Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

A scream by definition is loud. So a scream but not loudly makes no sense. A bad translation is the best explanation for that.

So, what sort of sounds were they? Were they a sort of sound that is not loud by definition? Like a grunt, perhaps? If so, why mention they were not loud grunts or whatever they were, if they were the sort of sounds that one does not make loudly?

Schwartz seems to be wanting to convey a serious assault but explain away why no one heard anything, at the same time.

If Schwartz did not speak English how could he determine that it was some sort of warning? How would he know they were known to each other? What is your source for that conclusion?

c.d.

He couldn't know for a fact, but "some sort of warning" hints that Schwartz had some sort of capacity for understanding English.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Do you have any evidence to show that Schwartz deliberately sought out the press as opposed to the press seeking him out?

He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter. He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane. The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police.

The interpreter at hand wasn't just a stroke of good luck. Nor was the Star man's ability to find him just a matter of brilliant detective skill.

Do you have any evidence to show that Schwartz benefited from his story financially or became a local hero with people buying him drinks or dinner or did he seem to fade into obscurity. Both those situations can't be true can they?

c.d.

They can indeed both be true, if 'Israel Schwartz' was not his real name.

[c.d.]

So, what sort of sounds were they? Were they a sort of sound that is not loud by definition? Like a grunt, perhaps? If so, why mention they were not loud grunts or whatever they were, if they were the sort of sounds that one does not make loudly?

Schwartz seems to be wanting to convey a serious assault but explain away why no one heard anything, at the same time.

You seem to want to turn poor Schwartz into some kind of fiendishly clever Dr. Moriarty. No other possible explanation I can provide will appease you so it seems rather pointless to continue. You have already made up your mind.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

If what you speculate is true, then why not simply tell police that?

I believe telling the police he walked past at around 12:55, when Fanny saw him, and that he saw men around the entrance to the passageway would throw the whole "discovered at 1am" premise out the window. That he was carrying empty cigarette cartons isnt something he would need to hide, but if he intended to deliver them inside the passageway to a cigarette maker in the cottages and was dissuaded from doing so by several men at the entrance, well.. that wouldnt sit well with what Louis and some others said.

[Michael W Richards]

So, after Schwartz leaves the club with perfect timing to see the street incident that no one else sees or hears, Stride is killed. Then you have men huddled around the deceased at close to 1am, but you also claim the body was found at around the time of the incident. Correct? So, Diemschitz finds the body just after 12:45? Club members then stand around thinking what to do for several minutes, before going for police, contrary to what was stated at the inquest.

One of the problems I have with this is that it requires Mortimer to see Goldstein, after Diemschitz arrives. Wasn't it before she hears the pony and cart? If you maintain that order of events but keep the rest, then the route taken by both Schwartz and Goldstein, into, down, and out of Berner St, becomes coincident in time. Given the sighting of Goldstein and the non-sighting of Schwartz, that could only mean that the two identities were one and the same man.

If you believe the 3 witnesses that said they were by the body around 12:40, with other men, since Fanny does not see what happens with Liz after Smith sees her at 12:35, Fanny may not have been at her door at around 12:40. She doesnt see Eagle return, for one thing. So her not seeing Israel is possible too, and certainly more credible if he is the only one that is on the street heading home, rather than as 1 of 4 people suddenly there.

Ive been accused of insisting that the times are absolutely accurate as stated, which is false, I have insisted only that the times as they are given are not to be subjectively "corrected" in order to make some stories work. The times around 12:40-12:45 are contentious...Eagle arriving, Lave there at the gates, Israel, BSM, Liz and Pipeman are on the street, Issac K, Spooner and Heschberg saying they were by the body in the passage, with Louis already there......Im trying to find out what are the most logical reasons for these accounts to exist without any of the people I just mentioned seeing anyone else there at that time. It is interesting to me that its possible that at around that same contentious time-frame Louis may have arrived.

[Michael W Richards]

It is entirely possible that Woolf Wess translated for Israel Schwartz, as he did for Leon Goldstein. We know Leon was a club member, so.. is that why Woolf might be involved with Israels statement? Maybe Israels home before his wife started moving that day was in one of those passageway cottages, maybe he was a member. No-one, to my knowledge, has found out where Israel was moving from that day.

[Lewis C]

As for Schwartz wanting to shape public opinion, something I think is missing from the analysis of the Star report, especially the mention of the knife, is how this account contrasts with the Echo, Oct 1 report (below). In the Star report, the behaviour of the first man is much milder than in the police report - he merely pushes the woman back into the yard, and then quarrels with her in the darkness. Hardly even an assault by the standards of the day. The second man, however, has a knife rather than a pipe, and he rushes at the 'intruder' after shouting a warning to his 'mate'. The second man is almost more of a villain than the first, in the press account. Why did Schwartz portray the second man in this manner, to the reporter? Does it have something to do with reversing who is the good guy and who is the bad guy, as per the Echo report?

A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the two latter running up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body. Complaint is also made about the difficulty there was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be called from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation. There is, notwithstanding the number who have visited the scene, a complete absence of excitement, although naturally this fresh addition to the already formidable list of mysterious murders forms the general subject of conversation.

[bolding added]

I find it interesting that it says that the secretary couldn't remember his name rather than that he didn't know his name. Is it implying that the secretary knew the man's name at one time and forgot, or is it just a poor choice of words by the journalist?

[Wickerman]

[bolding added]

I find it interesting that it says that the secretary couldn't remember his name rather than that he didn't know his name. Is it implying that the secretary knew the man's name at one time and forgot, or is it just a poor choice of words by the journalist?

It needs to be remembered that Wess had left the club at 12:15, so the fact he was the source for this report means someone else told him the story.
He was not a witness to the chase.
The man referred to was likely Spooner, who returned to the club with Diemschutz. The implication being the two who returned must have been the same two who set off, but that is not what happened.
Diemschutz & Kozebrodski were the ones running, they picked up Spooner in Fairclough St. but, Kozebrodski carried on searching while Diemschutz & Spooner returned to the yard.
Spooner is the one who was not a member, it was his name that Wess could not remember.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You seem to want to turn poor Schwartz into some kind of fiendishly clever Dr. Moriarty. No other possible explanation I can provide will appease you so it seems rather pointless to continue. You have already made up your mind.

c.d.

Poor Schwartz ... turned up to Leman Street station well dressed. He wasn't poor, and his name wasn't Schwartz.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I believe telling the police he walked past at around 12:55, when Fanny saw him, and that he saw men around the entrance to the passageway would throw the whole "discovered at 1am" premise out the window. That he was carrying empty cigarette cartons isnt something he would need to hide, but if he intended to deliver them inside the passageway to a cigarette maker in the cottages and was dissuaded from doing so by several men at the entrance, well.. that wouldnt sit well with what Louis and some others said.

Were the men at the entrance, or around the body? There was nothing to stop Goldstein walking right into the yard, had he intended to. Suppose he had walked in and was immediately persuaded to leave. What might a casual observer on the street have seen?

I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.
...
He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club., A good many young men goes there, of a Saturday night especially.

Your point about what Goldstein was intending to do with the empty cigarette cartons, is a good one.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I find it interesting that it says that the secretary couldn't remember his name rather than that he didn't know his name. Is it implying that the secretary knew the man's name at one time and forgot, or is it just a poor choice of words by the journalist?

I read it as being the former. Interestingly, Joseph Lave was outside at about the right time, was temporarily staying at the club, but was not a member. He did not, of course, claim to chase anyone. Another interesting point about Wess's comments regarding an incident at about 12:45, is that the following edition of Arbeter Fraint supposed that this was the time of the murder. It seems Wess was not talking about events that occurred after the discovery, which Arbeter Fraint placed at 1am.

[GBinOz]

So do I, but doesn't the notion of him conducting some business in the club, amount to a cover-up theory?

Hi Andrew,

I think that Diemshitz either wanted to polish up his testimony from "about his usual time of one o'clock" to exactly one o'clock (Harris clock time), or his memory, after several days, persuaded him that he had seen the clock. Either way, he was not necessarily talking "police time".

I don't see Parcelman's absence as necessarily conspiratorial. He was away (probably in the Loo), Liz was waiting for him, he returned just as she was being murdered, and Wess's reported chase through the streets followed. He may have been chasing BSman, (or Schwartz, or Goldstein, I hear you say), or someone else, but at this stage IMO he was pursuing Pipeman. I think that he didn't come forward because he was a married man having an affair with Liz.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I think that Diemshitz either wanted to polish up his testimony from "about his usual time of one o'clock" to exactly one o'clock (Harris clock time), or his memory, after several days, persuaded him that he had seen the clock. Either way, he was not necessarily talking "police time".

What do you suppose he gained, or hoped to gain, by 'sharpening-up' his arrival time? Is it possible that the 'about' in "about his usual time of one o'clock", was a misquote? Consider this report...

THE STEWARD REPEATS HIS STORY.

There are a pair of iron-studded and iron-capped gates at the entrance to the yard, in which are one or two cottage residences, besides stables. These on Sunday morning, at one o'clock, were open- as is usually the case during the night. The steward of the International and Educational Club reached the gate just as the clock struck one. "It was very dark," he said. "There is no light near here, and the darkness is consequently much more intense between these two walls" - pointing to the walls of the Club and a house on the other side of the yard- "than out in the street. The gate was pushed back, and the wheel of my cart bumped against something. I struck a match to see what it was, but the wind blew it out. However, the flash was enough to show me that the person was on the ground either asleep or dead.

I don't see Parcelman's absence as necessarily conspiratorial. He was away (probably in the Loo), Liz was waiting for him, he returned just as she was being murdered, and Wess's reported chase through the streets followed. He may have been chasing BSman, (or Schwartz, or Goldstein, I hear you say), or someone else, but at this stage IMO he was pursuing Pipeman. I think that he didn't come forward because he was a married man having an affair with Liz.

If Parcelman had business at the club, someone would surely have mentioned him entering and leaving the club at the supposed murder time. Otherwise, you suppose he was using the loo, but then was he also a club member, or did he just use the loo as though it were a public toilet? What happens when he returns from his failed pursuit of the culprit, to find Liz dead? Does he just abandon her, and hope no one sees him leaving the yard, or does he not even bother returning to the scene of the crime? How could he have determined she was dead, so quickly?

Do you suppose Parcelman heard the three non-loud screams, while using the loo, while the people in the club kitchen did not?

Had Parcelman pursued Pipeman, we have Schwartz seemingly chased by Pipeman, who himself is being chased by a married man who is having a secret affair with the victim. What happens to his secret if he catches the killer? The other issue with this desire for secrecy is that Wess was supposedly told the man's name. How did Wess hear of the man's name, but not the police?

[Fiver]

They are journalistic errors, not witness errors. What contradictions do you attribute to Mortimer?

There are contradictions in the Mortimer accounts. We don't know if the sources of these errors are the journalists, the witness, or a combination of the two. But those contradictions do mean we cannot know how accurate any of the accounts are, unless they are confirmed by another source. Leon Goldstein confirmed that he was the man with the black bag. Without that, we would have no proof the Mortimer didn't make him up. Mortimer's account of when Diemschutz arrived is also confirmed by Diemschutz.

Mortimer's accounts do not contradict Schwartz' account. On the other hand, no one confirms Schwartz' account and we don't know how accurately his statement was translated into English.

[Abby Normal]

mortimer saw an innocent witness, leon goldstein walk by some time around the murder. she neither saw the victim nor a suspect. she adds nothing to the case, but obfuscates much. shes basically worthless busybody type non witness. packer lite.