Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[The Rookie Detective]

Wouldn’t I be within reason to make the following claim if I decided to?:

”I would suggest that we treat anything that Fanny Mortimer said with a fairly sizeable pinch of salt? If she was actually on her doorstep for most of the time between 12.30 and 1.00 why didn’t she see Joseph Lave who at least came to the gateway according to him? Why didn’t she see the couple standing across the street that PC Smith saw? Why didn’t she see Morris Eagle walk past her door at around 12.40 on his way back to the club? Why didn’t she see James Brown go for his supper and then return? Or the couple that he saw on the corner? Why didn’t she see the Schwartz incident? Did none of the above events occur? Or…was it simply an exaggeration on Fanny’s part…or was she making it all up?”

For some reason events in Berner Street are only seen from the point of view of having a question mark over Schwartz? I think that it’s Fanny Mortimer that some people seem determined to make excuses for. She saw Goldstein at some unconfirmed time and Goldstein confirmed that he’d walked along Berner Street on his way home but did he see Fanny on her doorstep as he passed? We have no record of him mentioning it. How do we know that Fanny didn't just see him pass through her window?

We have zero evidence that Fanny spent a single second on her doorstep. Now…I’m not saying that she wasn’t on her doorstep at some point and for an unknown length of time but I find it strange that Schwartz is painted as this almost mythical figure who can’t be trusted and yet Fanny is treated like Catholic’s treat the Pope..as infallible. Why?

And let’s not forget another important point. Just because the Victorian police weren’t a CSI Unit it doesn’t mean that they were the Keystone Cops either. They had local knowledge, experience and a fair measure of common sense and, as they were all local men, they couldn’t have had a stronger motivation to get this man off the streets so that their wives and sisters and girlfriends could feel safe again. Abberline was a highly respected officer who, unlike us, spoke to Schwartz face to face. He looked him in the eye and he believed him. Could he have been wrong? Of course he could, he was human, but he was no easily fooled sap who took in everything that he was told uncritically. The police also interviewed neighbours and locals giving them snippets of information that we aren’t privy to. No police officer that Im aware of suggested that Schwartz was never there. Or that there were plots and plans afoot.

We have no good reason to doubt Schwartz. He could have lied…very little is impossible. He could certainly have been mistaken in some way. But we have no reason to think him a liar. And we have to ask ourselves…have we ever heard of a murder taking place in the street where a man falsely claims to have seen an attack where he can only give a rough description of the attacker…so that we can’t even say that he was trying to implicate a specific person. So even the suggestion in itself is on the extreme ends of the unlikeliness chart.

Some excellent points as always Herlock.


What I would say regarding why Goldstein doesn't see Mortimer; I believe that's because the footsteps she heard may have been Goldstein, and after she immediately went to her door, she observed him as he walked south past the club.
She observed him AFTER he had passed her door, but before he had got as far as the club.

In other words, his had his back to Mortimer at the moment Mortimer saw him just as he approached the club.

Interestingly, this would place Goldstein in the exact same place that Schwartz was said to have observed BS Man.

This would also place Goldstein in the street circa 12.45am.

The same approximate time that Stride was alleged to have been assaulted.

I propose this; Goldstein was "the witness" that saw Lave (Parcelman) cut Stride's throat just inside the gateway

Mortimer saw the man, who saw the man, who killed Stride.

Schwartz is then brought in to mirror the movements of Goldstein and provide an assault time of 12.45am in a bid to rule that out as the time Stride is murdered,

In other words, by Schwartz stating he saw an assault at 12.45am but no murder; then it acts as a perfect piece of reverse psychology.

There is also the fact that despite Goldstein being observed walking around the corner of the board school; the question remains; well why didn't the other couple not see him?
Why does nobody (apart from Mortimer) see Goldstein walk around the corner?


So to summarise...

After Eagle goes into the club, Lave (Parcelman) walks with Stride and crosses the road over to the gateway.

As they enter the gateway, Lave strikes by grabbing her scarf from behind and dragging her downward and backward in the same motion.

At this point Goldstein walks down Berner Street and as he walks past Mortimer's door, he is heard from his measured steps.
Immediately afterwards Mortimer goes to her door and sees Goldstein just moments before he hears a sound from the gateway that makes him instinctively look over to the club.
This head movement is witnessed by Mortimer.
Goldstein sees Lave with his bloodied knife after he has just cut Stride's throat.
Goldstein recognises Lave, but rather than engage, his flight instinct causes him to walk hurriedly around the corner.
Again, this motion is seen by Mortimer.

Lave goes into the club and Goldstein flees

Goldstein then tells Wess who then persuades him to go to the police...but also persuades him to not identify Lave.
Instead, they bring in a professional actor who uses the name of Schwartz to provide a cover story and completely switch focus from one of their own having been the killer.

Lave is then told to say he went as far as the Street, to cover the fact he was seen.

Goldstein is then the witness who refuses to give evidence against his own fellow Jew (Lave)

Diemschitz's timing may also be questionable. The lack of witnesses who saw Diemschitz ride his cart down Berner Street and arrive in the yard; in addition to the fact nobody mentions where they put the horse and cart OR who had moved it by the time Diemschitz had come back outside after initially raising the alarm.

The appearance of Schwartz and his story is not only a means of getting Lave (Parcelman) off the hook for the murder, but it's also a way or mirroring the events witnessed by Goldstein (who was seen and heard by Mortimer) and forming an alternate version of events that acted as a shield to what really transpired.

[The Rookie Detective]

By the way RD, I know that this post was a response to yours but I’m certainly not having a dig at you. It was meant as a general point about attitudes to one witness (Schwartz) compared to another (Mortimer.)

No worries at all Herlock, I would never think that way anyway, so it's all good.

[FISHY1118]

So, the assault and murder occurred over about a 10-minute period - from about 12:45 to 12:55. In this period, both murderer and victim went unnoticed by club attendees, neighbours, and street passers-by. Okay.



Swanson's summary of the incident states, Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen...

For the sake of argument, suppose it said, Before being taken to the mortuary Schwartz described the appearance of the woman he had seen, and this description was acceptably close to the appearance of the deceased.

What would that imply? Suppose that Israel Schwartz killed Stride and made up the story of the two men. As you say, there was no one else around to contradict Schwartz.



We only know of either man through Schwartz. If Pipeman's behaviour is inexplicable, then perhaps the described behaviour of the BS man is not accurate.

Yes to the first point.

Except we know that wasnt the case to the 2nd point .

I,ll respectfully disagree with your 3rd point on the grounds of Very unlikely , and no evidence that supports such a thoery.

[FISHY1118]

Except Mortimer.and Brown and therefore the other couple standing on the corner of the board school were all within earshot and/or visual sightline of the alleged assault at approximately the same time.

And Packer...

Ah okay, forget Packer (sorry Jon)


The point is that you can't have at least 4 other witnesses all located wiithin a proximal radius of the gateway and not one of them HEARS or sees anything OR anyone that Schwartz claims occurred at the same time.


That is unless we delay Mortimer coming to her door by several minutes to allow for Schwartz, Bs man and Pipeman to all leave, place Brown's sighting 5 minutes later than he stated and negate the fact hat there was another couple who were seen by Brown and validated by Mortimer, who were situated within earshot of the murder site for almost the entire duration of the possible kill time, ergo, 12.41am - post 1am.

But at least when Stride was assaulted by an uncharacteristically quiet drunken thug with all the silent grace of a street mime artist who threw her to the floor, she was able to scream several times, but "not very loudly" for anyone (apart from Schwartz) to hear her; even Mortimer who had the ability to hear footsteps but not Stride screaming...and at least when Bs Man shouted "Lipski!" nobody heard it except Schwartz, and then when Schwartz ran off, at least he wasn't seen or heard running by the other couple. Perhaps he had learnt to run silently, unlike the stomping policeman who had walked past Mortimer's door. And of course, when Pipeman appeared, he managed to remain unseen the entire time, and Bs Man was likewise able to walk off without being seen or heard by anyone.


When the question is asked; well why didn't Schwartz appear at the inquest and why haven't we been able to identify who he actually was...the above may give us some reason as to why.


The fact that everyone else's timings has to rotate around Schwartz's 12.45am timing, speaks volumes.

''approximately the same time''.



Its worth remembering the attack on Stride could have lasted as little 30 to 40 seconds . Given the time factor estimates in regards to all witnesses, is possibe they werent there at ''exactly'' the same time as Schwartz to witness what he saw .

[FISHY1118]

Wouldn’t I be within reason to make the following claim if I decided to?:

”I would suggest that we treat anything that Fanny Mortimer said with a fairly sizeable pinch of salt? If she was actually on her doorstep for most of the time between 12.30 and 1.00 why didn’t she see Joseph Lave who at least came to the gateway according to him? Why didn’t she see the couple standing across the street that PC Smith saw? Why didn’t she see Morris Eagle walk past her door at around 12.40 on his way back to the club? Why didn’t she see James Brown go for his supper and then return? Or the couple that he saw on the corner? Why didn’t she see the Schwartz incident? Did none of the above events occur? Or…was it simply an exaggeration on Fanny’s part…or was she making it all up?”

For some reason events in Berner Street are only seen from the point of view of having a question mark over Schwartz? I think that it’s Fanny Mortimer that some people seem determined to make excuses for. She saw Goldstein at some unconfirmed time and Goldstein confirmed that he’d walked along Berner Street on his way home but did he see Fanny on her doorstep as he passed? We have no record of him mentioning it. How do we know that Fanny didn't just see him pass through her window?

We have zero evidence that Fanny spent a single second on her doorstep. Now…I’m not saying that she wasn’t on her doorstep at some point and for an unknown length of time but I find it strange that Schwartz is painted as this almost mythical figure who can’t be trusted and yet Fanny is treated like Catholic’s treat the Pope..as infallible. Why?

And let’s not forget another important point. Just because the Victorian police weren’t a CSI Unit it doesn’t mean that they were the Keystone Cops either. They had local knowledge, experience and a fair measure of common sense and, as they were all local men, they couldn’t have had a stronger motivation to get this man off the streets so that their wives and sisters and girlfriends could feel safe again. Abberline was a highly respected officer who, unlike us, spoke to Schwartz face to face. He looked him in the eye and he believed him. Could he have been wrong? Of course he could, he was human, but he was no easily fooled sap who took in everything that he was told uncritically. The police also interviewed neighbours and locals giving them snippets of information that we aren’t privy to. No police officer that Im aware of suggested that Schwartz was never there. Or that there were plots and plans afoot.

We have no good reason to doubt Schwartz. He could have lied…very little is impossible. He could certainly have been mistaken in some way. But we have no reason to think him a liar. And we have to ask ourselves…have we ever heard of a murder taking place in the street where a man falsely claims to have seen an attack where he can only give a rough description of the attacker…so that we can’t even say that he was trying to implicate a specific person. So even the suggestion in itself is on the extreme ends of the unlikeliness chart.

Probably how i would of responded to this post , but ill leave it

[Wickerman]

Sutcliffe wasn't a Schizophrenic; he used that as a posthumous excuse and played the mental health card that the public believed so as to give some faux sense of understanding as to why he did what he did.

He was a clinical psychopath who killed women because he could and because he wanted to. He felt no remorse and was indifferent as to his actions.

He had the clarity of mind to alter his choice of weapon accordingly and the power he exhibited over his victims is what gave him the kick.

Paranoid Schizophrenics lack the capacity to maintain a "normal" facade.

Sutcliffe was able to lead a relatively "normal" life with no indication of any mental ill health that would be associated with a disorder like Schizophrenia.

All to often in today's society we choose to accept that mental health is the reasoning behind such atrocities. We crave meaning and understanding for everything.

In the case of both Sutcliffe and the Ripper; why did they kill?

Because they could, and nobody stopped them.

Both men were completely aware of what they were doing, controlled, focused and determined.

Not knowing a whole lot about this subject, from what I've read I see some killers get their thrill more from the act of killing, than any subsequent mutilation.
Others, who get their thrill from mutilation often choose the quickest method of killing, because how they die is not relevant. That second type will often kill quickly by a quick stab to the heart, or blow to the head - this was not the Ripper in my view.

This is why evidence of strangling is so important, that is where the Ripper got his thrill.
The choking, watching the life drain at every gasp, he will squeeze, till they nearly pass out, then release, then squeeze again. It is that sense of control that he relishes and probably gives him the most thrill.

The subsequent mutilation is just for shock value, he poses the body and the organs more for effect than any thrill.
Whoever wrote the 'From Hell' letter, got it, the press didn't get it. They published sketches of a killer roaming the streets brandishing a knife. He wasn't that kind of killer, the victims likely never saw the knife.
I don't think for one minute the 'From Hell' writer was the Ripper, but he wrote about eating the kidney, thats 'shock value', that tells me the writer understood the killer.
Shock value is for the cheap seats, what the killer required was personal thrill, which he got from the control he applied over his victim.

Conjecture, naturally, but that is how I see these crimes.

[Wickerman]

......how and why then did he identify a person he never met ?

Once he has told his story, and described all parties involved, then to become presented with the victim's body, he just might feel committed to acknowledging the body as the woman he saw, if it wasn't her he may think the police will treat him as a liar - he might feel too embarrassed to say - "that's not the woman I saw".

[FISHY1118]

Once he has told his story, and described all parties involved, then to become presented with the victim's body, he just might feel committed to acknowledging the body as the woman he saw, if it wasn't her he may think the police will treat him as a liar - he might feel too embarrassed to say - "that's not the woman I saw".

But doesnt it have to be Strides body ? as to continue with the lie regardless . This theory would require Schwartz to have given a detailed description of Stride in his statement to the police ''before'' he viewed the body in the morge. Which of course he did not .

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Except Mortimer.and Brown and therefore the other couple standing on the corner of the board school were all within earshot and/or visual sightline of the alleged assault at approximately the same time.

And Packer...

Ah okay, forget Packer (sorry Jon)


The point is that you can't have at least 4 other witnesses all located wiithin a proximal radius of the gateway and not one of them HEARS or sees anything OR anyone that Schwartz claims occurred at the same time.

Perhaps you've left out the closest, and therefore most important witness, Mrs Diemschitz:

Just about one o'clock on Sunday morning I was in the kitchen on the ground floor of the club, and close to the side entrance, serving tea and coffee for the members who were singing upstairs. Up till then I had not heard a sound-not even a whisper. ...
The door had been, and still was, half open, and through the aperture the light from the gas jets in the kitchen was streaming out into the yard. ...
It was just one o'clock when my husband came home. Some twenty minutes previously a member of the club [Eagle?] had entered by the side door, but he states that he did not then notice anybody lying prostrate in the yard. ...
I am positive I did not hear any screams or sound of any kind. Even the singing on the floor above would not have prevented me from hearing them, had there been any. In the yard itself all was as silent as the grave.

She did not hear screams of any kind, including not very loud ones.

That is unless we delay Mortimer coming to her door by several minutes to allow for Schwartz, Bs man and Pipeman to all leave, place Brown's sighting 5 minutes later than he stated and negate the fact hat there was another couple who were seen by Brown and validated by Mortimer, who were situated within earshot of the murder site for almost the entire duration of the possible kill time, ergo, 12.41am - post 1am.

Mortimer can be delayed coming to her door, but that does not necessarily preclude her from hearing events on the street. Fanny not being able to hear Schwartz and co. when she was inside, is a belief, not a fact.

But at least when Stride was assaulted by an uncharacteristically quiet drunken thug with all the silent grace of a street mime artist who threw her to the floor, she was able to scream several times, but "not very loudly" for anyone (apart from Schwartz) to hear her; even Mortimer who had the ability to hear footsteps but not Stride screaming...and at least when Bs Man shouted "Lipski!" nobody heard it except Schwartz, and then when Schwartz ran off, at least he wasn't seen or heard running by the other couple. Perhaps he had learnt to run silently, unlike the stomping policeman who had walked past Mortimer's door. And of course, when Pipeman appeared, he managed to remain unseen the entire time, and Bs Man was likewise able to walk off without being seen or heard by anyone.

Furthermore, Pipeman not coming forward or being identified is another element of the story that must be explained away.

When the question is asked; well why didn't Schwartz appear at the inquest and why haven't we been able to identify who he actually was...the above may give us some reason as to why.

It would be interesting to determine the number of club members who show up in records, subsequent to the murder. No such luck with the mysterious Israel Schwartz.

The fact that everyone else's timings has to rotate around Schwartz's 12.45am timing, speaks volumes.

Yes

[DJA]

Paranoid Schizophrenics lack the capacity to maintain a "normal" facade.

Absolute nonsense.

Resided opposite one, who often carried a knife, for many years.Often popped over.Sometimes in the early hours to steal from my yard.

Worked with several in the drug and alcohol rehab field.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I propose this; Goldstein was "the witness" that saw Lave (Parcelman) cut Stride's throat just inside the gateway

A problem with Lave being Parcelman is ... the parcel.

Lave: About twenty minutes before the alarm I went down into the yard to get a breath of fresh air.

Why would he take anything with him?

[Wickerman]

But doesnt it have to be Strides body ? as to continue with the lie regardless . This theory would require Schwartz to have given a detailed description of Stride in his statement to the police ''before'' he viewed the body in the morge. Which of course he did not .

If he describes the woman he saw 'after' viewing the body, how will the police know he is not repeating what the body looked like, instead of what the woman he saw looked like?
They have to avoid the possibility of deception by the witness.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Wouldn’t I be within reason to make the following claim if I decided to?:

”I would suggest that we treat anything that Fanny Mortimer said with a fairly sizeable pinch of salt? If she was actually on her doorstep for most of the time between 12.30 and 1.00 why didn’t she see Joseph Lave who at least came to the gateway according to him? Why didn’t she see the couple standing across the street that PC Smith saw? Why didn’t she see Morris Eagle walk past her door at around 12.40 on his way back to the club? Why didn’t she see James Brown go for his supper and then return? Or the couple that he saw on the corner? Why didn’t she see the Schwartz incident? Did none of the above events occur? Or…was it simply an exaggeration on Fanny’s part…or was she making it all up?”

For some reason events in Berner Street are only seen from the point of view of having a question mark over Schwartz? I think that it’s Fanny Mortimer that some people seem determined to make excuses for. She saw Goldstein at some unconfirmed time and Goldstein confirmed that he’d walked along Berner Street on his way home but did he see Fanny on her doorstep as he passed? We have no record of him mentioning it. How do we know that Fanny didn't just see him pass through her window?

We have zero evidence that Fanny spent a single second on her doorstep. Now…I’m not saying that she wasn’t on her doorstep at some point and for an unknown length of time but I find it strange that Schwartz is painted as this almost mythical figure who can’t be trusted and yet Fanny is treated like Catholic’s treat the Pope..as infallible. Why?

In coming to that conclusion, you make unjustified assumptions and then assume others agree with those assumptions.

Why didn't Mortimer see Lave at the gateway? Interesting question, given your belief that Mortimer was only ever at her door post-Smith. The question is only valid if Mortimer was at her door on and off, including pre-Smith. The answer is that Lave at the gateway would be 90 degrees to her right, and thus her view of the gateway is obscured by the door frame.

Not seeing the couple and Eagle, at a similar time, is the difference between most and all of the time between 12:30 and 1am.

Why didn't she see James Brown or the couple on the corner? FM: ...I did not notice anything unusual. Their behaviour on the street was not unusual, so they were not mentioned. This has been pointed out many times.

Why didn't she see the Schwartz incident? For the same reason that no one else saw Stride standing in the gateway - she didn't.

[FISHY1118]

If he describes the woman he saw 'after' viewing the body, how will the police know he is not repeating what the body looked like, instead of what the woman he saw looked like?
They have to avoid the possibility of deception by the witness.

Point being ,he didnt described Stride beforhand so we should work from standpoint. Only Schwartz saw the attack on Stride ,so only he could identify her boy in the Morge as the women he saw with B.S. The viewing of the body afterwards was to confirm to police that it was indeed Stride he witnessed B.S attack. There is no deception on Schwartzs behalf and no evidence to suggest othewise, only speculation . Herlocks post earlier puts it pretty much in perpective as to what the police at the time thought about Schwartz testimony.

[New Waterloo]

We must go with the evidence and statements we have and i would suggest we have lots it just making sense. We will get there if we slow down and think about what people have said, notblamed brings in valuable evidence from Mrs Diemschutz but we musnt jump to conclusions to quickly. She states that she is making tea for those upstairs and that he heard nothing of what went on in the yard. She does not mention that there are several members of the club also downstairs in the front room with front door locked. Did they hear anything. We don't know. Who were these forgotten people. Diemschutz evidences their presence when he announces finding Stride. What does this tell us. This evidence cannot be swept aside. Several members were present downstairs with Mrs Diemschutz.

plans of house would help

NW