Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Wickerman]

We do have evidence that Parcel Man left the scene because he was not seen with Stride 10 minutes later according to Schwartz. We don't have co-orboration of that evidence but it is incorrect to say we don't have evidence of him not being there.

I think you know not mentioning someone, is not evidence, because you do permit James Brown that very luxury to have 'not seen' the couple on the corner, when you say that Brown "had not seen or had not noticed them".
Isn't it odd that you choose not to permit Schwartz to "have not seen or had not noticed" Parcel-man?

Schwartz only mentioned people who directly affected him.

In relation to Mortimer and in my opinion Brown's couple, they in my estimation arrived at the Board School after Schwartz had witnessed the attack. Brown had seen them coming back from getting supper so he had not seen them or had not noticed them as he went to get supper. He was also estimating his time, estimating not based on anything really so his time is problematic.

Both Brown & Schwartz were estimating their time, which means you must view both their times as problematic?
Therefore, we have no cause to accept one over the other, both were guessing.

The chandler's shop was right on the corner of Berner & Fairclough, yet Brown didn't say he saw a man (Schwartz) run through the intersection at 12:45'ish.
Given there had been a murder at that time, don't you think he would have offered a sighting of a running man, running away from the crime scene, if he had noticed one?
I think so, because he does mention hearing Diemshutz & Kozebrodski running, shouting for a policeman.

[Wickerman]

Irish Times: A member of the club named Kozebrodski, but familiarly known as Isaacs, returned with Diemshitz into the court, and the former struck a match while the latter lifted the body up. It was at once apparent that the woman was dead. The body was still warm, and the clothes enveloping it were wet from the recent rain, but the heart had ceased to beat, and the stream of blood in the gutter terminating in a hideous pool near the club door showed but too plainly what had happened.

A stream of blood all the way to the door implies the murder did not occur any time near to Diemschitz arrival - the murderer is long gone. On the other hand, you are right that BS Man as killer makes little sense. Hence the doubts about Schwartz.

I hi-lited your line above, some have argued it was not raining.
However, blood runs easier in water. If the ground was dry blood runs slower, but because the ground was wet the blood may have reached close to the door in less time.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I hi-lited your line above, some have argued it was not raining.
However, blood runs easier in water. If the ground was dry blood runs slower, but because the ground was wet the blood may have reached close to the door in less time.

The state of the ground and its impact on the progression of the blood flow is an important question in regard to the timing of the murder. The rocky ground may have been mostly dry, or watery, or muddy. In each case the time it would take for blood to pool at the door would be different. In any case I don't think the tens of seconds required by the Deimschitz interruption theory, can be supported. The victim's clothes were muddied, so I think a few minutes or more have elapsed by the time Diemschitz arrives. That would seemingly place the murder at a point that Fanny Mortimer is at her doorstep. For what it's worth, that is just what she supposed had occurred...

A man touched her face and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I didn't observe anyone entering the gates.

Perhaps we are looking at a situation in which both murderer and victim have entered the yard several minutes prior to the murder, or the victim entered the yard alone, and the murderer came from the club. Either way, the murderer must have been carrying or had ready access to a formidable knife.

[FISHY1118]

The evidence does not exist now, that does not mean it never existed.

No-one has satisfactorily explained why Schwartz was not requested to appear at the inquest, and then there is that police report mentioned by Swanson.
What did it conclude?

In an alternate universe you mean ?



As far as the Police report goes, it concluded that Swanson and other Police officials accepted Schwartz,s version of events and testimony of the assault that took place on Liz Stride .

[Herlock Sholmes]

No memoir or surviving post-88 police document makes reference to Schwartz. Your understanding of Pipeman ignores the police door-to-door search, and the contrast with Schwartz himself, who went to the police and the press. Why do you suppose a foreigner with little English would come forward, but not a local? I can suggest two possibilities:

* Pipeman didn't exist
* Pipeman was the man seen with Stride by Smith, who hung around while she entered the passageway

How many police memoirs and police documents have survived post 1888? And from those that do survive how many other witnesses aren’t named?

Pipeman was probably one of thousands of Eastenders who had been taught from the cradle that you avoid any dealings with the police at all costs. What if he’d got a record for violence? Even more reason to keep silent. Maybe he felt that he’d seen Stride with Jack the Ripper and that the ripper had seen him at close hand and might seek him out to silence him? Not everyone is a public-spirited citizen.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your "10 minutes later according to Schwartz" is problematic, aside from not mentioning that Schwartz was estimating time also.

Smith: It takes me from 25 minutes to half an hour to go round my beat. I was last in Berner-street about half-past 12 or 12:35. At 1 o'clock I went to Berner-street in my ordinary round. I saw a crowd of people outside the gates of No. 40. I did not hear any cries of "Police."

As you implicitly place Smith last in Berner St at 12:35, you must also accept that he is back at Berner St by 1am. This would necessarily push all events back in time. The discovery could not be later than 12:55. Fanny would be locking up sometime prior to that and witnessing Goldstein prior to that. She would then be at her doorstep as of about 12:40. When then, do you suppose the events described by Schwartz occurred, having not been witnessed by Eagle or Lave?

On the other hand, a 1am discovery time pushes Smith forward in time to at least 12:40. The young couple "had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises".

I don’t understand how you arrive at this conclusion. Smith said that his beat could take 25-30 minutes but you only appear to consider the lower estimate? So if he’d passed at 12.35 and his beat took 30 minutes then he would have returned at approximately 1.05 which is in line with a discovery time of 1.00. And what if the clock that Diemschitz used was out of synch by 2 or 3 minutes? His 1.00 might have been 12.57 or 12.58 according to others.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That would seemingly place the murder at a point that Fanny Mortimer is at her doorstep.

But we don’t know when Fanny was or wasn’t on her doorstep because she never bother to tell anyone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Irish Times: A member of the club named Kozebrodski, but familiarly known as Isaacs, returned with Diemshitz into the court, and the former struck a match while the latter lifted the body up. It was at once apparent that the woman was dead. The body was still warm, and the clothes enveloping it were wet from the recent rain, but the heart had ceased to beat, and the stream of blood in the gutter terminating in a hideous pool near the club door showed but too plainly what had happened.

A stream of blood all the way to the door implies the murder did not occur any time near to Diemschitz arrival - the murderer is long gone. On the other hand, you are right that BS Man as killer makes little sense. Hence the doubts about Schwartz.

Blackwell, surely a more reliable opinion:

“The clothes were not wet with rain.”

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How many police memoirs and police documents have survived post 1888? And from those that do survive how many other witnesses aren’t named?

Abberline: ... the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty-five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view.

Did Schwartz get a front view of the first man?...

age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

Why didn't Abberline mention this close encounter with the Ripper, in the 1903 article?

Pipeman was probably one of thousands of Eastenders who had been taught from the cradle that you avoid any dealings with the police at all costs. What if he’d got a record for violence? Even more reason to keep silent. Maybe he felt that he’d seen Stride with Jack the Ripper and that the ripper had seen him at close hand and might seek him out to silence him? Not everyone is a public-spirited citizen.

From memory, weren't the police happy with the public's cooperation during the door-to-door searches and interviews? Pipeman could easily have provided information anonymously. How was the Ripper to know or recall some seemingly random man on the street? The inability to identify Pipeman must be of some concern.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don’t understand how you arrive at this conclusion. Smith said that his beat could take 25-30 minutes but you only appear to consider the lower estimate? So if he’d passed at 12.35 and his beat took 30 minutes then he would have returned at approximately 1.05 which is in line with a discovery time of 1.00. And what if the clock that Diemschitz used was out of synch by 2 or 3 minutes? His 1.00 might have been 12.57 or 12.58 according to others.

I didn't arrive at a conclusion, I read the inquest testimony.

Smith: I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock. I was not called. I saw a crowd outside the gates of No. 40, Berner-street. I heard no cries of "Police." When I came to the spot two constables had already arrived.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Blackwell, surely a more reliable opinion:

“The clothes were not wet with rain.”

So, if the gutter was only muddy, as opposed to watery, the blood would slowly ooze along before reaching and pooling at the side door. That would take minutes, not tens of seconds, would it not? In that case, Diemschitz did not interrupt the killer. Therefore, the other man came along theory is in trouble. As for the BS Man killed Stride theory, I refer you to c.d.

[Sunny Delight]

I think you know not mentioning someone, is not evidence, because you do permit James Brown that very luxury to have 'not seen' the couple on the corner, when you say that Brown "had not seen or had not noticed them".
Isn't it odd that you choose not to permit Schwartz to "have not seen or had not noticed" Parcel-man?

Schwartz only mentioned people who directly affected him.



Both Brown & Schwartz were estimating their time, which means you must view both their times as problematic?
Therefore, we have no cause to accept one over the other, both were guessing.

The chandler's shop was right on the corner of Berner & Fairclough, yet Brown didn't say he saw a man (Schwartz) run through the intersection at 12:45'ish.
Given there had been a murder at that time, don't you think he would have offered a sighting of a running man, running away from the crime scene, if he had noticed one?
I think so, because he does mention hearing Diemshutz & Kozebrodski running, shouting for a policeman.

Well we know there was a couple at the Board School because Brown saw them. He saw them returning from the shop. He does not mention seeing them beforehand. I believe they had just arrived on the spot, but we must leave open the possibility that he just did not see them on his way although I find that very unlikely. This is important in estimating times.

This differs significantly from Parcelman because he is seen prior to Stride's encounter with BS man. Not after.

We don't know how Schwartz estimated his timings. We know Brown estimated his because he had returned home at 12:10 and was estimating the time based on his own feeling how much time had passed..

[Herlock Sholmes]

Abberline: ... the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty-five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view.

Did Schwartz get a front view of the first man?...

age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

Why didn't Abberline mention this close encounter with the Ripper, in the 1903 article?

Perhaps Abberline came to believe that Schwartz hadn’t seen the killer? It’s interesting that he talks about age in that quote. Why might a 35-40 year old killer have been an issue? Could it have been that it was because George Chapman was only 23 at the time of the murders and he had come to suspect that Chapman was the ripper? Maybe he came to dismiss the man that Schwartz saw because he didn’t match a description of Chapman.

From memory, weren't the police happy with the public's cooperation during the door-to-door searches and interviews? Pipeman could easily have provided information anonymously. How was the Ripper to know or recall some seemingly random man on the street? The inability to identify Pipeman must be of some concern.

It doesn’t concern me at all. I’m not suggesting that everyone was reluctant to have dealings with the police but some people certainly were. We can’t assume that someone didn’t exist just because he didn’t come forward. Mistrust of the police exists today and goes back years.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I didn't arrive at a conclusion, I read the inquest testimony.

Smith: I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock. I was not called. I saw a crowd outside the gates of No. 40, Berner-street. I heard no cries of "Police." When I came to the spot two constables had already arrived.

Yes but he was estimating the time that he first passed (12.30 or 12.35) Why would he be confident of the time when he next passed? Maybe he said ‘around’ but it was missed in the transcript? Or maybe he thought that saying 1.00 was enough and that a very few minutes before or after was neither here nor there?

We know that he arrived at the yard after Lamb. We know that we can’t rely on clocks and watches being in synch. We are talking a very few minutes here. It’s really not important. Louis found the body at approx 1.00. Lamb arrived back with Eagle at approx 1.05. Smith arrived just after.

If we looked down on events with an accurate clock and when Louis passed his 1.00 clock our clock said 12.55. Then we have Lamb arriving back with Eagle at around 1.00 and then Smith arriving at 1.01.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, if the gutter was only muddy, as opposed to watery, the blood would slowly ooze along before reaching and pooling at the side door. That would take minutes, not tens of seconds, would it not? In that case, Diemschitz did not interrupt the killer. Therefore, the other man came along theory is in trouble. As for the BS Man killed Stride theory, I refer you to c.d.

Did any Doctor question that the killer might have been interrupted after viewed the evidence? I’m not aware of a single one.