Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[JeffHamm]

Hello Wickerman. Thank you for your comments. Yes I do see what you are saying and you have great knowledge. I dont want to be seen as someone just making daft suggestions. So bear with me.

Its the comments of Eagle at the Inquest that I think are interesting. He does state that when he came down and looked at Stride there was another member present. He then says

'I ran towards the Commercial-road, Dienishitz, the club steward, and another member going in the opposite direction down Fairclough- street. In Commercial-road I found two constables at the corner of Grove-street. I told them that a woman had been murdered in Berner-street, and they returned with me'.

He is saying, not me that he starts his run at the same time as Diemschutz and another who went in the other direction. He knows this because that's what happened and that is what he is saying.

I am sorry to any readers who think I am not making sense and yes I dont know where it takes us but I trying not to formulate ideas but look at what the actual people at the time said.

Yes you are probably right that there were many in the yard at this time but its just Eagles comments about when he saw the body that there was another in the yard. It just strikes me stange because he would say when I looked at the body there were other members in the yard wouldnt he?

All food for thought.

Thanks all

NW

Hi NW,

The events around the Stride scene get complicated and confused, and generally one has to look at quite a few statements in order to get some semblance of clarity. The "other member" who goes with Diemschutz (whose name escapes me at the moment), at some points says that he and Eagle went north to Commercial. These two statements, taken at face value, seem to contradict, however, after much discussion what emerged was that it appears Eagle probably exited the club after Diemschutz and the other member had already left. It was suggested that Diemschutz may have slowed during the return to talk with Spooner, who then accompanies Diemschutz back to the club but the other club member continues to hurry ahead of Diemschutz and arrives back as Eagle departs, and so joins him. We know from the police that they were summoned by two Jews, which would be Eagle and the other member.

Eagle must have been told that Diemshutz and someone else had gone down Fairclough, which appears to be what he's referring to in that regards rather than him saying they left at the same time he did. Otherwise he couldn't have been accompanied by the other member, which we know by the police and the other member's statements, that he was with this other fellow.

That sequence also makes sense, given Eagle was upstairs, and Diemschutz hadn't gone upstairs (someone else did after Diemshutz alerted the downstairs members). As such, it makes sense that Diemschutz would get back to the body and have left before Eagle emerges. As the run down Fairclough and back would only take around 2 minutes (the return trip is about 950 feet, and at a running speed of 6 mph, that's about 1 m 48 seconds). As such, Eagle doesn't have to be far behind Deimshutz in terms of getting to the scene and deciding to leave in order for the other fellow to return at about the time Eagle departs. And a difference of roughly 2 minutes seems to me to be entirely reasonable given the news has to first spread around the downstairs, someone has to decide to alert those upstairs, and then those upstairs decide what to do (Eagle included), and for them to then decide to go downstairs and outside, and so forth. Confusion, and therefore some delays, are to be expected given the news being delivered.

So in terms of the sequence of the Fairclough journey and the subsequent northward journey to Commercial, despite what Eagle's statement looks like in isolation, when combined with the other information, it emerges that the two journeys were closer to one after the other than in parallel. There might have been a bit of overlap, but it must have been small enough that the other fellow catches up with Eagle before they both reach the police.

While we can't be sure, given Deimshutz and the other had departed when Eagle arrived, and given it makes sense that someone would have to stay with the body while the others searched, it therefore is even possible that when Eagle arrived there was indeed only one other person there (Eagle being the first of the eventual crowd to emerge - and this one person informed him that the other two went south looking for the police, and perhaps when the other fellow rounded the corner to come back up Fairclough he indicated they failed, so Eagle went north and the other fellow goes with him. That to me seems a very plausible and realistic chain of events and tallies nicely with all of the statements given. Each witness's statement reflecting their own unique perspective in the overall scene.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

...

Its the comments of Eagle at the Inquest that I think are interesting. He does state that when he came down and looked at Stride there was another member present. He then says

'I ran towards the Commercial-road, Dienishitz, the club steward, and another member going in the opposite direction down Fairclough- street. In Commercial-road I found two constables at the corner of Grove-street. I told them that a woman had been murdered in Berner-street, and they returned with me'.

He is saying, not me that he starts his run at the same time as Diemschutz and another who went in the other direction. He knows this because that's what happened and that is what he is saying.

Hi NW.
I assume there's no need to respond to the above point as Jeff gave an impeccable explanation of the likely scenario.

Suffice to say, you just discovered why we cannot always take a witness comment in isolation. Often we will find an answer if we look at the complete picture, as you see Eagle was not saying Diemschutz left at the same time, he is only summarizing the events.
He (Eagle) ran towards Commercial Rd, and Diemschutz ran the other way. It is easy to assume Eagle meant 'at the same time', but when we learn the complete story, the picture changes.

[JeffHamm]

Hi NW.
I assume there's no need to respond to the above point as Jeff gave an impeccable explanation of the likely scenario.

Suffice to say, you just discovered why we cannot always take a witness comment in isolation. Often we will find an answer if we look at the complete picture, as you see Eagle was not saying Diemschutz left at the same time, he is only summarizing the events.
He (Eagle) ran towards Commercial Rd, and Diemschutz ran the other way. It is easy to assume Eagle meant 'at the same time', but when we learn the complete story, the picture changes.

Hi Wickerman,

Yes, language is often ambiguous in ways we do not readily notice. While Eagle's statement, viewed alone, easily leads to the assumption the two journeys started at the same time, he does not actually say that was the case, he only states information that allows us to know the two journeys were in different directions. When we view other statements that clarify the two journeys were more sequential than parallel, that sequential conclusion does not actually conflict with what Eagle says, which highlights the ambiguous nature of his statements on that regards. Each witness will have a slightly different experience of the events, and each will express themselves and the information in ways that reflect their own perspectives. To get a proper view of the overall picture, we need to try and work out what the common event was that, when seen from different perspectives, could result in the individual statements given. Trying to work out the underlying common "big picture" requires looking at the individual statements and trying to work out what fits them all. When interpreting information or data, if it's possible to fit one common big picture that could reasonable result in all the different perspectives, then that big picture is probably closer to the truth than the notion the statements refute each other.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

I think there is a tendency among some posters to be suspicious of contradictory statements or statements not quite in sync. Natural enough since we are dealing with a murder. But if a fire had broken out and the club members responded do you think their statements would match up perfectly with no contradictions?

c.d.

[Sunny Delight]

I think there is a tendency among some posters to be suspicious of contradictory statements or statements not quite in sync. Natural enough since we are dealing with a murder. But if a fire had broken out and the club members responded do you think their statements would match up perfectly with no contradictions?

c.d.

I tend to believe that contradictory statements often lend themselves to authenticate the events described. What would be far more suspicious would be a dozen or so statements all tying in nicely describing the incident exactly like each other.

[Fiver]

I think there is a tendency among some posters to be suspicious of contradictory statements or statements not quite in sync. Natural enough since we are dealing with a murder. But if a fire had broken out and the club members responded do you think their statements would match up perfectly with no contradictions?

c.d.

There's also a tendency to discard a witness' entire statement if any single part of it can be shown wrong.

[JeffHamm]

I tend to believe that contradictory statements often lend themselves to authenticate the events described. What would be far more suspicious would be a dozen or so statements all tying in nicely describing the incident exactly like each other.

Yes, exactly. Susicions get raised if story's are too different from one telling to another (many murderers have been caught because they told one person the victim left on holiday, another that the person left for work reason, another that they just left them, and so forth; and the police through investigation find out about these different stories). Obviously, such blatent changes in the gist of the statements are noted if they occur between interviews with the witness. But what is also noted is if, during multiple sessions of talking with a witness is if their statements are too similar each time, similar in terms of phrases used, and what details arise. That's not how people recall events they've lived through, but is how people recall a "story" they've made up. Real events, when told on separate occasions, will be recalled emphasising different details, using different phrases, saying "the same thing but in a different way and/or order" type thing. As a result of how people recall real events, it is hardly surprising if there aren't some conflicts between tellings, but they tend to be in minor specifics and fine details rather than in the overall "gist".

Those expected conflicts increase of course when comparing different witnesses describing the same event and as Sunny Delight points out, if you get two or more people whose testimony fits together too well (especially if they all include the same set of details, emphasize the same points, and so forth), it may indicate they've colluded to get their story straight. We don't see those sorts of signs of collusion, in my view, but rather we see the sort of conflicts that tend to arise.

The challenge is to try and work out a reasonable series of events that could result in those sort of minor conflicts.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

There's also a tendency to discard a witness' entire statement if any single part of it can be shown wrong.

Yes, this happens quite a bit unfortunately. If, of course, a witness' statement contains a large number of errors, it makes it hard to know what to do with the remaining bits. But how many, or how severe, those errors have to reach "a large number" is not entirely clear, and is probably subjective to some degree. Regardless, if we through out every witness who appears to have gotten something wrong, we would have no witnesses left.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

Yes, this happens quite a bit unfortunately. If, of course, a witness' statement contains a large number of errors, it makes it hard to know what to do with the remaining bits. But how many, or how severe, those errors have to reach "a large number" is not entirely clear, and is probably subjective to some degree. Regardless, if we through out every witness who appears to have gotten something wrong, we would have no witnesses left.

- Jeff

So true, and we all know how that list of witnesses begins; Hutchinson, Packer, Kennedy, Schwartz, James Kelly, and if I recall correctly that's how Lechmere changed from witness to suspect, from one single comment.
Oak trees from Acorns grow, as my mother used to say.

An incorrect statement does not dismiss everything said by the witness.
Any statement must be judged on its own merit, rarely will anyone get everything they say, correct.

[New Waterloo]

Thank you all for the comments which I do generally agree with. I am taking your advice and reading the testimonies very carefully and not trying to fit what witnesses say into any theory I have but trying to look for evidence. I fully appreciate people can be mistaken, make mistakes, see things differently and that is always the case. Every Saturday afternoon half the supporters at a football game will disagree with the other half when a penalty is given! So yes see what you mean.

Unfortunately after all these years we have our limit of evidence in front of us. What I am trying to do is ask of the evidence what is it saying. What is it telling us.

With Stride we have a witness saying that there was a disturbance at the entrance to the yard about 1245am. At that time there were (according to and including Schwarz) at least 6 people at the gateway or very close to it. Schwartz, BSM, Stride, Pipeman, possibly man in yard (JTR?) and I think another and then a couple on the corner of the board school for the whole period.

At 1.00am Diemschutz comes along with his horse and cart, doesn't state he saw any disturbance in the street or commotion. Where have all the people gone? Its just Stride left bleeding in the yard.

I know we will all say well that's if we believe what Schwarz is saying. But lets just believe him for once. I think she died or was bleeding to death earlier than we think and there were witnesses to this who have disappeared into the darkness or not said anything.

I will keep reading as much as I can, but I keep getting a headache!

Thanks all

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you all for the comments which I do generally agree with. I am taking your advice and reading the testimonies very carefully and not trying to fit what witnesses say into any theory I have but trying to look for evidence. I fully appreciate people can be mistaken, make mistakes, see things differently and that is always the case. Every Saturday afternoon half the supporters at a football game will disagree with the other half when a penalty is given! So yes see what you mean.

Unfortunately after all these years we have our limit of evidence in front of us. What I am trying to do is ask of the evidence what is it saying. What is it telling us.

With Stride we have a witness saying that there was a disturbance at the entrance to the yard about 1245am. At that time there were (according to and including Schwarz) at least 6 people at the gateway or very close to it. Schwartz, BSM, Stride, Pipeman, possibly man in yard (JTR?) and I think another and then a couple on the corner of the board school for the whole period.

At 1.00am Diemschutz comes along with his horse and cart, doesn't state he saw any disturbance in the street or commotion. Where have all the people gone? Its just Stride left bleeding in the yard.

I know we will all say well that's if we believe what Schwarz is saying. But lets just believe him for once. I think she died or was bleeding to death earlier than we think and there were witnesses to this who have disappeared into the darkness or not said anything.

I will keep reading as much as I can, but I keep getting a headache!

Thanks all

NW

Hi NW,

I haven’t read back over the recent posts on this thread yet but I’ll add something that will no doubt already have been mentioned but it’s of the utmost importance. We should never take these times as being literally correct. We have documentary evidence of how poor clock synchronisation was an issue for Victorians and, as Jeff has shown with research that he posted, it’s very surprising how far out humans often are when estimating the time or periods of time. As you know most people didn’t own a watch (even Constable’s like Lamb for example) They were reliant on clocks and watches here and there that we can’t check. Often they would have been estimating the time from the last time that they happened to have seen a clock (a period of time that they were estimating.) The issue with timing can probably best be illustrated by the testimony of Spooner who said, in the very same statement and within a very few sentences, that he arrived at the yard around 12.35 and 5 minutes before Lamb. Lamb had to have arrived after 1.00 so how can 12.35 even be close? I think that it was either FrankO or George who suggested that the best way to ‘recreate’ events is to do it without times. I agree. Come up with a few likely versions of what probably occurred and then slot in the approximate times.

As an example…I don’t think that it’s anything like impossible that Schwartz could have seen an incident that occurred at say 12.20-12.25. Then later when he was told about the body being found perhaps someone said “she must have been killed around 12.45,” he assumed that he must have seen the beginning of the murder. Therefore to him it must have been around 12.45. Just speculation of course but I don’t believe that it can be dismissed with facts.

If you start from a position where these times are all correct and synchronised it’s just a conspiracists charter. I don’t think that anything remotely mysterious happened in Berner Street. The mystery is created by something that we know existed at the time….issues of timing/timekeeping/human memory.

[Lewis C]

With Stride we have a witness saying that there was a disturbance at the entrance to the yard about 1245am. At that time there were (according to and including Schwarz) at least 6 people at the gateway or very close to it. Schwartz, BSM, Stride, Pipeman, possibly man in yard (JTR?) and I think another and then a couple on the corner of the board school for the whole period.

At 1.00am Diemschutz comes along with his horse and cart, doesn't state he saw any disturbance in the street or commotion. Where have all the people gone? Its just Stride left bleeding in the yard.

I know we will all say well that's if we believe what Schwarz is saying. But lets just believe him for once. I think she died or was bleeding to death earlier than we think and there were witnesses to this who have disappeared into the darkness or not said anything.

Hi NW,

I don't think that Schwartz said anything about a man in the yard or a couple on the corner. I would think that if the couple that Mortimer talked to had been there at the time, they would have seen the incident. So as far as where have all the people gone, Stride of course is still there, Schwartz said he ran away, and he said that Pipeman was following him, so Pipeman may have just continued moving the same direction that Schwartz saw him moving in. So that leaves only BS man to account for. I think there are 2 possibilities for him. One is that he killed Stride, and then got out of the area so that he wouldn't be caught. The other is that someone else killed Stride, but for that to be the case, BS man probably also got out of the immediate area pretty quickly, either by going into the club or by going home (and there are other places he could have gone).

[Sunny Delight]

Hi NW,

I don't think that Schwartz said anything about a man in the yard or a couple on the corner. I would think that if the couple that Mortimer talked to had been there at the time, they would have seen the incident. So as far as where have all the people gone, Stride of course is still there, Schwartz said he ran away, and he said that Pipeman was following him, so Pipeman may have just continued moving the same direction that Schwartz saw him moving in. So that leaves only BS man to account for. I think there are 2 possibilities for him. One is that he killed Stride, and then got out of the area so that he wouldn't be caught. The other is that someone else killed Stride, but for that to be the case, BS man probably also got out of the immediate area pretty quickly, either by going into the club or by going home (and there are other places he could have gone).

Mortimer said the couple had been at the Board School before and after the murder. However she had thought the murder could only have been committed when she was indoors between 12:55am and 1am. It is entirely possible that the couple were only in the position Mortimer said they were from 12;50am or thereabouts.

[The Rookie Detective]

Let's imagine that Schwartz's timings were accurate and an assault on Stirde occurred around 12.45am.

What does that do for everyone else?

Well it shows that James Brown was mistaken with his 12.45am timing of when he claimed he saw Stride say to a man "No, not tonight."

It also shows that Mortimer was wrong with her timing that she was said to be at her door. The approximate 10 minite time frame running from 12.45am - 12.55am when it was claimed the street was quiet and nobody was seen by Mortimer either entering or leaving the yard in which Stride was found murdered.
We know Mortimer couldn't have been at her door at 12.45am because she would have at least HEARD the shout of "Lipski!" in an otherwise relatively quiet street.

It also shows that IF Bs Man wasn't the killer; that after the 12.45am assault, Stride spent some time in the yard doing potentially anything...except looking or calling for help from having been attacked.
Between being assaulted at 12.45am to being found murdered at 1am, Stride chose not to do anything expect perhaps to suck on a cachou.

It also shows that the other couple on the corner of the board school mentioned by Mortimer, could not have been on the corner at 12.45am when and where Brown also saw a couple, because neither the other couple, Brown or Mortimer heard the shout of "Lipski!" or saw Schwartz, the inxoticated BS man or even Pipeman making an appearance from the approximate location of the Beerhouse on the corner, that would have been closed at the time of the assault (12.30am closing time for Beerhouses)

So with Schwartz's statement we can see that Mortimer, Brown and the other couple standing by the Board School could not have been either in the street, observing the street, or within earshot of a violent man shouting "Lipski" across the street.

However...

Is it not peculiar that when we omit Schwartz's story entirely (as we have with Packer) we then have a sequence of events that requires no time adjustments to make it all fit together.

I find it bizarre that the last person to have their times adjusted to fit...is Schwartz.

Why is that?

We either need to move the timings for 4 people, possibly 5 if we include Lave

Or we tweak the timing for just 1 person in Schwartz.

Its astonishing how there are those who choose to favour Schwartz over Brown and Mortimer.

But the fact is that Brown and Mortimer can be accounted for in that they both lived within close proximity to the murder site.

Whereas Schwartz...was a ghost with theatrical appearance.

Sometimes the simplest answers are the correct ones.

Of all the witnesses, its the anonymous and still unidentified witness whose timings and statement counters other multiple witnesses, including of course any of those located downstairs in the club who claimed they heard nothing...not even a man shout "Lipski!"

Loyalty to Schwartz is one of the key reasons why the Stride murder has failed to progress anywhere in 136 years.

[c.d.]

We know Mortimer couldn't have been at her door at 12.45am because she would have at least HEARD the shout of "Lipski!" in an otherwise relatively quiet street.

Try shouting Lipski (as I just did) as you think the B.S. man would have done. My results show it just wasn't that loud. You want us to assume it mimicked Marlon Brando in A Streetcar Named Desire...."STELLA!!!!!! We have no idea how loud it might have been.

It also shows that IF Bs Man wasn't the killer; that after the 12.45am assault, Stride spent some time in the yard doing potentially anything...except looking or calling for help from having been attacked. Between being assaulted at 12.45am to being found murdered at 1am, Stride chose not to do anything expect perhaps to suck on a cachou.

A reasonable response if it was just a little street hassle and nothing more.

Loyalty to Schwartz is one of the key reasons why the Stride murder has failed to progress anywhere in 136 years.

What exactly do you mean by "loyalty?" I accept his story (with a grain of salt) due to the language problems but I haven't made him the fourth member of the trinity. And doesn't your opinion of Mortimer border on "loyalty?" Is she was away from her door for just a few minutes she could have missed the whole thing.

c.d.