probably ‘in on it.’

Swanson's "If Schwartz is to be believed..." is arguably a subtle reference to the doubts mentioned in the Star report.

[New Waterloo]

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

[New Waterloo]

Thanks for all that work Herlock really appreciated. To be honest I am really surprised that Brown lived in a house next door to the Beehive Pub. I have to have a long think about this.

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

Key:

Red - Dutfields Yard.

White - Couple seen by Brown - or perhaps not if we go with your suggestion NW?

Blue - Marshall, 64 Berner St.

Purple - Brown, 35 Fairclough

Pale Blue - Beehive PH, 36 Fairclough

Orange - Spooner, 26 Fairclough

Green - Fanny Mortimer, 36 Berner Street

[Herlock Sholmes]

I hope this works?

A miracle I just cut and pasted from an earlier post. I didn’t think that could be done with pictures. You live and learn.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Herlock for the response yes I see what you mean about not knowing the route taken by Spooner and his girlfriend. This has made me think. I am sure it has been said before but we know Brown went to get his supper from the chandlers at the corner of Berners street and Fairclough (I believe) and we know where he lived, 35 Fairclough Street.

So we have a good witness who walks from his house to the chandlers and then returns by the same route.

We have Spooner on his own admission stating that he was near the Beehive pub during the period of Browns walk.

Would Brown have seen Spooner and his girlfriend on the route he took? The problem is of course if Spooner and his girlfriend were round the corner of the pub on Christian Street, but if they were on Fairclough would Brown have been within a reasonable sight of them?

This all hinges on where number 35 is. Also I think Spooner lived at 26 and that would be interesting to see also.

Problem for me is I cant find a map that gives house numbers. Can anyone help please

NW

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=12c32a9e01a03173&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB70 4GB704&hl=en-GB&sxsrf=ADLYWILK8AW_7ZGLlHQwtauV7hpUn0V68A:17300 2 4529901&q=jtr+Berner+Street+map&udm=2&fbs=AEQNm0Aa 4sjWe7Rqy32pFwRj0UkWd8nbOJfsBGGB5IQQO6L3J5m2RNdZ7T qBBDB_EAGU4N1WxBlB1HAP-ebrmYUwjpqjtAeEQdkyZ8RGOmQV9h_7PSCyeQMayQdFwjovhrX XbIjIRh9Y7xRH33CteG-15VbEMBtF3dkn2myhCM3l3ZAepgUpZ2etG4YuIpiyxTbXaJuRG BKasjBXgDXZhR_QGjXZBRV2Yw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjlvrrMq6 6JAxV8VUEAHctHJFEQtKgLegQIEhAB&biw=1024&bih=1247&d pr=2#vhid=INl_isKf5UZ5iM&vssid=mosaic

Sorry NW that map doesn’t show the Fairclough Street numbers. I have one but I’m useless with tech. I’m sure there’s one on this thread.

[Herlock Sholmes]

At various points we get suggestions of how long Fanny spent on her doorstep but we aren’t always certain of when we are reading her own words or a journalist’s interpretation. We get ‘most of the time between 12.30 and 1.00.’ We get that she went onto her doorstep just after Smith passed but this is also recorded as ‘just before 12.45.’ We also get that she spent 10 minutes on her doorstep and that after she went inside she heard Diemschitz cart around 4 minutes later. This is what’s is used to try and dismiss Schwartz…an indecipherable mess.

So let’s give Fanny two points. That she went onto her doorstep just after PC. Smith passed (so let’s call this approx 12.35) and that she went back indoors not long before Diemschitz returned (so let’s call this approx 12.55) So, in general, we have Fanny continually on her doorstep for the 20 minutes between around 12.35 and 12.55. Is this possible or likely?

No, it’s not because didn’t see Eagle return at around 12.40 (according to him) Could she have missed him if she was on her doorstep? No, he would have been 3 feet from her nose. She also didn’t see Stride arrive at the yard and we know that’s were she was found and we also know that she wasn’t beamed there by Scotty. Could a woman have arrived at the gates of Dutfield’s Yard with Fanny on sentry duty a mere 2 doors away? No. So reason tells us that between her first going onto her doorstep (at around 12.35) and her going back indoors (at around 12.55) Fanny must have gone back inside and come out again. Why? Who knows…the reason important.

So how long would she have had to have been indoors to have missed Eagle’s return and the Schwartz incident? I believe Jeff said that to enter and exit Berner Street would have been a matter of 90 seconds. It’s even possible that Eagle and BSMan were at one point both in Berner Street at the same time, with Eagle being up ahead. So Fanny would only have had to a gone back indoors for 2 or 3 minutes to have missed Eagle’s return and the incident. And would she have gone back inside to stand near to the door so as to hear what she could or is it likelier that she went inside because she had something to do; or that her husband had called her for some reason to perform some task?

I’m only going on what Fanny (possibly) said in the Press and then factoring in things that we know occurred that we know that she didn’t see so it seems an entirely reasonable suggestion that Fanny went back indoors for a short period. So, a timeline incorporating this and NW’s suggestion about Spooner and his girl.

…

Approximate times of course


12.32 - PC.Smith passes and sees the couple (who leave the street after he passes)

12.33 - Fanny comes onto her doorstep and sees nothing.

12.40 - Fanny goes indoors.

12.41- Eagle returns.

12.42 - Stride returns and meets BSMan at the gates and the Schwartz incident occurs.

12.44 - Fanny comes back onto her doorstep.

12.45 - Brown goes for his supper.

12.45 - Spooner and his girlfriend arrive after walking down Batty Street from Commercial Road to stand by the Board School on the corner of Batty and Fairclough.

12.48 - Brown returned and saw the couple. The couple then walked on to Christian Street

12.50 - Goldstein passed, seen by Fanny.

12.51 - Letchford’s sister goes to her doorstep to lock up and sees nothing.

12.55 - Fanny goes back indoors.

1.00 Fanny hears Diemschitz return.

….


Just another of the numerous possible scenarios showing that there is nothing remotely suspicious about the events of that night. Yes, there are things that we have no definitive explanation for but that doesn’t mean that these events are inexplicable or mysterious.

[New Waterloo]

Thanks Herlock for the response yes I see what you mean about not knowing the route taken by Spooner and his girlfriend. This has made me think. I am sure it has been said before but we know Brown went to get his supper from the chandlers at the corner of Berners street and Fairclough (I believe) and we know where he lived, 35 Fairclough Street.

So we have a good witness who walks from his house to the chandlers and then returns by the same route.

We have Spooner on his own admission stating that he was near the Beehive pub during the period of Browns walk.

Would Brown have seen Spooner and his girlfriend on the route he took? The problem is of course if Spooner and his girlfriend were round the corner of the pub on Christian Street, but if they were on Fairclough would Brown have been within a reasonable sight of them?

This all hinges on where number 35 is. Also I think Spooner lived at 26 and that would be interesting to see also.

Problem for me is I cant find a map that gives house numbers. Can anyone help please

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, the screams were loud, by definition, but were also low volume. Anyone who disagrees is trying to twist words.

You just can’t help yourself. The ‘screams’ were ‘not very loud’ because the person that heard them said that they were ‘not very loud.’ So we have Schwartz (again…the man that heard them) saying that they ‘weren’t very loud.’

‘Not very loud’ is a commonly used phrase and it always means ‘of low volume.’ What you are trying to do, by using semantics, is to change the phrase from ‘not very…loud,’ to ‘not…very loud.’ Your deliberate misinterpretation would have Schwartz meaning ‘well the screams were loud but not incredibly loud,’ or something similar. Every singly person breathing will understand that this was clearly not what he meant. He was using the phrase a way that everyone uses it. There is no way that Schwartz was trying to distinguish between loud and very loud. He added the phrase to indicate that Stride wasn’t loud.

The (deliberate) ‘confusion’ is caused by the use of the word ‘screamed’ which wasn’t the best choice of word but not surprising for a non-English speaker.

Star, Oct 2: In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

Swanson alluded to these doubts. You want the situation with the police to be black and white. It wasn't.


You trust the Press, I prefer to trust the police who never showed any doubt about Schwartz. Perhaps they made an assumption due to the fact that no further action was taken with the arrested man?

You would first have to consider the Echo report. That might be difficult for you.

And you would have to consider Abberline, Swanson and Anderson but, as authority figures, they were probably ‘in on it.’

[FISHY1118]

You love your authority figures, so what about Coroner Baxter? What was his stance?

Well they were the Authority of the day were they not ?, as opposed to....... well just a ''Reporter''

I wasn,t aware Coroner Baxter interviewed Schwartz , where exactly might i find that official document.?