Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[c.d.]

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.

Oh my! I am going to go out on a limb here and predict you will soon be hearing from Michael Richards and he is not going to be happy with what you wrote. Best be prepared for it.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Oh my! I am going to go out on a limb here and predict you will soon be hearing from Michael Richards and he is not going to be happy with what you wrote. Best be prepared for it.

c.d.

lol! actually its worse than that because goldstein wasnt even a witness, he was another non witness ha!

[Fiver]

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.

No one should hang a theory on the newspaper accounts of what Mortimer is supposed to have said, but she did hear Diemshutz' cart arrive at the time he said he arrived.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No one should hang a theory on the newspaper accounts of what Mortimer is supposed to have said, but she did hear Diemshutz' cart arrive at the time he said he arrived.

By analysing the account you refer to, and comparing to the inquest testimony of PC Smith, we could come up with two broad scenarios. Here's the account...

A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

Scenario one assumes these times are about right. Fanny is on her doorstep from about 12:45 - just after Smith passes - to about 12:55. Seemingly, no Schwartz incident is observed because none occurs. The time between 12:55 and Diemschitz turning into Berner St is therefore the critical period. Stride and her killer arrive at the murder location in this sub-5-minute period. In this scenario, PC Smith's time estimate is well over 5 minutes early.

Scenario two assumes that PC Smith was correct about seeing the victim with a man at about 12:35. In this scenario, a ~10-minute doorstep vigil will have Fanny locking-up just before 12:50, and Diemschitz arriving just after 12:50. Once again, no Schwartz incident is observed. One of the following could have occurred:

A) The Schwartz incident occurs at about 12:50 - too late for Fanny to see it and too early for Diemschitz. Had Fanny been getting ready for bed in the front room, ground floor, the incident must have been very quiet for her not to hear it, given that she earlier heard a passing policeman while inside. However, BS Man must be the killer - there is not enough time for another man to come along.

B) The Schwartz incident occurred before Smith sees Stride with Parcelman, so around 12:30. It had nothing to do with the murder, unless BS Man leaves and returns. Charles Letchford placed himself on Berner St at this time. B is also compatible with scenario one.

C) The man Fanny did see, just before locking up - Leon Goldstein - went to the police using the pseudonym 'Israel Schwartz' and gave a highly exaggerated account of what he had witnessed.

D) Fanny, Diemschitz, and others, were not so incorrect about the discovery/alarm time, and Fanny was actually at her door for 15 to 20 minutes, not 10, after Smith passes. This again means she could not have missed Schwartz, unless Schwartz was Goldstein.

When considering these scenarios and sub-scenarios, I like to keep in mind that witnesses reported seeing a long flow of blood, just after the discovery. That might preclude a murder close to 1am, and it might explain why Fanny does not see victim or murderer enter the gates, if they had entered the yard quite a bit earlier. Entering the yard quite a bit earlier most likely means Stride and Parcelman entering the yard, just before Fanny gets to her door, making Parcelman the probable killer. Making this coalesce with the Schwartz incident is left to your imagination.

[Michael W Richards]

Oh my! I am going to go out on a limb here and predict you will soon be hearing from Michael Richards and he is not going to be happy with what you wrote. Best be prepared for it.

c.d.

Hey cd, its just an opinion, which seems to negate the value in having yet another witness corroborating that, aside from Leon, no-one was seen on the street after 12:35. that last half hour. Lave saw no-one, Eagle saw non-one, the young couple saw no-one, Fanny saw no-one, but Israel says he and 3 other people including the soon to be victim were there during that time. They seem to appear when he says, and simply disappear before any proof of their existence can be established.

[Michael W Richards]

Something that is often repeated here is what Fanny says she heard. What isnt accompanying those remarks is the disclaimer that what Fanny believes the sounds represented isnt relevant. She heard "bootsteps", and characterized the type of sound she associated it with, and she heard a cart and pony, she did not see which direction it was headed or who was driving it. In the case of this murder investigation, seeing is believing. If one person sees something that seems important and no-one else does, it seems wiser to question the individual source rather than multiple accounts which to a large extent substantiate each other.

[Lewis C]

By analysing the account you refer to, and comparing to the inquest testimony of PC Smith, we could come up with two broad scenarios. Here's the account...

A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

Scenario one assumes these times are about right. Fanny is on her doorstep from about 12:45 - just after Smith passes - to about 12:55. Seemingly, no Schwartz incident is observed because none occurs. The time between 12:55 and Diemschitz turning into Berner St is therefore the critical period. Stride and her killer arrive at the murder location in this sub-5-minute period. In this scenario, PC Smith's time estimate is well over 5 minutes early.

Scenario two assumes that PC Smith was correct about seeing the victim with a man at about 12:35. In this scenario, a ~10-minute doorstep vigil will have Fanny locking-up just before 12:50, and Diemschitz arriving just after 12:50. Once again, no Schwartz incident is observed. One of the following could have occurred:

A) The Schwartz incident occurs at about 12:50 - too late for Fanny to see it and too early for Diemschitz. Had Fanny been getting ready for bed in the front room, ground floor, the incident must have been very quiet for her not to hear it, given that she earlier heard a passing policeman while inside. However, BS Man must be the killer - there is not enough time for another man to come along.

B) The Schwartz incident occurred before Smith sees Stride with Parcelman, so around 12:30. It had nothing to do with the murder, unless BS Man leaves and returns. Charles Letchford placed himself on Berner St at this time. B is also compatible with scenario one.

C) The man Fanny did see, just before locking up - Leon Goldstein - went to the police using the pseudonym 'Israel Schwartz' and gave a highly exaggerated account of what he had witnessed.

D) Fanny, Diemschitz, and others, were not so incorrect about the discovery/alarm time, and Fanny was actually at her door for 15 to 20 minutes, not 10, after Smith passes. This again means she could not have missed Schwartz, unless Schwartz was Goldstein.

When considering these scenarios and sub-scenarios, I like to keep in mind that witnesses reported seeing a long flow of blood, just after the discovery. That might preclude a murder close to 1am, and it might explain why Fanny does not see victim or murderer enter the gates, if they had entered the yard quite a bit earlier. Entering the yard quite a bit earlier most likely means Stride and Parcelman entering the yard, just before Fanny gets to her door, making Parcelman the probable killer. Making this coalesce with the Schwartz incident is left to your imagination.

Hi Andrew,

It seems that what both of these scenarios have in common is that they both have Mortimer going to her doorstep immediately after PC Smith passed, making it impossible for the Schwartz incident to have occurred after PC Smith passed but before Mortimer was at her door. I think that we should allow for the possibility that there was enough time for that. One way that that could happen is if Mortimer didn't really get to her door quite as quickly as her account makes it sound like she did. Another way is if the sound that she thought was a policeman passing was really something else.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

It seems that what both of these scenarios have in common is that they both have Mortimer going to her doorstep immediately after PC Smith passed, making it impossible for the Schwartz incident to have occurred after PC Smith passed but before Mortimer was at her door. I think that we should allow for the possibility that there was enough time for that. One way that that could happen is if Mortimer didn't really get to her door quite as quickly as her account makes it sound like she did. Another way is if the sound that she thought was a policeman passing was really something else.

Hi LC.

Those possibilities fall outside the range of possibilities that the quoted report strictly allows for. Otherwise, I agree. Having said that, extending Mrs Mortimer's 10-minute doorstep stay also contradicts that report, but presumably this was a subjective estimate. The question is, how accurate is that report regarding its general points? Most members seem to discard anything Walter Dew had to say, including this ...

Just as she was about to re-enter her cottage the woman heard the approach of a pony and cart. She knew this would be Lewis Dienschitz, the steward of the club. He went every Saturday to the market, returning about this hour of the early morning.

So, no gap between lockup and the arrival of the steward, according to Dew. If this is wrong and the report is correct, then just maybe the report is also correct about Fanny going to her door on hearing Smith pass by. Only 2A above allows for this to occur and a 'genuine' Schwartz incident to also occur, post-Smith.

[Michael W Richards]

A sound heard, that to the listener "sounded like" something definable, isnt proof that what they envision made the sound actually did. Or whom. Its an interpretation of what was heard, not a verification of what that sound was. In Mortimers case its important to not limit what you think her actual time at her doorstep was that last half hour, it cannot be established by her statement. She does however say "nearly the whole time". We know she was at her door when Goldstein is seen, but thats really the extent of the "knowns" about her time viewing the street.

But we dont know she heard Smith passing, nor do we know that she heard Louis arriving. She heard sounds she interpreted.

[Fiver]

If Louis had arrived when he said he did witnesses like Lamb, Johnson and Blackwell could not have been correct with their times, isnt compelling enough for some to rethink their objection to the idea. It doesnt take a genuis to determine that all the times as they have been given cannot be, particularly when the times are differing by as much as 20 minutes from witness to witness for the same event. So some people choose a preferred source I suppose. Id rather use the majority times and events myself, when something from one witness can be substantiated by another witness, and in one case here, by 3 witnesses...well, lets just say the numbers favour the likely facts here.

* Diemschutz' time is supported by the majority of witnesses, including Fanny Mortimer.

* PC Lamb's time estimate disagrees with Diemshutz, but neither supports nor disagrees with the time estimates of Blackwell and Johnson.

* Dr Blackwell had a watch. Johnson agreed with his timing. They disagreed with Diemschutz about the time they arrived. They neither agreed with nor disagreed with Diemshutz' time for finding the body.

[Fiver]

The word "Ripper" is the key to what I posted, thats all. She was in no way "ripped". But Polly was, Annie was, Kate was and Mary...well, thats a whole new kettle of fish. Strides death, not what you perceive are similar peripheral circumstances, is unlike any other alleged Ripper murder. And the C5 is just a theory, just like many others here.

It's the perception of the coroner in the Stride Inquest. Your claim that "no-one has ever seriously suggested that Liz Strides murder appears to have been done by a "Ripper" is provably false. The Coroner at the Stride Inquest very clearly pointed out the similarities to the other Ripper murders - lack of traditional motive, victim type, time and location of the murder, method of murder, and ability to kill and escape afterwards undetected.

[Fiver]

Dr Blackwell, quoted from the Stride Inquest reported in the Daily Telegraph on October 2nd, "I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way. The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground. The blood would have spurted about if the act had been committed while she was standing up."

"As she was falling".......consider the cuts made on the scarf that mirrored the throat cut. The scarf was tight and twisted when the cut was made. It fits with a cut being made while he choked her. You seem to think that this murder has a lot in common with the other C5 victims, tell me, in which murders is it suggested that the victim was not on her back lying down when the first throat cut, (one of 2 throat cuts made on every other victim), was made?

You continue to selectively quote the evidence.

"I have come to a conclusion as to the position of both the murderer and the victim, and I opine that the latter was seized by the shoulders and placed on the ground, and that the murderer was on her right side when he inflicted the cut." - Dr Phillips

"...it was clear from the appearance of the blood on the ground that the throat was not cut until after she was actually on her back." - Coroner Baxter

Why do you repeatedly ignore the conclusions of Dr Phillips and Coroner Baxter? Why do you ignore the part of Dr Blackwell's testimony where he says she could have been killed "when she was on the ground."?

[Fiver]

If Israel was actually leaving the club by the side door and saw a woman and a man partially obscured by the open gate near the wall, and then saw some aggression and slid past them to the street and scurried on home, I think that could be reasonable. It would address his less than believable story for being there at that time, it would address the fact that none of this is seen from the street, and it would explain why the club staff might want to handle this carefully. It would place the killer in the passageway with the victim on the spot where it happens near the time it is suggested it happened by Blackwell,........so why then place it off the property in the street and hint that the surly man is Antisemitic? Self explanatory? Did Wess translate for him, as he did Goldstein? Is this something that a translator might have had opportunity to do....tailor the story to fit the requirements of the club? I think its a compelling line of thought.

If the club wanted to "tailor the story" why did they all say that they didn't see anyone?

[JeffHamm]

If the club wanted to "tailor the story" why did they all say that they didn't see anyone?

The other issue is that Shwartz's statement to the police doesn't hint that B.S. is antisimetic, rather, Schwatz's statement if anything implies the offender is Jewish because according to Schwartz "Lipski" was shouted to Pipeman, as if B.S. was calling Pipeman's name. It was the police who thought that perhaps Schwartz misunderstood the situation and introduced the notion that "Lipski" was shouted at Schwartz as a form of insult. We know Schwartz initially reported that his interpretation was that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman, as if it were Pipeman's name, because the police then spent time, effort, and money in tracking down all the local Lipski families (there are official reports on this search, which was ongoing for some time). This reflects good police work, in my view, because while the police did think that Schwartz probably got that bit wrong, and that he had misinterpreted who (and for what purpose), "Lipski" was shouted, they still investigated along Schwartz's original statement (they didn't presume the police got it right, although I'm sure they believed they did, but rather followed both lines of investigation).

While during the interview with the police, Schwartz appears to have conceded that he may have gotten it wrong (hardly surprising, when pushed by the police as to how sure he was on some point, there is now pressure to second guess one's original view - some people become more adamant they are correct, others will recognize that they had overlooked a possibility and so back down from their original level of confidence).

But the key point is, it is not the police re-interpretation of Lipski as an antisimtic insult that Schwartz admits might have been the case that is important, but rather his initial belief that it was shouted at Pipeman as if it were Pipeman's name. Given the time period, if B.S.'s accomplice was Jewish it greatly increases the odds that B.S. would also be Jewish (even if one disputes this, it still implicates at least one of the offenders being Jewish - Schwartz's pipeman as lookout). It is the police reinterpretation of Schwartz's statement that reverses things, making it more probable that Pipeman is uninvolved, and that B.S. was a gentile (although there are some arguments that have been put forward along the lines of "Lipski" being used by Jews whose families have lived in England for awhile may have used it against more recent immigrant families, etc, but on the whole it probably favours B.S. as a gentile, if not "proves" it).

This is important because if Schwartz went to the police to deflect suspicion away from the club members, it makes no sense for him to tell a story that points to a Jewish offender being involved! Schwartz's initial statement, before being influenced by the police interpretation, demonstrates he was not trying to deflect attention away from a Jewish offender, and therefore, was not trying to deflect attention away from the club members.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

The other issue is that Shwartz's statement to the police doesn't hint that B.S. is antisimetic, rather, Schwatz's statement if anything implies the offender is Jewish because according to Schwartz "Lipski" was shouted to Pipeman, as if B.S. was calling Pipeman's name. It was the police who thought that perhaps Schwartz misunderstood the situation and introduced the notion that "Lipski" was shouted at Schwartz as a form of insult. We know Schwartz initially reported that his interpretation was that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman, as if it were Pipeman's name, because the police then spent time, effort, and money in tracking down all the local Lipski families (there are official reports on this search, which was ongoing for some time). This reflects good police work, in my view, because while the police did think that Schwartz probably got that bit wrong, and that he had misinterpreted who (and for what purpose), "Lipski" was shouted, they still investigated along Schwartz's original statement (they didn't presume the police got it right, although I'm sure they believed they did, but rather followed both lines of investigation).

While during the interview with the police, Schwartz appears to have conceded that he may have gotten it wrong (hardly surprising, when pushed by the police as to how sure he was on some point, there is now pressure to second guess one's original view - some people become more adamant they are correct, others will recognize that they had overlooked a possibility and so back down from their original level of confidence).

But the key point is, it is not the police re-interpretation of Lipski as an antisimtic insult that Schwartz admits might have been the case that is important, but rather his initial belief that it was shouted at Pipeman as if it were Pipeman's name. Given the time period, if B.S.'s accomplice was Jewish it greatly increases the odds that B.S. would also be Jewish (even if one disputes this, it still implicates at least one of the offenders being Jewish - Schwartz's pipeman as lookout). It is the police reinterpretation of Schwartz's statement that reverses things, making it more probable that Pipeman is uninvolved, and that B.S. was a gentile (although there are some arguments that have been put forward along the lines of "Lipski" being used by Jews whose families have lived in England for awhile may have used it against more recent immigrant families, etc, but on the whole it probably favours B.S. as a gentile, if not "proves" it).

This is important because if Schwartz went to the police to deflect suspicion away from the club members, it makes no sense for him to tell a story that points to a Jewish offender being involved! Schwartz's initial statement, before being influenced by the police interpretation, demonstrates he was not trying to deflect attention away from a Jewish offender, and therefore, was not trying to deflect attention away from the club members.

- Jeff

Of course Abberline in an internal memo dated 1st November said

"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."

Steve