Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the subject of the likelihood of the same person being attacked twice on the same day (and in this case in the space of 15 minutes or so) I can’t help restating a point that I’ve tried to make numerous times - unlikely things happen all the time (and far more unlikely things than being attacked twice) I did a quick Google search for people being attacked twice in the same day (which you would think unlikely) and found this horrific case.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/28/europe/uk-girl-raped-twice-in-one-night/index.html

What are the chances….?

[FrankO]

True, but we can marry both of Schwartz`s statements to see if we can get a clearer picture, based on the crime scene evidence

Taking into account both of his statements, it only gets clearer to me that there were two seperate attacks: one that was witnessed by Schwartz, comprized of some pulling and/or pushing in or very near to the entrance to the yard and one some 2 meters inside the yard, which resulted in her death. Whether they were carried out by one man (Mr. BS) or two, is a question we don't have the answer to. If I had to venture a guess, I would be inclined to say she was killed by Mr. BS, who was, in my opinion, not Jack the Ripper.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We appear to be back with the assumption that all stated times were correct and synchronised. With a reasonable allowance being made we have seen half a dozen timelines that all fit the known evidence. We should ask ourselves which is less likely - that an incident that occurred over a matter of a few seconds went unseen or that a man lied to place himself at the scene of a murder (and one that was clearly going to be connected in the Press to the ripper murders) with no one to confirm that he himself wasn’t the killer. A man that would have had to rely on enough luck that no witness came forward to challenge his version of events (he wasn’t there so how could he know that someone wasn’t looking out of a window at that time?)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ah, but then we fall into the same trap as is often the case when trying to fit everything in to suit the witnesses; some of which are almost certainly unreliable; often unintentionally so.

When we look at what the witnesses actually said; it's clear that the timeline simply doesn't work.
Hence why we feel compelled to manipulate the timings to suit the narrative.

It’s not a case of manipulating timings RD. Rock solid evidence has been posted on this site about the unreliability of times at this time and the big problem Victorians had with poorly synchronised clocks. We have numerous witnesses here many of whom didn’t own watches (like PC Lamb - we have no clue as to how he estimated his timings or how accurate/synchronised the clock was that he used) We don’t know how Schwartz estimated his time. We don’t know how Fanny Mortimer estimated her time and if she had a clock/watch in the house (which has to be possible) how accurate/synchronised was it in regard to other clocks. Then we have people estimating periods of time since they last saw a clock (and we know how poor humans tend to be at estimating periods of time)

The worst thing that we could possibly do in the interests of getting as close to the truth as possible is to insist on adhering to stated times.

In reality; Pc Smith's timings cause one of the greatest issues. Based on what he said, it should have meant he passed by the junction with Fairlcloth and Berner Street AGAIN around 1am. And yet he is nowhere to be seen after he walks back up Berner Street (from having walked down it first) between 12.30-12.35am.

So Smith estimated 12.30-12.35 (so he didn’t know what time he passed - only an approximation) His beat took 25-30 minutes so it varied slightly and no doubt occasionally took more than 30 minutes if he had issues to deal with. So 12.35 + 30 minutes is 1.05. 12.35 + 31 minutes is 1.06. 12.36 + 30 minutes is 1.06. 12.36 + 31 minutes is 1.07. These are only a few examples of the possible variants. We just don’t know.

Smith mentions nothing about going along Berner Street twice (I know that this has been mentioned in the past but how true is it?)

When the alarm is raised he is not where he should have been in terms of his approximate route trajectory.

There's also the issue of Lave; who as the transient Russian Jew almost certainly on-the-run and seeking refuge in possibly the only place that would take him, is another anomaly whose words simply don't fit with anything else.

But when we look at the newspaper reports we see around 5 different versions of when he went out into the yard and how long he remained there. He didn’t stand still and so could easily have missed seeing Eagle before going back inside before Schwartz arrival.

To some extent, Eagle is one of the most viable witnesses because he gives us a time he got back to the club and even tells us he tried the front door first. We also know where he was beforehand and based on his reaction after the body is found; he appears to play an active part in trying to get help from the police.
His reaction to being asked if he saw anyone, is also completely natural and realistic.

Brown is always dismissed because his 12.45am timing clashes with Schwartz, and for some inexplicable reason we choose to ignore Brown's viable eye witness account in which he saw and heard a man being rejected afte his advances failed over, over a man's dramatic tale of it all kicking off in the street, including inexplicable multiple muted screams and a man shouting "Lipski!"

I don’t know anyone who rejects or dismisses Brown RD?

One would think that the fact we have no idea who Schwartz was; because he doesn't exist on any records, would be reason enough to question his validity as a so called witness... and yet it doesn't.

Just because it can’t be pinpointed which Schwartz he was doesn’t mean that he didn’t exist but yes people often used different names at that time for varying reasons. We shouldn't assume that this was suspicious.

Now we DO have an account of 2 men running from the scene; and an implication that the presumed killer was chased as he fled the scene by a witness who chased him.

But this is largely overlooked for whatever reason.

The only incident even closely resembling that was when Schwartz claimed he fled from the scene and Pipeman possibly followed behind him up to a point.

But that would implicate Schwartz as the man who was the presumed killer.

Did Schwartz go to the police and give an account of what he saw; but not with the intention of sharing what he saw...but rather to give himself an alibi for why he was chased from the scene?

A better alibi might have been to steer well clear of placing his self at the scene of the murder in the first place.

By going to the police Schwartz doesn't just give his account of what happened; he gives justification for why he was there in the first place...and by proxy provides the perfect alibi to the incompetent police who couldn't look past the idea that the killer was a Lunatic with clear signs of being a killer.

Schwartz looked theatrical for a reason.

There’s no evidence that anything suspicious happened in Berner Street unless we apply an unrealistically high bar to the stated times. An entirely reasonable allowance for a margin for error and an acceptance of the proven fact of poorly synchronised clocks and we have a perfectly reasonable, plausible version of what happened. Plots/ cover ups involving murder on the street only happen in novels. Schwartz walked along Berner Street and saw an incident that none of use can deduce the full nature of. He then ran away. This means that we can’t know what happened next apart from the fact that Diemschitz found Stride dead at around 1.00. No one saw this incident because it only took a few seconds and there was no one else on the street at that time.

[Sunny Delight]

Precisely Frank.

Those who can't accept her being assaulted twice, are not accepting the evidence.
What Schwartz witnessed places Stride at a different spot than where she was found, there was no evidence she crawled or was dragged - authorities addressed that possibility.
Conclusion - she was attacked twice.

That is quite the leap. It's hardly as if she was 200 yards down the street when Schwartz saw her. She literally a few yards from where 15 minutes later she is found dead. Of course the possibility remains that she was attacked twice. I just find it very unlikely.

[Sunny Delight]

It`s all in Schwarzt`s statement. Why are the screams not very loud? Perhaps her scarf is being pulled tight as she`s pulled down ?



She reaches for cachous ... oh please !! She tries to gather herself ... lol

We don't know why the screams weren't very loud. But she did scream three times as she was pushed or pulled down. In relation to the cachous and her gathering herself I am merely putting suggestions out there. I dont neccessarily think that is what happened but it is merely to try to promote discussion. Have you ever seen someone in a state after some sort of incident- hands shaking and trembling but first thing they do is reach in their pockets for a cigarette. That type of idea was what I was getting at.

[Jon Guy]

On the subject of the likelihood of the same person being attacked twice on the same day (and in this case in the space of 15 minutes or so) I can’t help restating a point that I’ve tried to make numerous times - unlikely things happen all the time (and far more unlikely things than being attacked twice) I did a quick Google search for people being attacked twice in the same day (which you would think unlikely) and found this horrific case.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/28/europe/uk-girl-raped-twice-in-one-night/index.html

What are the chances….?

Attacked twice over a number of hours. First approaching the railway station, and second when she left the area.
We really need incidents that occurred on the same spot over a 15 min period (ignoring the fact that Jack the Ripper was walking the streets)

[Jon Guy]

We don't know why the screams weren't very loud. But she did scream three times as she was pushed or pulled down. In relation to the cachous and her gathering herself I am merely putting suggestions out there. I dont neccessarily think that is what happened but it is merely to try to promote discussion. Have you ever seen someone in a state after some sort of incident- hands shaking and trembling but first thing they do is reach in their pockets for a cigarette. That type of idea was what I was getting at.

No we don`t know why she screamed three times quietly, but the scarf pulled tight and cut throat may have contributed.

Apologies, the cachous joke has been going on here since the 2000s. i think it`s more likely that she had them in her hand when she saw BS Man approaching.

[Jon Guy]

Taking into account both of his statements, it only gets clearer to me that there were two seperate attacks: one that was witnessed by Schwartz, comprized of some pulling and/or pushing in or very near to the entrance to the yard and one some 2 meters inside the yard, which resulted in her death. Whether they were carried out by one man (Mr. BS) or two, is a question we don't have the answer to. If I had to venture a guess, I would be inclined to say she was killed by Mr. BS, who was, in my opinion, not Jack the Ripper.

The opposite for me, Frank. Considering what details we have I find it too much of a leap for another person to have arrived on the scene.

I`m also inclined to say she was killed by BS Man, but I don`t see any particular reason to discount the Ripper. What are your reasons ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Attacked twice over a number of hours. First approaching the railway station, and second when she left the area.
We really need incidents that occurred on the same spot over a 15 min period (ignoring the fact that Jack the Ripper was walking the streets)

Accepted Jon they’re certainly not exact parallels. I accept that the likelihood is that BS man was the killer but I’d just say that it’s not entirely impossible that for example, BS scarpered and the killer came over to offer ‘sympathy.’ Pure speculation of course.

[Sunny Delight]

No we don`t know why she screamed three times quietly, but the scarf pulled tight and cut throat may have contributed.

Apologies, the cachous joke has been going on here since the 2000s. i think it`s more likely that she had them in her hand when she saw BS Man approaching.

She didn't scream quietly. She screamed not very loudly. What exactly was meant by that we will never really know. It was loud enough for Schwartz to hear, that is really about it.

No worries I know the cachous has prompted a large degree of debate over the years.

[c.d.]

Not all "assaults" are equal in nature. That is the key. I think those who simply can't get over the idea of Stride being assaulted twice in such a short period of time are conflating the two events and evaluating the first event in the light of the second. So while the likelihood of two assaults in such a short time does seem highly unlikely, if you rid your mind of the word "assault" which is such a heavily loaded word conjuring up very negative images and look at the actual description of the incident as given by Schwartz you can start to put this particular assault in perspective.

We don't know the cause of the incident. Stride may have been the instigator. We don't know the intent of the B.S.man. Was he seriously trying to hurt her or simply trying to get her to move or maybe teach her a lesson for mouthing off to him. Did he pull a little harder than he meant to possibly being drunk? Could Stride have let go and fallen unintentionally as a result? Schwartz not understanding what was said really muddles the whole incident and so we might be drawing conclusions that are not warranted.

And finally ask yourself this question - do you think Stride would have even bothered to report this "vicious assault" as some like to call it? I sincerely doubt it. And if she did, and the B.S man were arrested as a result, what do you think would have happened? Hanging, life in prison? My guess would be don't do it again or maybe a small fine.

I know I have said this many times before but we have to keep some sort of perspective on this and get away from the idea of a vicious assault defying all odds and see it exactly as Schwartz described it. Change your perspective and perhaps you will see it differently.

c.d.

[FrankO]

The opposite for me, Frank. Considering what details we have I find it too much of a leap for another person to have arrived on the scene.

Perhaps I've not been expressing myself well enough, Jon. What I've been trying to say is that the attack witnessed by Schwartz may just as well have been only the beginning of one whole attack (by one man) on Stride and that it ended with her throat being cut. But what I've also been trying to say is that the initial attack (witnessed by Schwartz) did not involve a knife. Seen in that way, there were 2 seperate attacks, although they weren't necessarily seperated by minutes, if any at all.

I`m also inclined to say she was killed by BS Man, but I don`t see any particular reason to discount the Ripper. What are your reasons ?

My idea of the Ripper is that he was driven by an urge to mutilate his victims. In fact, he was willing to risk his life for it by staying on the crime scene to carry out those mutilations. One of the things that clearly stand out in comparison to the other murders is that there were so relatively many witnesses still up & about in the vicinity of Dutfield's Yard. Another is that Stride seems to have been attacked in a different way than the others. Where the other outloors victims seem to have been strangled to some extent and were then lowered onto their backs to facilitate the mutilations, Stride seems to have been attacked in a different way and, importantly, wasn't placed on her back. Certainly if we're supposing that Mr. BS was the Ripper, then he attacked a victim right in front of at least one witness, pushing her around and throwing her on the ground and he didn't mutilate her. In the other cases, he apparently didn't raise any suspicion until it was too late for his victims.

The best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Not all "assaults" are equal in nature. That is the key. I think those who simply can't get over the idea of Stride being assaulted twice in such a short period of time are conflating the two events and evaluating the first event in the light of the second. So while the likelihood of two assaults in such a short time does seem highly unlikely, if you rid your mind of the word "assault" which is such a heavily loaded word conjuring up very negative images and look at the actual description of the incident as given by Schwartz you can start to put this particular assault in perspective.

We don't know the cause of the incident. Stride may have been the instigator. We don't know the intent of the B.S.man. Was he seriously trying to hurt her or simply trying to get her to move or maybe teach her a lesson for mouthing off to him. Did he pull a little harder than he meant to possibly being drunk? Could Stride have let go and fallen unintentionally as a result? Schwartz not understanding what was said really muddles the whole incident and so we might be drawing conclusions that are not warranted.

And finally ask yourself this question - do you think Stride would have even bothered to report this "vicious assault" as some like to call it? I sincerely doubt it. And if she did, and the B.S man were arrested as a result, what do you think would have happened? Hanging, life in prison? My guess would be don't do it again or maybe a small fine.

I know I have said this many times before but we have to keep some sort of perspective on this and get away from the idea of a vicious assault defying all odds and see it exactly as Schwartz described it. Change your perspective and perhaps you will see it differently.

c.d.

Well said, c.d., completely agree.

[The Rookie Detective]

Why was Schwartz the only person to HEAR Stride scream?

Why was he the only person to HEAR the word "Lipski!" shouted in the street?

Why was he the only person to witness Stride get thrown to the floor?

Why was he the only person to see Bs Man?

Why was he the only person to see Pipeman?

Why didn't Brown witness any of the above at 12.45am?

Why didn't anyone in the club hear the word "Lipski!" being shouted out in the street?

Why didn't Mortimer see Schwartz, Bs man or Stride?

Why didn't Mortimer hear the word "Lipski" being shouted in the street?

Why didn't the other couple see or hear anyone or anything listed above?


Why didn't Lave hear "Lipski!" being shouted in the street?

Why didn't Lave see Bs Man, Schwartz or Stride?


I would continue...but you get the idea...