Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No, the problem is having a thought-process which goes along the lines of - if we don’t have an explanation for some action then that action couldn’t have happened. We will never know the answers to most, if not all of these questions.

Firstly, why do you say 5 minutes? Smith said that he saw them at some point between 12.30 and 12.35. So that could have been 12.31with Stride and Parcelman gone by 12.32. That has the incident occurring 13 minutes later. You can do a lot in 13 minutes.

Aside from this timing resulting in Smith returning at some time between Diemschitz returning and Lamb being located, it is also when Charles Letchford said he was walking on Berner St. You will need to move him out of the way for this to work.

Secondly, why do we appear to treat Smith as an absolutely unchallengeable witness? Policemen have been wrong before. Whilst I accept that it’s very likely that he did see Stride it can’t be impossible that at 12.30 at night in a poorly lit street with Smith thinking that his wife was at home in their warm bed and he was trudging around the backstreets that he saw a woman of similar build and dress. He then saw the body and convinced himself that it was the same woman. Who knows?

Smith: I noticed the woman had a flower in her jacket.

As for me supposedly treating Smith as absolutely unchallengeable, try the following...

Why wasn't Smith back at the same spot, close to when he said he was? This is possibly related to the handover of responsibilities from the fixed-duty officer to the beat officer. Smith probably should have been at the top of Berner St at 1am but was 'behind time'. At the inquest he bent the truth a little.

Make sure you forget this overnight, so that you can accuse me of the same thing next week.

Thirdly, can we be sure that Stride was standing in the gateway? Busman was between Schwartz and Stride so he may have assumed that she was standing there because that’s where BSMan halted. Sp perhaps Stride wasn’t standing there; perhaps she was walking north on Berner Street? I made a suggestion that she may have been avoiding BSMan after being seen with him by Marshall so she ducked into the gateway hoping that he hadn’t seen her. But he had. Hence the pulling.

To make sense of Israel Schwartz's account, it is necessary to change it.

Someone leaving the scene and returning a little later isn’t mysterious or unlikely. It’s normal, everyday behaviour.

You're substituting specifics with generics. If the notion of Stride leaving the scene with man and returning minutes later, alone and with no money on her, made sense, this would not be necessary.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And the fact that after all of the research that’s been posted and all of what we know about inquests you still keep harping on about Schwartz non-appearance. It’s simply nonsense. We know that he wasn’t ‘omitted’ because he wasn’t trusted. I’m not going to keep responding on those points about the inquest. I don’t think that we should do stuff just to promote our own viewpoint and anyone who keeps bringing this up is doing just that.

That old chestnut.

After The Star report has anyone found any outcry in the papers as to why Schwartz wasn’t called? No.

Why wasn’t Fanny Mortimer called? Wasn’t she trusted? They called Maxwell to the Kelly inquest and she contradicted the medical evidence.

The CORONER, in summing up, said the jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time.

If the jury did not agree with the coroner on this matter, which witness would be supposed could elucidate this mysterious case? Schwartz? Mortimer? Either way, why would the inquest have to be adjourned again? Has an important witness gone missing?

[GBinOz]

Hi George

Doesn`t Swanson`s summary report (19th Oct?) make it clear that they had not identified Pipeman or BSMan ?
There were snippets in The Star saying that people had been arrested etc etc but that is surely made up newspaper rubbish, or fed to them by the desk Sgt at Leman Street?

Hi Jon,

I have re-read Swanson's report, but am unsure of the content that leads you to conclude that he made it clear that they had not identified Pipeman or BSMan. Can you be more specific please?

There was an extensive marginal note saying that Abberline was suggesting that Schwartz' man need not have been the murderer, and "Police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street & who followed Schwartz". To me, that wording suggests the possibility that they had questioned Pipeman, but YMMV.

Cheers, George

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon,

I have re-read Swanson's report, but am unsure of the content that leads you to conclude that he made it clear that they had not identified Pipeman or BSMan. Can you be more specific please?

There was an extensive marginal note saying that Abberline was suggesting that Schwartz' man need not have been the murderer, and "Police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street & who followed Schwartz". To me, that wording suggests the possibility that they had questioned Pipeman, but YMMV.

Cheers, George

Hi George

Swanson would have mentioned that the men had been identified. The quote you mention seems to be just confirmation that they thought Pipeman was just a bystander, as there is nothing to suggest both men were identified. Wouldn`t this be mentioned in his report ?

Also, Swanson is putting forward the possibility that Stride may have been attacked by someone else after her altercation with BS Man. Would he do this if BS Man was identified ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Aside from this timing resulting in Smith returning at some time between Diemschitz returning and Lamb being located, it is also when Charles Letchford said he was walking on Berner St. You will need to move him out of the way for this to work.

Again, you make the assumption that times were synchronised. Why?

Smith: I noticed the woman had a flower in her jacket.

So you know that Liz Stride was the only woman in the East End wearing a flower? Ok.

As for me supposedly treating Smith as absolutely unchallengeable, try the following...


Make sure you forget this overnight, so that you can accuse me of the same thing next week.

But have you suggested that the woman that he saw wasn’t Stride? If so, I haven’t seen the quote.


To make sense of Israel Schwartz's account, it is necessary to change it.

It can be taken literally.


You're substituting specifics with generics. If the notion of Stride leaving the scene with man and returning minutes later, alone and with no money on her, made sense, this would not be necessary.

What a bizarre statement. You are saying that just because we can’t give a specific reason for those actions it makes them unlikely. Only unlikely actions can be considered unlikely and leaving a spot and returning shortly isn’t one of them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That old chestnut.

The Coroner’s Act is an ‘old chestnut.’ There’s little point in continuing if you are going to make statements like that.

The CORONER, in summing up, said the jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time.

If the jury did not agree with the coroner on this matter, which witness would be supposed could elucidate this mysterious case? Schwartz? Mortimer? Either way, why would the inquest have to be adjourned again? Has an important witness gone missing?

He appears to be saying that there would have been no point in adjourning in inquest in the hope of new evidence being uncovered ie new witnesses coming forward. So he ended it.

Time after time….mystery created where none exists.

[GBinOz]

It may have been 'witnesses' plural in the Star. Not so in the Echo or the People.

Yes, you're quite correct in pointing out this contradiction, but we are by now used to there being contradictions.
I don't quite understand what you mean by 'not actually an "assault"'. If a woman being thrown to the ground is not an assault, what is it?

Hi George.

Would that be because they had reason to doubt the truth of the story?

Hi Andrew,

I believe I addressed some of your points in my post #1133, but I'll cut and paste some of it here:

If BSman was holding Stride's right arm with his left hand, and Stride decided to attempt to break free by spinning in an anti-clockwise direction and pulling her arm away, and when she had achieved about a 135 degree rotation BSman loosened his grip and Stride overbalanced and fell, it would appear to Schwartz that he "spun her around and threw her to the ground". Protestations that are "not very loud" would indicate that Stride wanted to keep their dispute between the two of them rather than express fears for her safety.

Appearances can be deceptive and open to interpretation.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi George

Swanson would have mentioned that the men had been identified. The quote you mention seems to be just confirmation that they thought Pipeman was just a bystander, as there is nothing to suggest both men were identified. Wouldn`t this be mentioned in his report ?

Also, Swanson is putting forward the possibility that Stride may have been attacked by someone else after her altercation with BS Man. Would he do this if BS Man was identified ?

Hi Jon,

I did neglect to put in my post that I think that the indication from Swanson's report was that BSman wasn't identified, but I feel that the tone of the statement regarding Pipeman left the possibility that he was identified and his statement indicated that he was a bystander in a domestic. As Andrew pointed out, there were conflicting press reports on whether it was just Schwartz who witnessed the incident, or it was "those who saw" the incident. Swanson referred to the "numerous statements that were made to police". While the press was inclined to be unreliable, I think that the report that a man was arrested on the basis of the Schwartz description provides enough latitude to suspect that the man was Pipeman, although I can appreciate your reservations in this regard.

Cheers, George

[Sunny Delight]

Hi George

Swanson would have mentioned that the men had been identified. The quote you mention seems to be just confirmation that they thought Pipeman was just a bystander, as there is nothing to suggest both men were identified. Wouldn`t this be mentioned in his report ?

Also, Swanson is putting forward the possibility that Stride may have been attacked by someone else after her altercation with BS Man. Would he do this if BS Man was identified ?

Absolutely correct and one of the reasons we have to be so careful with Newspaper reports. Newspapers were the social media, radio and TV of their day- literally the only place to get the news so we have to be careful and then careful again when evaluating their reports.

It is abundantly clear from Swanson's report that BS man and Pipeman have not been identified.

[Jon Guy]

I did neglect to put in my post that I think that the indication from Swanson's report was that BSman wasn't identified, but I feel that the tone of the statement regarding Pipeman left the possibility that he was identified and his statement indicated that he was a bystander in a domestic. As Andrew pointed out, there were conflicting press reports on whether it was just Schwartz who witnessed the incident, or it was "those who saw" the incident. Swanson referred to the "numerous statements that were made to police". While the press was inclined to be unreliable, I think that the report that a man was arrested on the basis of the Schwartz description provides enough latitude to suspect that the man was Pipeman, although I can appreciate your reservations in this regard.

Hi George

I see where you`re coming from regarding those press reports.
However, in his Oct 19th summary, Swanson writes "Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other".
Which strongly suggests (to me) that neither man had been identified.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Again, you make the assumption that times were synchronised. Why?

Again, you use this as an excuse to move inconvenient witnesses out of the way.

The probability that Letchford was within +/- 5 minutes of his stated times, in well above zero. You have to deny this probability to make your latest scenario work.

So you know that Liz Stride was the only woman in the East End wearing a flower? Ok.

But have you suggested that the woman that he saw wasn’t Stride? If so, I haven’t seen the quote.

So, your defence of Schwartz has become so desperate that you're now seriously entertaining the notion that Smith saw another woman.

It can be taken literally.

So, what explains the constant 'editing'?

What a bizarre statement. You are saying that just because we can’t give a specific reason for those actions it makes them unlikely. Only unlikely actions can be considered unlikely and leaving a spot and returning shortly isn’t one of them.

It is, if one returns to stand alone at the entrance of dark yard in the middle of the night. See what I mean about stripping away specifics, to make your argument seem reasonable?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The Coroner’s Act is an ‘old chestnut.’ There’s little point in continuing if you are going to make statements like that.

Your argument is the old chestnut. The notion that Schwartz was irrelevant to the inquest, is preposterous.

He appears to be saying that there would have been no point in adjourning in inquest in the hope of new evidence being uncovered ie new witnesses coming forward. So he ended it.

You're right, Pipeman is not going to come forward. Nor is he going to be found by the police. Ever.

Time after time….mystery created where none exists.

The coroner said this case was mysterious. I agree. You don't.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again, you use this as an excuse to move inconvenient witnesses out of the way.

The probability that Letchford was within +/- 5 minutes of his stated times, in well above zero. You have to deny this probability to make your latest scenario work.

What are you talking about? Letchford said 12.30. You have no way of knowing how his time compared to other times. Try reading the evidence instead of making it up to suit. Letchford said that he passed at 12.30 and he didn’t mention seeing a couple. Now, of course this doesn’t mean that there 100% wasn’t a couple there as he may have seen them and not mentioned it but if they weren’t there when he passed we have various possibilities. 1) They arrived very shortly after he passed in time for Smith to have seen them at 12.30-12.35, or 2) Smith passed before 12.30 and they moved on before Letchford showed up, or 3) Letchford passed after Smith had passed the couple and after the couple had left. Now, barring any suggestion that the couple had been beamed up by Scotty we can say that it’s at least possible that the couple moved on.

So, your defence of Schwartz has become so desperate that you're now seriously entertaining the notion that Smith saw another woman.

The alternative viewpoint (yours) is that the police were somehow infallible. Those poorly paid, barely trained guys trudging around dark and dangerous backstreets at all hours were all Holmes-like in their observation skills. And that these women were so fashion conscious that they all wore strikingly different garments. If you tried harder Andrew you might be able to come up with sillier notions but I doubt it. I’m not saying that Smith didn’t see Stride, he probably did see Stride, but why, when we know how fallible human beings can be do we not allow this fallibility in supercop Smith. You would rather accept a false witness than a piece of bog standard misidentification.

So, what explains the constant 'editing'?

I’m not going to waste the wear and take on my finger to respond that that. And never again tell me that you don’t try to suggest that all times should be adhered to rigidly because this is clearly what you believe.

It is, if one returns to stand alone at the entrance of dark yard in the middle of the night. See what I mean about stripping away specifics, to make your argument seem reasonable?

My argument is reasonable but then again, any old drivel would seem the height of reasoning when compared to the stuff that you keep wasting everyone’s time with.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your argument is the old chestnut. The notion that Schwartz was irrelevant to the inquest, is preposterous.


Read the Coroners Act. You really don’t know what you’re talking about.

You're right, Pipeman is not going to come forward. Nor is he going to be found by the police. Ever.

Because he was an Illuminati shapeshifter. Yes we know.

The coroner said this case was mysterious. I agree. You don't.

Abberline and the rest of the people running the case believed Schwartz but you don’t.

You’ve misunderstood the Coroner. Hardly a surprise.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

From a report by Abberline, dated November 1:

I beg to report that since a jew named Lipski was hanged for the murder of a jewess in 1887 the name has very frequently been used by persons as mere ejaculation by way of endeavouring to insult the jew to whom it has been addressed, and as Schwartz has a strong jewish appearance I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.
I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say.
There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe.
Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away.
A house to house inquiry was made in Berner Street with a view to ascertain whether any person was seen acting suspiciously or any noise heard on the night in question but without result.
Inquiries have also been made in the neighbourhood but no person named Lipski could be found.

A few points.

Schwartz said he stopped to watch. He did not cross the road prior, to avoid the incident. From Swanson's report we know that he stopped at the gateway. As Schwartz claimed (according to the Star) to have been living on Berner St, what was his purpose in crossing? Were there any residences on the east side of Berner St, south of Fairclough St?

More specifically, Schwartz stopped to look at the man. In 1903, Abberline seems to suppose that witnesses to JtR only saw him from behind. What does that suggest?

The man was ill-using the woman. A minor street hassle? I don't think so.

The only other person seen on the street was opposite to where Schwartz had stopped to watch the man ill-using the woman. Ergo, that person was on the board school side. The notion of a man standing at the doorway of the Nelson to light his pipe, would therefore seem to be incorrect.

It is still unclear to Abberline why the man with the pipe ran in Schwartz's direction. Had Pipeman been identified by the police, his reason for running would have been determined. Ergo, Pipeman has not been identified as of Nov 1.