Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The idea that she was seemingly laid down and gently placed on the floor, whilst having her neck harshly severed, rings true of 2 separate people having been involved.

Perhaps the couple on the corner...

RD,
what do you make of the following?

The Foreman: Did you notice any marks or bruises about the shoulders?
Dr. Blackwell: They were what we call pressure marks. At first they were very obscure, but subsequently they became very evident. They were not what are ordinarily called bruises; neither is there any abrasion. Each shoulder was about equally marked.

Were these pressure marks caused by the pressure of thumbs (or fingers)? I would imagine had this been the case the marks would have been like ordinary bruises, and larger in area than the perpetrators thumb-print. Instead, it seems these marks were very small in area, as though she had been prodded above each shoulder with some sort of implement. Of what kind I'm leaving to your imagination...

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, the claim by yourself and others that Mortimer said contradictory things, has yet to be justified.

I said this because I thought that I’d read a newspaper report or two that differed slightly but I’m not prepared to trawl through to prove or disprove this. If it’s not the case then I’m quite happy to admit error (admitting to error tends to be a bit of a rarity these days)

The important point though is that we don’t know how long this ‘nearly the whole time’ was. As she was inside before she came onto her doorstep we have no way of knowing how long she had been inside so we can’t assess this ‘nearly the whole time’ was.

Your "we can't be certain of exact times" argument is a red herring. Exactness is not required. Had Mortimer gone to her door after hearing Smith pass, and not seen Stride standing in the gateway a few yards to her right at any point, is a problem for Schwartz.

We don’t know what time Goldstein passed or what time Stride arrived so I don’t see why this is an issue?

You seem to be forgetting Goldstein.

Above.

That means you believe Mortimer hearing the altercation and shout of 'Lipski' is a definite possibility, otherwise you must be certain she was not in a location that put her in hearing range, which would obviously contradict this "can't be certain" claim. It's true that we can't be certain, but if Mortimer heard those footsteps, and after locking up was preparing for bed and her room was downstairs-front, the chances are she would have heard the incident. She didn't though, and neither did anyone else.

If you marked deductions on the basis of ‘chances are’ then little can be done. She could have been anywhere in the house or even in the outside loo for all that we know. That she didn’t see or hear the incident means that she didn’t see or hear the incident, nothing more. It’s not relevant.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or he might not have been. You're only prepared to consider possibilities that are compatible with what you already believe.

No. I’m just not prepared to consider silly plots.

[Darryl Kenyon]

RD,
what do you make of the following?

The Foreman: Did you notice any marks or bruises about the shoulders?
Dr. Blackwell: They were what we call pressure marks. At first they were very obscure, but subsequently they became very evident. They were not what are ordinarily called bruises; neither is there any abrasion. Each shoulder was about equally marked.

Were these pressure marks caused by the pressure of thumbs (or fingers)? I would imagine had this been the case the marks would have been like ordinary bruises, and larger in area than the perpetrators thumb-print. Instead, it seems these marks were very small in area, as though she had been prodded above each shoulder with some sort of implement. Of what kind I'm leaving to your imagination...

Hi NBN

If Liz was strangled from behind by having her scarf pulled tight , her head would jerk backwards I believe. If this happened after her killer let go of the scarf he could have caught her by the shoulders [ one hand either side ], and lowered Liz to the ground this way thus producing the marks what Dr Blackwell observed.
Just a working observation of mine.

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

One of the main objections of BSM being Jack is would Jack act the way BS did pre murder . That I agree with, but that's were I start to disagree also, IE BS wasn't Liz's murderer.

Who was he ? Well the main suspect seems to be Kidney. Fair enough but surely he would know he would be seen as the number 1 suspect, with his and Liz's relationship being tempestuous at best. So here is a man [ Kidney ], who does not seem bothered in the slightest that at least one witness saw him assault Liz a few minutes before she was murdered . And what if someone like Fanny Mortimer had seen him leave Dutfield's yard 10/15 mins after Schwartz alleged sighting ? He would swing no doubt about it. Would Kidney take that chance ? And what was Liz doing going into a darkened yard with him anyways ? A man like him who has been known and just has again assaulted her. Not for me .

The other main option for BS is a disgruntled customer , but much of the same above to me applies again. Liz going into a darkened yard with someone who has just thrown her to the ground, a man who must know that he could be identified if the finger of suspicion was thrown at him and doesn't seem bothered about witnesses and what they may or may not have seen, the cry of Lipski puts that to bed. And as I have posted before Liz seems to be completely off guard to any kind of assault, cachous in hand , no defence wounds, no ripped clothing .

Just my opinion and nothing is 100% in this case, but I view BS as highly unlikely to have been Liz's killer.

As for Schwartz I have never been completely convinced by his statement, or statements if you like [ Pall Mall Gazette ],that he saw what he saw when he said he saw it. As other posters have pointed out, it could just have been a domestic altercation at an earlier time with Schwartz misidentifying Liz . It does happen [ Tanner's sighting of Robert Murat in the Madeline Mcann case for instance ], and it may explain why there is no concrete evidence why Pipeman ever came forward. IE An earlier time .

Just a few thoughts of mine .

Regards Darryl

[Michael W Richards]

Some seem more comfortable with dismissing times given by witnesses as simply incorrect or improperly estimated, but the reality here is you only have the times that are given by witnesses for events and activities, and unless some alternate source of information has been discovered, thats all. So to state that times were wrong as given and that the fact they vary in some cases by 20 minutes or more isnt significant is misleading. Some accounts agree with each other, some dont. But the times given are what we have to work with, not what we imagine the times actually were.

When a witness says 12:35 am for example, we have to assess how he came to that conclusion and what sources did he reference. In this example we have a time by a witness who is on a timed work schedule, and was wearing a watch. Its a credible time by a credible source, no-one ever suggested that this or any time source is synchronized with any other source, it just is what it is. Thats the time he believed it was. Not all have access to watches but many have access to time sources in houses and clubs. One club witness said he arrived back at the club at "half past" 12. He says that "about" 10 minutes later he was summoned to the passageway. In the passageway with others, who came from inside the club or the cottages, he was "sent for help BY (not with), Louis or some other member". After a fruitless few minutes looking he sees Eagle also looking for help and they meet up with PC Lamb. The policeman, someone who is also on a timed work schedule, estimates this to have been "just before 1". The Arbeter Fraint later that month covered the event and stated that at "around " 12:45 the woman was discovered. Another club witness also states he had a similar experience at "around" 12:40. A witness off the street also gives a time "around" 12:40 for his following of men out on the street seeking help. They all say that they saw the woman there, and that Louis was there too.

Again, using only what is in evidence... without any attempts at guessing what time it actually was...you are left with serious questions concerning Louis Diemshitz statement, which, in his words, was that he "arrived at precisely" 1am. He said he had checked a public access clock on the way to the club. Whether that source matched PC Lambs watch, or the clock inside the club, or a mantel clock in Fannys house isnt something that anyone would expect, but one could reasonable expect that of all the available time sources for all the witnesses they would not disagree with each other by more than 20 minutes. 5 minutes here, 2 minutes there, not a major problem nor an unwarranted assumption. But 20 minutes..or more?

Question: If Louis was correct, that by the clock he referred to his arrival at the club was at precisely 1am, and he was the first to discover Liz Stride there, then at what approximate time would the first party be sent for help?
Question: How much time approximately would elapse while Louis runs inside to see his wife, yells up to the men upstairs, and is joined by some men in the passageway?
Question: How long were the men in the search parties searching for before Eagle spots Lamb?
Question: What time approximately is notification sent to the station to summon Blackwell via Johnson?
Question: Who sends someone to notify the station of the event?
Question: At what time does Johnson arrive, then Blackwell?
Question: Of the three witnesses that stated they were there at approximately 12:40 how many would have used the same time source reference in their estimate?
Question: If Issac Kozebrodskis statement that he was "sent" by Louis or some other member, then why isnt that event mentioned in the same way that Louis and Issac[s] and Eagles search for help is?
Question: Can Lamb be there "just before 1am", Johnson be there by 1:10am, Blackwell by 1:16am, if the people initially sent out for help dont even leave that passageway looking for help until sometime after 1:05am?

When PC Lamb comes to the gates with Eagle, having been joined by Issac K on the way there, he sends Eagle to fetch an Inspector from the Leman Street station. Once he has done that, word is sent to Johnson, then Blackwell. If Eagle and Lamb do not meet on the street until a time shortly after Louis says he arrived, by virtue of Louis's timing of 1am, when would that have been? They first leave for help around 1:05...spend 5-10 minutes running about seeking a policeman, find Lamb, and head to the gates. That would make their arrival with Lamb between 1:10-1:15, and that Eagle is not even sent to notify Leman Station until after that time.

So how does PC Lamb, a cop who is mandated to track his time and is wearing a watch, arrive at the gates with Eagle and Issac K at just before 1...approximately, and Johnson, who gets a call at home where he surely has access to a time source, arrive in the passageway at 1:10 as he stated. It would seem obvious that by using Louis's statement no other witness to Stride found in the passageway can be correct. Not the 3 witnesses who all said approx 12:40 discovery, not Lamb who said he was there just before 1, not Johnson who is on site at 1:10, (which is after first waking up to the call, getting dressed and down to the site),.. nor Blackwell, who is wearing a watch and says 1:16am.

I know its a long post but Ive tried to politely deal with people who think they can arbitrarily change or dismiss witnesses based on the belief that Louis is the only trustworthy source for time. I just wanted to properly illustrate that based on the existing evidence, without any arbitrary manipulation by anyone...(you know who you are), it would appear that Louis is almost certainly incorrect. Intentionally or accidentally.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The above can be dismissed as an exercise in justifying things that aren’t the case. If we take the times as they are stated purely because that’s what they said then it cannot remotely be called an honest or reasonable approach to take. This is so obvious and so basic that it shouldn’t require repeating on a forum for adult posters. Everyone can see this and everyone accepts it accept for one or two people who are invested in the idea that there was ‘dirty work afoot,’ and all manner of unbelievable and baseless plots were going on in Berner Street.

The very least we should expect is the facts being stated correctly. For example, we get this ‘convenient’ assertion:

. So how does PC Lamb, a cop who is mandated to track his time and is wearing a watch

Yet at the inquest Lamb himself tells us:

“Yes, and only the soles of them. There were no signs of a struggle. Some of the blood was in a liquid state, and had run towards the kitchen door of the club. A little - that nearest to her on the ground - was slightly congealed. I can hardly say whether any was still flowing from the throat. Dr. Blackwell was the first doctor to arrive; he came ten or twelve minutes after myself, but I had no watch with me.”

Now, I fully expect this point to be ignored or glossed over but I’ll wait and see if an error is admitted for a change.

Furthermore, if we take these statements of time at face value then how do we square Spooner saying:

“I believe it was twenty-five minutes to one o'clock when I arrived in the yard.”

And yet in the very same statement he says:

“ I stood by the side of the body for four or five minutes, until the last witness arrived.”

This last witness was Lamb of course. Michael naturally wants us to take 12.35 as the time that he arrived because that is the time mentioned and he believes that we are obliged to consider them accurate because they exist in writing but I doubt that he’ll be able to find a way of justifying Lamb allegedly arriving at the yard at 12.40 (or 5 minutes after Spooner got to the yard)

This is just one way among many that shows how unreliable times were. I know it, everyone on here and their dogs knows it except for those with a script to follow.

Not to accept a margin for error on timings is manipulation. It’s the falsification of reality to suit a purpose. Misinformation should not be considered acceptable. We have to look at events reasonably and with a large slice of common sense and a little less fictional drama. How much time do we have to waste on this nonsense? How much time spent constantly re-stating what’s obvious to all?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apparently in 1874 the government set the pub closing times in London at 12.30 am. As Schwartz mentions seeing the man lighting his pipe apparently in the doorway of the Lord Nelson doesn’t this at least suggest the real possibility that the pub was still open and that Pipeman had just exited when the Schwartz incident occurred? I, and others, have suggested before that it’s possible that Schwartz was simply mistaken about the time that he’d seen the incident.

So why couldn’t it be possible that the incident took place sometime just before 12.30 and that it was entirely unconnected to Stride?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Apparently in 1874 the government set the pub closing times in London at 12.30 am. As Schwartz mentions seeing the man lighting his pipe apparently in the doorway of the Lord Nelson doesn’t this at least suggest the real possibility that the pub was still open and that Pipeman had just exited when the Schwartz incident occurred? I, and others, have suggested before that it’s possible that Schwartz was simply mistaken about the time that he’d seen the incident.

So why couldn’t it be possible that the incident took place sometime just before 12.30 and that it was entirely unconnected to Stride?

Agreed Herlock. I know Mrs Mortimer is a contentious witness and she could have completely missed the Schwartz incident even if it happened when Schwartz said it did. But her not being on her doorstep [ before 12:30 ], by her own estimation would clear that up. Also the sighting by James Brown wouldn't conflict. Yes he may not have seen Liz , but he didn't see Schwartz hurrying down the street past the crossroads at Fairclough st neither.

Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agreed Herlock. I know Mrs Mortimer is a contentious witness and she could have completely missed the Schwartz incident even if it happened when Schwartz said it did. But her not being on her doorstep [ before 12:30 ], by her own estimation would clear that up. Also the sighting by James Brown wouldn't conflict. Yes he may not have seen Liz , but he didn't see Schwartz hurrying down the street past the crossroads at Fairclough st neither.

Regards Darryl

It seems to be at least a possibility Darryl. We don’t know how he arrived at his 12.45 time and people do make these kinds of errors. Pipeman might have stood in a doorway to light his pipe as he was passing or he might have just left the pub. Both equally possible I’d say.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The above can be dismissed as an exercise in justifying things that aren’t the case. If we take the times as they are stated purely because that’s what they said then it cannot remotely be called an honest or reasonable approach to take. This is so obvious and so basic that it shouldn’t require repeating on a forum for adult posters. Everyone can see this and everyone accepts it accept for one or two people who are invested in the idea that there was ‘dirty work afoot,’ and all manner of unbelievable and baseless plots were going on in Berner Street.

The very least we should expect is the facts being stated correctly. For example, we get this ‘convenient’ assertion:



Yet at the inquest Lamb himself tells us:

“Yes, and only the soles of them. There were no signs of a struggle. Some of the blood was in a liquid state, and had run towards the kitchen door of the club. A little - that nearest to her on the ground - was slightly congealed. I can hardly say whether any was still flowing from the throat. Dr. Blackwell was the first doctor to arrive; he came ten or twelve minutes after myself, but I had no watch with me.”

Now, I fully expect this point to be ignored or glossed over but I’ll wait and see if an error is admitted for a change.

Furthermore, if we take these statements of time at face value then how do we square Spooner saying:

“I believe it was twenty-five minutes to one o'clock when I arrived in the yard.”

And yet in the very same statement he says:

“ I stood by the side of the body for four or five minutes, until the last witness arrived.”

This last witness was Lamb of course. Michael naturally wants us to take 12.35 as the time that he arrived because that is the time mentioned and he believes that we are obliged to consider them accurate because they exist in writing but I doubt that he’ll be able to find a way of justifying Lamb allegedly arriving at the yard at 12.40 (or 5 minutes after Spooner got to the yard)

This is just one way among many that shows how unreliable times were. I know it, everyone on here and their dogs knows it except for those with a script to follow.

Not to accept a margin for error on timings is manipulation. It’s the falsification of reality to suit a purpose. Misinformation should not be considered acceptable. We have to look at events reasonably and with a large slice of common sense and a little less fictional drama. How much time do we have to waste on this nonsense? How much time spent constantly re-stating what’s obvious to all?

I’ll just highlight in red my prediction made around 22 hours ago. Looks like my crystal ball is working well.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi NBN

If Liz was strangled from behind by having her scarf pulled tight , her head would jerk backwards I believe. If this happened after her killer let go of the scarf he could have caught her by the shoulders [ one hand either side ], and lowered Liz to the ground this way thus producing the marks what Dr Blackwell observed.
Just a working observation of mine.

Regards Darryl

Darryl,
how many pressure marks do you suppose were on each shoulder? One (thumb)? Five (fingers)? Or something else?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

One of the main objections of BSM being Jack is would Jack act the way BS did pre murder . That I agree with, but that's were I start to disagree also, IE BS wasn't Liz's murderer.

If he wasn't the murderer, and he was real, then the problem becomes that Stride continues to stand in the gateway, with BSM presumably departing. When, in the sequence of events, does Stride begin standing in the gateway, and when does she no longer do so? What is the approximate elapsed time? Why does no one else see her during this time span?

Who was he ? Well the main suspect seems to be Kidney. Fair enough but surely he would know he would be seen as the number 1 suspect, with his and Liz's relationship being tempestuous at best. So here is a man [ Kidney ], who does not seem bothered in the slightest that at least one witness saw him assault Liz a few minutes before she was murdered . And what if someone like Fanny Mortimer had seen him leave Dutfield's yard 10/15 mins after Schwartz alleged sighting ? He would swing no doubt about it. Would Kidney take that chance ? And what was Liz doing going into a darkened yard with him anyways ? A man like him who has been known and just has again assaulted her. Not for me .

The other main option for BS is a disgruntled customer , but much of the same above to me applies again. Liz going into a darkened yard with someone who has just thrown her to the ground, a man who must know that he could be identified if the finger of suspicion was thrown at him and doesn't seem bothered about witnesses and what they may or may not have seen, the cry of Lipski puts that to bed. And as I have posted before Liz seems to be completely off guard to any kind of assault, cachous in hand , no defence wounds, no ripped clothing .

Just my opinion and nothing is 100% in this case, but I view BS as highly unlikely to have been Liz's killer.

All good points

As for Schwartz I have never been completely convinced by his statement, or statements if you like [ Pall Mall Gazette ],that he saw what he saw when he said he saw it. As other posters have pointed out, it could just have been a domestic altercation at an earlier time with Schwartz misidentifying Liz . It does happen [ Tanner's sighting of Robert Murat in the Madeline Mcann case for instance ], and it may explain why there is no concrete evidence why Pipeman ever came forward. IE An earlier time .

If the incident had occurred while the club event was in full swing, we might understand why nothing was heard. That would mean prior to midnight, however. The problem then becomes why Schwartz, Wess and Arbeter Fraint all mention an event around 12:45. It would be as though an event has been 'lifted' from one point in time and moved to another. Interestingly, Fanny Mortimer mentioned seeing a man pass through the street, previously. What did she mean by that?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Agreed Herlock. I know Mrs Mortimer is a contentious witness and she could have completely missed the Schwartz incident even if it happened when Schwartz said it did. But her not being on her doorstep [ before 12:30 ], by her own estimation would clear that up. Also the sighting by James Brown wouldn't conflict. Yes he may not have seen Liz , but he didn't see Schwartz hurrying down the street past the crossroads at Fairclough st neither.

Regards Darryl

I don't think it is correct to say that Fanny was not at her doorstep before 12:30. All we know from the quotes is that she claimed to be at her doorstep a lot of the 12:30-1:00am period. Where she was at 10, 11 and 12 o'clock (as examples), is indeterminate.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

When PC Lamb comes to the gates with Eagle, having been joined by Issac K on the way there, he sends Eagle to fetch an Inspector from the Leman Street station. Once he has done that, word is sent to Johnson, then Blackwell. If Eagle and Lamb do not meet on the street until a time shortly after Louis says he arrived, by virtue of Louis's timing of 1am, when would that have been? They first leave for help around 1:05...spend 5-10 minutes running about seeking a policeman, find Lamb, and head to the gates. That would make their arrival with Lamb between 1:10-1:15, and that Eagle is not even sent to notify Leman Station until after that time.

The Irish Times tells us:

The information of the crime reached Leman street Police Station at ten minutes past 1 o'clock, and Dr. Phillips, of 2 Spital square, the divisional police surgeon, was immediately communicated with.

If this is assumed to be correct, then an arrival time of 1:00 for Diemschitz does make the timeline rather tight, if not break it completely. A more realistic arrival time might be 12:55. Had Fanny locked a few minutes prior and seen Goldstein a few minutes prior to that, she would have seen him just after 12:45.