Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Wickerman]

What is the location of this man in the police report? The opposite side of the street to the man with the woman who shouts 'Lipski'. Therefore, to what doorway do you refer?

Ah, pages & pages have been written on how we are supposed to interpret his location - setting aside the press version for a moment.

Quote:
On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

So, does that place Schwartz on the Board School side of Berner St.? - but that would be after he crossed.
Perhaps "on crossing" means as he begins to cross, which then would suggest Pipeman is on the Board School side.

Quote:
The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road

In this case "opposite" seems to refer to the Board School side.
Which appears to confirm the second option above.

To add to the confusion, there is no direct route to the railway arches by running east on Fairclough, neither by running south on Berner.
The most direct route to the nearest railway arches is by running west on Fairclough to Backchurch Lane, then south to the arches.
This means Schwartz had to run past the Nelson pub to go west on Fairclough.

All that aside, I was referring to the doorway of the Nelson public house.

[Wickerman]

...

Pipeman did not come out of the doorway of the Nelson, which had closed at midnight.

It doesn't need to be open, pipe smokers will regularly use a sheltered doorway to light their pipe.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Ah, pages & pages have been written on how we are supposed to interpret his location - setting aside the press version for a moment.

If it weren't for the press version, would there be any argument?

Quote:
On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

So, does that place Schwartz on the Board School side of Berner St.? - but that would be after he crossed.
Perhaps "on crossing" means as he begins to cross, which then would suggest Pipeman is on the Board School side.

The meaning of "On crossing to the opposite side of the street" can be ascertained from Schwartz's initial location when he spots the woman in the gateway.

...on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

At that point, Schwartz, first man and the woman are all at the gateway. The board school side is where Schwartz crosses to and is therefore the opposite side. All Met and HO correspondence is based on this understanding.

Quote:
The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road

In this case "opposite" seems to refer to the Board School side.
Which appears to confirm the second option above.

Right, "the opposite side of the street" is fixed - it does not jump around following Schwartz.

To add to the confusion, there is no direct route to the railway arches by running east on Fairclough, neither by running south on Berner.
The most direct route to the nearest railway arches is by running west on Fairclough to Backchurch Lane, then south to the arches.
This means Schwartz had to run past the Nelson pub to go west on Fairclough.

Except there is no evidence that Schwartz doubled-back across the street.

All that aside, I was referring to the doorway of the Nelson public house.

Which is not on the opposite side of the street, as understood by Swanson, and therefore the notion of Pipeman coming out of the doorway of the Nelson is, while convenient, incorrect.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It doesn't need to be open, pipe smokers will regularly use a sheltered doorway to light their pipe.

The press report refers to a man coming out of a doorway. The sheltering in a doorway to light a pipe notion, appears in neither the police nor press report. According to the press report, the man doesn't even have a pipe, he has a knife. Only in our imaginations does a man shelter from an assumed wind in the Nelson doorway, to light his pipe.

As I've suggested, if "the doorway of the public-house a few doors off" is interpreted as meaning the entrance to the court that leads to the public house on Batty St, then not only are the "opposite side of the street" and closing time issues resolved, but something slightly extraordinary happens - we can see that Pipeman appears from the same location that PC Smith had shortly before seen a man talking with Stride.

[New Waterloo]

I think the reason I have become a little bit obsessed with Spooner and his girlfriend and the couple Brown saw is the closeness they are to each other within a similar time frame. My understanding is that the Beehive Pub is on the corner of Christian Street and Fairclough. The board school to me looks to be 2 back yard lengths from the pub. Now I accept the board school is a largish premises but it appears pretty close. So we have two couples within a short distance from each other. Could we even consider that it is Spooner and his girl/lady friend that Brown has seen. Could someone more able than me apply some distances between these two couples. It may stop me ranting on or maybe give my idea some support.

Thanks all

NW

[JeffHamm]

Why does Schwartz's traversal of the street define the beginning and end of the event? He claims to have seen a woman standing in the gateway. If the issue is why did no one see or hear anything related to what Schwartz described, then we must first deal with Stride supposedly standing in the gateway. How long had she been there? Once Schwartz leaves the scene, the event does not come to end, only Schwartz's witnessing of it. The remaining actors, including any that Schwartz was unaware of, keep on acting.

Most of this cannot be modelled by simple calculations, but that is not an excuse to ignore these elements.

Hi NBFN,

Schwartz doesn't describe how long Stride was there, only that she's there. How long prior is not part of the Schwartz event (it's not what he describes). Nor, technically, is what happens after he leaves part of what he describes and so not part of the "Schwartz Event". But that could be viewed as being a bit pedantic.

So, since B.S. and Stride remain after Schwartz leaves, then one could add to the 1m 30s some additional time to allow for what happens to B.S. and Stride. We know Stride ends up murdered, but not everyone agrees it was by B.S. So, how much more time do we add? That depends upon what they do, which Schwartz cannot describe (as he's left the scene). If you go with B.S. goes on to kill Stride, then if he does so just after Schwartz exits the scene, then add on however long you think that would take (i would suggest only about 10 to 15 seconds to grab her and cut her throat) and some time for B.S. exits the location. If you want to create a scenerio where they hang out for awhile, then add more time, but there's no evidence for them hanging out. My approach is to look for the minimum amount of time necessary in a situation like this, where we fill in the unknown with as little as possible, since to put too much and say "see, it doesn't work" always falls to the argument "but less may have happened". So if we allow for 15 seconds for the murder, and B.S. then leaves (add say 45 seconds), then we're fitting in a roughly 2m 30 seconds, starting from Schwartz entering Berner Street and seeing B.S. ahead of him, until Schwartz flees on Fairclough, plus Stride being murdered and B.S. leaving.

If one argues that B.S. doesn't kill Stride, so he leaves, and someone else comes along, then that requires more time to be added. And so forth. But again, I tend to look to see the minimum time segment required, then look to see if that can fit in amongst the other events, and if so where in the time line. And then, we can examine it's placement, and look to see if there is indeed room for other scenerios that could require more time. And if there is, then those ideas are also valid to consider.

But defining how long Schwartz's described events take is the first step, after that we enter the unknown. So how you fill that in that unknown just adds to the 1m 30 seconds.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, it does - ~12:44-12:54.

By the way, why is the notion of Fanny locking up very soon before Diemschitz arrived, being entertained? Have you been reading i caught Crippen?

My question was why did Goldstein have to pass 6 or 7 minutes before Diemschitz arrived? We don’t know what time Goldstein passed as none was ever given. If Diemschitz returned at (in reality) 12.55 then Goldstein could have passes at 12.54.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can’t see any doubt as to which side of the road Pipeman was on. Both Swanson’s synthesis of the Leman Street interview and The Star report say pretty much the same thing though certainly neither are exactly a model of clarity.

In Swanson’s synthesis - Schwartz crossed to the side opposite to the club after seeing the confrontation begin (to avoid passing close to it). He sees Pipeman over on the club side. If Pipeman had been on the side opposite to the club Schwartz would have seen him before he’d actually crossed the road? The reason that he hadn’t initially seen him was because BSMan and the woman were between Schwartz and Pipeman obscuring his view. Also, as the report clearly doesn't imply that BSMan called out to Schwartz, as they would have mentioned him by name and not as the man on the opposite side of the road, we know that the two men were on different sides of the road. Therefore Pipeman was on the club side.

In The Star - Schwartz also crossed the road as soon as the incident began. He walked a little and glanced back as he was about to cross back over to the club side so that he could walk home down Fairclough Street. As he did so he saw a the second man (Pipeman/Knifeman) step from the doorway of the beer house. Therefore Pipeman was on the club side.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi NBFN,

Schwartz doesn't describe how long Stride was there, only that she's there. How long prior is not part of the Schwartz event (it's not what he describes). Nor, technically, is what happens after he leaves part of what he describes and so not part of the "Schwartz Event". But that could be viewed as being a bit pedantic.

So, since B.S. and Stride remain after Schwartz leaves, then one could add to the 1m 30s some additional time to allow for what happens to B.S. and Stride. We know Stride ends up murdered, but not everyone agrees it was by B.S. So, how much more time do we add? That depends upon what they do, which Schwartz cannot describe (as he's left the scene). If you go with B.S. goes on to kill Stride, then if he does so just after Schwartz exits the scene, then add on however long you think that would take (i would suggest only about 10 to 15 seconds to grab her and cut her throat) and some time for B.S. exits the location. If you want to create a scenerio where they hang out for awhile, then add more time, but there's no evidence for them hanging out. My approach is to look for the minimum amount of time necessary in a situation like this, where we fill in the unknown with as little as possible, since to put too much and say "see, it doesn't work" always falls to the argument "but less may have happened". So if we allow for 15 seconds for the murder, and B.S. then leaves (add say 45 seconds), then we're fitting in a roughly 2m 30 seconds, starting from Schwartz entering Berner Street and seeing B.S. ahead of him, until Schwartz flees on Fairclough, plus Stride being murdered and B.S. leaving.

If one argues that B.S. doesn't kill Stride, so he leaves, and someone else comes along, then that requires more time to be added. And so forth. But again, I tend to look to see the minimum time segment required, then look to see if that can fit in amongst the other events, and if so where in the time line. And then, we can examine it's placement, and look to see if there is indeed room for other scenerios that could require more time. And if there is, then those ideas are also valid to consider.

But defining how long Schwartz's described events take is the first step, after that we enter the unknown. So how you fill that in that unknown just adds to the 1m 30 seconds.

- Jeff

I agree that the entire event that Schwartz witnessed could have taken just a few minutes.

However; it's not the visual sightings; or lack of, that concerns me primarily; it's the complete absence of any audible corroboration of events that Schwartz claims transpired.

We have a man seemingly under the influence of alcohol attack a woman standing in a gateway.
The assault is seen as being spontaneous and the man is seen throwing the woman down to the ground.

The witness to all of this crossed the road to avoid any confrontation; perhaps a natural "flight" response to seeing an assault occur just yards in front of him.

The witness then claims that the woman screamed 3 times...but "not very loudly."

Convenient perhaps, but worthy of being given the benefit of the doubt.

Either just before, during or after the woman has screamed 3 times, the man who has just assaulted the woman then realises that his assault on the woman has been witnessed and appearing to acknowledge Schwaetz's presence; the assailant shouts over towards the witness the word "Lipski!."

Around the same time, the witness notices another man step out from a doorway.

It is seemingly the combination of the assault, the shout of "Lipski!" and the presence of another man that causes Schwartz to flee from the scene by running away...

... as far as the railway arch.

The witness has the awareness to look back and see the 2nd man moving in the same direction as himself, perhaps a case of both men fleeing or the 2nd man being an accomplice to the man who had been seen assaulting the woman.

Okay...

Now.

Despite all of the above sequence taking around 2 minutes (any less would not account for all the main played leaving the scene undetected).. we still have an important question that needs to be addressed...

Why did no other individual within a 100 meter radius HEAR ANY of the entire sequence of events described above?

Brown
Mortimer
Goldstein
PC Smith on his beat rotation
The couple on the corner by the board school
The multiple individuals situated downstairs inside the club on the yard side of the building
Packer (okay, forget him)

The fact that nobody witnessed SEEING the assault or at least one man running away is one thing; but it's the fact that nobody HEARD ANYTHING vaguely relating to anything that Schwartz said whatsoever that doesn't fit.

IIRC the only incident reported with degree of resemblance to this; was a story that appeared in the press and was was the report of the alleged assailant being chased down the road by someone known to the club; but not a member.

That would appear to correspond to Schwartz being chased by Pipeman.


And so, did Schwartz come forward and say he RAN AWAY from the assault as a way to cover the fact that he was instead being CHASED after being seen assaulting the victim?

This would explain his placing himself at the scene.

Even his appearance was noted at the time.

A man playing a part perhaps.


So when we take all the individual pieces, we are left with a few questions that cannot be ignored, and require explanation...


1- Why did nobody hear Stride being attacked?

2- Why did nobody hear Bs man shout "Lipski?!"

3- Why did nobody hear Schwartz and/or Pipeman run away?

4- Why does Schwartz's timings clash with Brown and the other couple seen by Brown being within EARSHOT of the assault?

5 - Why does Schwartz get his sides of the road wrong in relation to Pipeman?

6- Why does Stride choose to scream 3 times, but not loud enough for anyone else but Schwartz to hear her?

7- Why does Schwartz run as far as the train archway, when the geographical route doesn't fit with this claim?

8- Why did Schwartz not appear at the inquest?

9 -Why did he give an address of 22 Ellen Street when he didn't actually live there?

10- Why can nobody find any trace of Schwartz outside of the murder of Stride?


Regardless of whether the assault took as little as 2 minutes; when you combine all of the above questions; it is clear to see that things can't be conveniently explained away just because it goes against the grain to question what has been an established part of Ripper Lore for well over a century.

Multiple witnesses stated it was relatively quiet in Berner Street.

If we dare to consider just for a moment the possibility that the Schwartz incident never happened; then we are left with a scenario whereby nothing happened right up until the moment Stride was found.

A silent kill in the dark, with no witnesses and no dramatic goings on in the build up.

The reason why Mortimer, the other couple on the corner, Goldstein, Pc Smith, Lave, indivuduals downstairs in the club and anyone else within close proximity heard NOTHING untoward...is because that's precisely correct.

The only muted sound coming from the lock-in inside the club upstairs, and perhaps the wind and rain.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi NBFN,

Schwartz doesn't describe how long Stride was there, only that she's there. How long prior is not part of the Schwartz event (it's not what he describes). Nor, technically, is what happens after he leaves part of what he describes and so not part of the "Schwartz Event". But that could be viewed as being a bit pedantic.

Hi Jeff,

Now my turn to be a bit pedantic. What Schwartz is claiming to have observed is an event that begins before he enters the street and continues after he leaves it. So, why not call it the Assault Event? Should we not make this about the assaulted woman and not the observing man?

So, since B.S. and Stride remain after Schwartz leaves, then one could add to the 1m 30s some additional time to allow for what happens to B.S. and Stride. We know Stride ends up murdered, but not everyone agrees it was by B.S. So, how much more time do we add? That depends upon what they do, which Schwartz cannot describe (as he's left the scene). If you go with B.S. goes on to kill Stride, then if he does so just after Schwartz exits the scene, then add on however long you think that would take (i would suggest only about 10 to 15 seconds to grab her and cut her throat) and some time for B.S. exits the location. If you want to create a scenerio where they hang out for awhile, then add more time, but there's no evidence for them hanging out. My approach is to look for the minimum amount of time necessary in a situation like this, where we fill in the unknown with as little as possible, since to put too much and say "see, it doesn't work" always falls to the argument "but less may have happened". So if we allow for 15 seconds for the murder, and B.S. then leaves (add say 45 seconds), then we're fitting in a roughly 2m 30 seconds, starting from Schwartz entering Berner Street and seeing B.S. ahead of him, until Schwartz flees on Fairclough, plus Stride being murdered and B.S. leaving.

I don't accept the notion of a random, violent drunk, who draws attention to himself, being someone who carries around a formidable knife around and cuts the throat of a woman who pisses him off, then lays her down gently and walks off. It's just not a scenario I can take seriously.

If one argues that B.S. doesn't kill Stride, so he leaves, and someone else comes along, then that requires more time to be added. And so forth. But again, I tend to look to see the minimum time segment required, then look to see if that can fit in amongst the other events, and if so where in the time line. And then, we can examine it's placement, and look to see if there is indeed room for other scenerios that could require more time. And if there is, then those ideas are also valid to consider.

The someone else comes along theory requires Fanny Mortimer to have missed both the man exiting the gateway, and another man entering the gateway. Not impossible, but unlikely.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

My question was why did Goldstein have to pass 6 or 7 minutes before Diemschitz arrived? We don’t know what time Goldstein passed as none was ever given. If Diemschitz returned at (in reality) 12.55 then Goldstein could have passes at 12.54.

He doesn't have to pass 6 or 7 minutes prior. I based that on the commonly held view that Fanny locks up about 4 minutes prior to Diemschitz arriving and sees Goldstein shortly before she does so. Actually, I'm more inclined to accept Walter Dew's claim that she locks very close to the point of the pony and cart turning into the street.

In your 12:55 Diemschitz arrival scenario, at what time does Eagle return to the club? Does Half-Tipsy/BS Man walk down the street just before, just after, or at the same time?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

IIRC the only incident reported with degree of resemblance to this; was a story that appeared in the press and was was the report of the alleged assailant being chased down the road by someone known to the club; but not a member.

That would appear to correspond to Schwartz being chased by Pipeman.


And so, did Schwartz come forward and say he RAN AWAY from the assault as a way to cover the fact that he was instead being CHASED after being seen assaulting the victim?

This would explain his placing himself at the scene.

One of the big problems with Schwartz is that the men he describes are seemingly motiveless.

BS Man has no motive to kill Stride, except for the motive we invent for him.

Pipeman has no motive to run off, except for the fear we project onto him.

Pipeman has no motive to chase Schwartz, except for the motive we ascribe to him.

Contrast this to the press report of man who pursues the supposed assailant - he has an obvious motive.

My question to you is, what would Parcelman have done if he'd become aware of Elizabeth being mistreated?

[The Rookie Detective]

I don't accept the notion of a random, violent drunk, who draws attention to himself, being someone who carries around a formidable knife around and cuts the throat of a woman who pisses him off, then lays her down gently and walks off. It's just not a scenario I can take seriously.

I agree.

For a man to almost decapitate a woman with one swift cut by using a formidable weapon; does not ring true of a random street attack by a drunken thug.

It may be commonplace for 12 year old youths to carry large knife or machete style blades today, but in 1888, it would not.

For Stride to have been dispatched by such a weapon in relative silence, speaks of a Ripper style killer who was likely to have been interrupted from going any further...

...the perfect reason to find a 2nd victim and to unleash that pent up frustration from a botched job with Stride.

If not a Ripper kill, then at the very least the murder was premeditated; ergo, not committed by a drunken street thug.

It would take intense rage combined with mastery of a blade to almost decapitate someone in the dark with ONE cut.

The kill was quick, clean, careful, silent, calculated and applied with the kind of cold indifference that one would expect from a clinical psychopath.

So quick and precise that her brain never had time to process what was happening and tell her hand to drop the cachou.

Dispatched similar to how a professional hitman would carry out his work.

The theatrical Schwartz's theatrical story acts to draw attention away from Stride having been dispatched via such means; by declaring that she was attacked by a drunk in the first instance.

Schwartz plays a clever game of "show and tell".

He tells us everything


But shows us nothing.


All under the guise of someone who apparently couldn't speak English.


How convenient indeed

[c.d.]

I can just see the theatrically dressed Schwartz twirling his cape, twisting his perfectly waxed mustache laughing fiendisly to himself as he tells his concocted story.
"Fools, fools, they believe me!!!

Except that the fiendishly clever Schwartz when telling his fiendishly clever concocted story with all its smoke and mirrors forgot one very important thing. He forgot to say that he saw Stride being killed. Oops! Well even Professor Moriarity screwed up from time to time.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

I can just see the theatrically dressed Schwartz twirling his cape, twisting his perfectly waxed mustache laughing fiendisly to himself as he tells his concocted story.
"Fools, fools, they believe me!!!

Except that the fiendishly clever Schwartz when telling his fiendishly clever concocted story with all its smoke and mirrors forgot one very important thing. He forgot to say that he saw Stride being killed. Oops! Well even Professor Moriarity screwed up from time to time.

c.d.

Ah, but that's the point.

He CAN'T state that he saw Stride killed!

If he does then even the senior officers in charge of the Yorkshire Ripper case would have had enough sense to suspect Schwartz.

By claiming he sees her assaulted, but not being killed; he not only vindicates his reason for being there, but he also diverts any focus of suspicion that may otherwise be cast onto him.

In other words, he is saying...

"Just in case I need to explain my prsesnce; I was indeed there at the murder location shortly before the woman was murdered, but lucky for me I saw her being assaulted and thrown to the ground by a drunk man who suddenly attacked her right in front of me. I didn't want to get involved in the domestic and so I crossed the road, but he then focused on me by shouting a slur and he had an accomplice and so I had no choice but to run away for fear of my own life."

But what he's really saying is...

"I was there, but I obviously had no involvement in the murder. That's because I saw another man instead. He was in front of me although I have no idea where he came from. He then waited until I was close to him before he then chose to assault the woman, but the reason why nobody heard her, is because although she made repeated audible sounds; she screamed relatively quietly than would be expected in those circumstances. I crossed the road but as I did, the same man then focused on me. He shouted a slur over to me, but he shouted quietly so only I could hear it. I saw he had an accomplice, so I left the scene by running away. Nobody saw or heard me running away; from Berner Street all the way to the Railway arch, where I stopped...and then had to walk back to Ellen Street because I forgot I'd run past my own house. I think it was my house, you'd have to ask my wife if you can find her. I didn't see what happened to the victim, because I was gone. I can't be the murderer obviously. I also can't commit either way to the guy who assaulted her being the killer, and can't quite work out which side of the road the other guy with the pipe was on, or why I ran to a railway arch that had no correspondence to anything else related to what i've said."