Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think it’s also worth considering that Schwartz might just have been mistaken on timing. He was going home in the early hours so who’s to say that he hadn’t had a drink or two or ten. He goes to bed, then finds out about the murder and recalls seeing an incident. He may not have recalled the exact time but he’s told that the murder would have occurred at around 12.45. He thinks “yeah, it was probably around 12.45 that I passed.” So he’s convinced himself of the time. But what if he’d seen an incident that occurred not long before 12.30?

I don’t think that it can be ruled out.

[The Rookie Detective]

Somewhat conveniently; Schwartz always takes precedence and is the last to have his timings moved.

Brown was around 12.45am
Mortimer was around 12.45am- 12.55am
There was a couple of the corner seen by Brown and mentioned by Mortimer.
Schwartz was around 12.45am

So we have 5 different people within EITHER visual or audible vicinity of the murder site.

Brown sees a couple on the corner
Mortimer refers to a couple on the corner
Schwartz sees Bs man, Pipeman, and the victim being assaulted around the same time as Brown, Mortimer and the couple are within that same proximity.

Bs man assaults Stride around 12.45am

Brown doesn't see or hear Schwartz or Bs Man, or see or hear the assault
Mortimer doesn't see or hear Schwartz or Bs Man, or see or hear the assault
The couple seen by Brown and mentioned by Mortimer do not see or hear the assault.
Schwartz comes forward some time after both Brown and Mortimer give their respective statements; which appear in the initial newspaper reports on the murder.

Brown and Mortimer can be accounted for in terms of their respective addresses, whilst Schwartz remains an anomaly in that sense.

The couple seen on the corner and the timings given by Brown and Mortimer respectively support each other.

If anyone can explain why Brown, Mortimer and the other couple on the corner all failed to witness any audible or visual assault on Stride AND not see or hear Schwartz, Bs man or Pipe man... then I would be most impressed.

Nobody sees where Parcel man goes, but he has to be gone by the time Mortimer is at her door AND by the time Schwartz sees Bs man.

We already know that Parcel man and Bs man have completely different appearances.


I know that the majority of people support Schwartz and I can understand that because the idea of change or challenging the status quo is particularly uncomfortable.

What i would say is that the respective timings for each of the alleged witnesses is relative to each individual who gave a statement at the time.

By insisting that Schwartz is the only witness who can't be challenged or questioned in terms of his timings or the assault he was said to have witnessed, it automatically means we need to alter timings for Mortimer, Brown, and the other couple on the corner, all of whom could not have been where they said they were at the times they stated.

If the couple on the corner were not there and Mortimer lied or was incorrect about her timings; then I could see where Schwartz's story may just squeeze in.

But for Brown, Mortimer and the other couple to have been within audible or visual proximity of the alleged assault carried out by Bs Man, and yet STILL not see or hear anything OR anyone that Schwartz claimed he saw and heard; tells you all you need to know about the validity of Schwartz's story.

The fact that nothing Schwartz said he saw or heard can be verified by any other witness whatsoever, is also rather odd.

Whereas witnesses like Mortimer, Brown, Eagle etc.. give accounts that require no time alterations; just for the sake of helping Schwartz's story to fit in.

I have yet to see a chronological timeline scenario whereby Schwartz's witnessing of Bs man is given the same time tweaking treatment so that other witnesses statements can fit in.

One rule for Schwartz the theatrical "Jew" who gave a false address, came forward late, didn't appear at the inquest and remains a ghost 136 years later.
...And one rule for the likes of Pc Smith, Mortimer, Brown, Eagle etc... who can all be traced and gave initial statements that all worked without the need for time tweaks.

It's almost as though nothing Schwartz said actually even happened.

Odd indeed

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you are going to insist on the times remaining as stated RD then all conversation on this subject is over because events cannot be reconciled with the given times. I don’t think that anyone would dispute that. So either the timings weren’t synchronised (something that we know happens even today with all of our technology) or there was some kind of cover-up/plot. As we are dealing with the real world then overwhelmingly the likeliest option is that the timings weren’t coordinated. I genuinely, honestly don’t understand why you find this remotely mysterious. To me this is completely obvious. I’ve seen at least 6 different timelines that all work since we have been discussing this murder on various threads.

On the question of timings we have:

PC Smith

Fanny Mortimer

Joseph Lave

Morris Eagle

Israel Schwartz

PC Lamb

Louis Diemschitz


All of these witnesses relied on different clocks for their timings. Some of them use the word ‘about’ so they were estimating. Why would anyone insist on sticking to an estimated time?

Somewhere on one of the other threads I did a bit of an experiment when I had family visitors. We took times from (I can’t remember the exact detail but I won’t be far off) around 5 or 6 phones, a hi-fi clock, two wall clocks, a wrist watch, an iPad clock and the clock on a microwave. In 2024 with modern tech I got a range of 8 minutes. Now roll that back 136 years and consider that, added to that, some people were talking about times that occurred hours earlier so they were reliant on memory too as well as unsynchronised clocks.

Then you have people giving a time based on them estimating a period of time between when they saw a clock saying x o’clock to when an event occurred. How can we suggest that these times are so accurate that if two people said they were at a location at 12.30 then they must have seen each other and so we’re lying when thy said that they hadn’t?


The timings that we have are close to useless. They are little more than very rough guides.

[Sunny Delight]

I think it’s also worth considering that Schwartz might just have been mistaken on timing. He was going home in the early hours so who’s to say that he hadn’t had a drink or two or ten. He goes to bed, then finds out about the murder and recalls seeing an incident. He may not have recalled the exact time but he’s told that the murder would have occurred at around 12.45. He thinks “yeah, it was probably around 12.45 that I passed.” So he’s convinced himself of the time. But what if he’d seen an incident that occurred not long before 12.30?

I don’t think that it can be ruled out.

This is then stepping into territory of essentially we can't really rule anything out. There is no evidence Schwartz was drinking. We don't know how Schwartz fixed the time but he said it was a quarter to one. Now he may have been a few minutes out- or maybe he was spot on. We can't rule anything out as we can't test our theories. But the liklihood is that Schwartz was in Berner Street around the time he said he was.

If he had seen the attack at 12:30 then that would transform our thinking of that night. It would mean that Schwartz witnessed an attack at 12:30- when PC Smith sees Stride at about 12:35 she is now with a different man carrying a parcel. She has recovered from the attack.Which then means this man is the prime suspect.

If we then take Mortimer going to her door after the measured footsteps of a Policeman then the man with the Parcel and Stride are not on the street just after 12:35am. They are now I assume in Dutfields Yard. Eagle returns about this time but he doesn't see anyone or anything in the yard but concedes it was dark. Mortimer also doesn't see him but 30 seconds could account for that. Mortimer is then at her door for a period whilst Parcel Man and Stride are in Dutfield's Yard?

I put a timeline on an earlier page and I think it is worth reposting as I genuinely believe it is a very reasonable working of the statements given.

PC Smith passes Stride and Parcel Man at exactly 12,:35am. They are standing opposite Dutfields Yard at the other side of the street.

Morris Eagle and Joseph Lave arrive close to 12:40 at the club.

Israel Schwartz and BS man come down Berner Street at 12:44/45. The altercation happens with Stride who is now standing in Dutfields Yard's entrance. It is over in 30 seconds to a minute. Stride is killed immediately afterwards.

Mortimer comes to her door after hearing BS man pass at 12:47/48am. Schwartz placed 4 people on the street. We know the direction Schwartz and Pipeman went. We know Liz Stride was found dead at the same spot 10 minutes later. The only unaccounted for man is BS man who in my estimation walked past Mortimer's door just before she came to it.

The couple she speaks to who had been at the Board School roughly the same time- maybe closer to 12:49/50am.

James Brown passes them on the way back from getting supper at 12:50am. This means they just arrived at the spot.

Fanny Mortimer still at her door witnesses Leon Goldstein passing Berner Street at 12:55am. He is the only man she saw in the ten minute period at her door. She goes inside.

Louis Diemshutz finds Elizabeth Strides body at 1am.

[Lewis C]

Somewhat conveniently; Schwartz always takes precedence and is the last to have his timings moved.

By insisting that Schwartz is the only witness who can't be challenged or questioned in terms of his timings or the assault he was said to have witnessed, it automatically means we need to alter timings for Mortimer, Brown, and the other couple on the corner, all of whom could not have been where they said they were at the times they stated.

If the couple on the corner were not there and Mortimer lied or was incorrect about her timings; then I could see where Schwartz's story may just squeeze in.

But for Brown, Mortimer and the other couple to have been within audible or visual proximity of the alleged assault carried out by Bs Man, and yet STILL not see or hear anything OR anyone that Schwartz claimed he saw and heard; tells you all you need to know about the validity of Schwartz's story.

The fact that nothing Schwartz said he saw or heard can be verified by any other witness whatsoever, is also rather odd.

Whereas witnesses like Mortimer, Brown, Eagle etc.. give accounts that require no time alterations; just for the sake of helping Schwartz's story to fit in.

I have yet to see a chronological timeline scenario whereby Schwartz's witnessing of Bs man is given the same time tweaking treatment so that other witnesses statements can fit in.

One rule for Schwartz the theatrical "Jew" who gave a false address, came forward late, didn't appear at the inquest and remains a ghost 136 years later.
...And one rule for the likes of Pc Smith, Mortimer, Brown, Eagle etc... who can all be traced and gave initial statements that all worked without the need for time tweaks.

It's almost as though nothing Schwartz said actually even happened.

Odd indeed

Hi RD,

I don't recall anyone saying that Schwartz' times take precedence over others or that the incident he saw had to have happened at exactly 12:45. In fact, in the post that Herlock made immediately before you said this, he said that what Schwartz saw might have been shortly before 12:30. The point is that all of the given times are estimates, and I think that everyone that understands this will agree that that's just as true for Schwartz as for everyone else. Not that much adjusting of stated times is required anyway. See Sunny Delight's recent timeline, where I believe every adjustment that he made is less than 5 minutes.

One could make a rather long list of things that witnesses have said in this case that can't be verified by any other witness.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is then stepping into territory of essentially we can't really rule anything out. There is no evidence Schwartz was drinking. We don't know how Schwartz fixed the time but he said it was a quarter to one. Now he may have been a few minutes out- or maybe he was spot on. We can't rule anything out as we can't test our theories. But the liklihood is that Schwartz was in Berner Street around the time he said he was.

If he had seen the attack at 12:30 then that would transform our thinking of that night. It would mean that Schwartz witnessed an attack at 12:30- when PC Smith sees Stride at about 12:35 she is now with a different man carrying a parcel. She has recovered from the attack.Which then means this man is the prime suspect.

The attack that Schwartz saw might have been on a woman that wasn’t Stride. As this woman was in a tussle with a man that had shouted “Lipski” then it’s likely that Schwartz would have only seen the woman very briefly and in poor light. He would hardly have stood staring.

If we then take Mortimer going to her door after the measured footsteps of a Policeman then the man with the Parcel and Stride are not on the street just after 12:35am. They are now I assume in Dutfields Yard.

Or they have walked on to the end of the street and were now standing around the corner in Fairclough Street. Or they had moved off somewhere else…further along Berner Street for eg.

Eagle returns about this time but he doesn't see anyone or anything in the yard but concedes it was dark. Mortimer also doesn't see him but 30 seconds could account for that. Mortimer is then at her door for a period whilst Parcel Man and Stride are in Dutfield's Yard?

I don’t see any need for them to be in the yard. I think it unlikely imo.

I put a timeline on an earlier page and I think it is worth reposting as I genuinely believe it is a very reasonable working of the statements given.

PC Smith passes Stride and Parcel Man at exactly 12,:35am. They are standing opposite Dutfields Yard at the other side of the street.

Morris Eagle and Joseph Lave arrive close to 12:40 at the club.

Israel Schwartz and BS man come down Berner Street at 12:44/45. The altercation happens with Stride who is now standing in Dutfields Yard's entrance. It is over in 30 seconds to a minute. Stride is killed immediately afterwards.

Mortimer comes to her door after hearing BS man pass at 12:47/48am. Schwartz placed 4 people on the street. We know the direction Schwartz and Pipeman went. We know Liz Stride was found dead at the same spot 10 minutes later. The only unaccounted for man is BS man who in my estimation walked past Mortimer's door just before she came to it.

The couple she speaks to who had been at the Board School roughly the same time- maybe closer to 12:49/50am.

James Brown passes them on the way back from getting supper at 12:50am. This means they just arrived at the spot.

Fanny Mortimer still at her door witnesses Leon Goldstein passing Berner Street at 12:55am. He is the only man she saw in the ten minute period at her door. She goes inside.

Louis Diemshutz finds Elizabeth Strides body at 1am.

Or, Stride and Parcelman move on. Another couple arrive and stand just around the corner where Brown sees them (but Mortimer doesn’t) then they move on (they later speak to Mortimer) After they move on Stride returns alone walking north on Berner Street on the same side as the club. BS man comes from the opposite direction and they meet at the gates. The incident occurs.

[The Rookie Detective]

The point is that when the alleged assault on Stride occurred circa 12.45am, the following could not have been either in the street or within audible proximity....

Eagle - yes, he's gone around 12.40am

Lave - Unconfirmed exactly when and for how long he was outside, but he does go as far as the street.

Mortimer - circa 12.45am - 12.55am

Brown - circa 12.45am

the other couple- seen by Brown circa 12.45am

So in order for Bs man, Pipeman and Schwartz to occupy that space and time...ALL of the above have to be out of the way.

Whoever the couple were on the corner, they didn't see or hear Pipeman, Bs Man, Schwartz or the actual assault on Stride.

So, if we keep Schwartz circa 12.45am, then the couple seen by Brown AND Brown himself could NOT have been there when Brown said he saw them circa 12.45am.

Ultimately, Schwartz's statement is intended to imply that BS man was the man who as at least initiated the murder of Stride.

Bs man's public behaviour in Berner Street, is as far from a Ripper kill as we can get.

The issue is that Schwartz paints a picture of a public disturbance and assault occurring; whereas the man who cut her throat did so in relative darkness and SILENCE.

The only way that Stride could have been a Ripper victim is if the couple who were seen on the corner by Brown were actually Stride and the Ripper.
After rejecting him and said rejection being heard by Brown as he passes them, the Ripper then follows her into the yard as she goes to walk away and cuts her throat just before Goldstien passes the yard. Had Goldstein have looked into the yard instead of up at the club, he may have seen the Ripper in the yard.
The Ripper then leaves the yard circa 12.57am because of Goldstein having nearly seen him in the act.

He leaves the yard just after Mortimer goes back inside and just before Diemschitz arrives

An approximate kill time of 12.57am

It just requires Stride to have recovered physically after having been assaulted and then been accosted again on the corner of the street by the Ripper (witnessed by Brown) within the space of 10 minutes or so.

Rotten luck there

[Wickerman]

Packer was discredited in 1888 and there is no reason 136 years later why we should think any differently. I think Sugden was the one to really lay it all out in black and white to be honest.

Yes, but Sugden's research was all by hand, today we have a lot more information due to computers.

As for Swanson, he didn't find any answers. If he had, then we could say his decision was correct, but as he didn't find any solution to who the killer was, then maybe the decisions he made were the wrong ones.
We do know Parcel-man was a legitimate suspect, his ID was published, so anyone who saw him had to be an important witness.
Which includes Packer, but not Mortimer, she didn't see him.

The fact remains Packer saw Stride with a man who carried a package of grapes standing in the street about 12:30 am, and PC Smith saw Stride with a man carrying a parcel about 12:30 am.
Unless someone chooses to believe Stride was with two different men at the same time, both carrying a package. Then we need to accept they were the same man, regardless of description, PC Smith confirms Packer.

It doesn't help solve the case, but it does tell us Parcel-man arrived on the scene with Stride, he did not come out of the club.

All the evidence needs to be considered.

[The Rookie Detective]

Yes, but Sugden's research was all by hand, today we have a lot more information due to computers.

As for Swanson, he didn't find any answers. If he had, then we could say his decision was correct, but as he didn't find any solution to who the killer was, then maybe the decisions he made were the wrong ones.
We do know Parcel-man was a legitimate suspect, his ID was published, so anyone who saw him had to be an important witness.
Which includes Packer, but not Mortimer, she didn't see him.

The fact remains Packer saw Stride with a man who carried a package of grapes standing in the street about 12:30 am, and PC Smith saw Stride with a man carrying a parcel about 12:30 am.
Unless someone chooses to believe Stride was with two different men at the same time, both carrying a package. Then we need to accept they were the same man, regardless of description, PC Smith confirms Packer.

It doesn't help solve the case, but it does tell us Parcel-man arrived on the scene with Stride, he did not come out of the club.

All the evidence needs to be considered.

I agree with you in theory; all the evidence certainly needs to be considered.

But there's an important difference between 'consideration' of evidence and any subsequent 'acceptance' of said "evidence."

Packer is a prime example of this.

If we consider what Packer tells us, then after engaging with Packer by purchasing grapes; Stride and her male companion stood almost directly opposite him on the Board school side of the road in the particularly windy and rainy weather conditions for over half an hour in plain sight of Packer, right up until the couple moved towards the club by crossing back to the club side of the road and then moving out of view of Packer's line of sight.

At face value it is therefore well worth considering what Packer has to say. As a stand alone piece of evidence Packer would appear to have been witness to the man who would likely have been her killer.

But here's where the move from 'consideration' to 'acceptance' is then applied.
As an isolated piece of evidence; Packer should be considered closely, but when we contextualise what he tells us and incorporate other pieces of evidence, it's at this point that things begin to fall apart for Packer.

For a start, Packer's statement completely obliterates anything that Schwartz claimed.

Packer's "over half an hour" leaves no room for a theatrical assault having occurred circa 12.45am; as per Schwartz's claim.

Packer also came forward much later than the likes of Mortimer, Brown, Eagle, Lave and Smith, who all gave statements that appeared in the press later on the same day as the murder had taken place.

Similar to Schwartz; Packer appears to give a story after the other witnesses have had their statements printed in the newspaper.

Interestingly, it would appear that initially Packer said he didn't see or hear anything or anyone...and yet he seems to subsequently recall selling grapes to a couple shortly before the murder took place.

Why the sudden memory recall?

Again, up to this point the consideration of his words are still worth looking into.

But then the hammer blow for Packer...

We learn that he was interviewed/interrogated by subsequently convicted aggressor, blackmailer and extortionist; Charles Le Grand, along with Batchelor of course.

So in Packer we have a man whose eye witness account, timing, and authenticity can all be reasonably scrutinised within the context of the broader picture of the events that were said to have unfolded on the morning of the murder.

In many respects, the progression from 'consideration' to 'acceptance' comes down to personal choice and is a subjective process that can work both ways.

What we know for sure is that based on all of the witnesses combined; the only time frame in which Stride could have been murdered; was between PC Smith leaving Berner St, to the moment Diemschitz discovered the body in the yard.

So that would be anytime between 12.30am to 1.05am at the very most. That's 35 minutes, no more.

Obvious of course, but it provides us with a simple way to evaluate the validity of any given witness.

And so in that sense; when Packer claims that he witnessed a couple buying grapes and then standing almost opposite him for "over half an hour," we can see that BOTH Packer and Schwartz cannot be correct in what they said they witnessed.

Therefore, to 'consider' all the evidence; may work on a superficial level, but it clearly does not work when all of said "evidence" is then scrutinised more closely.
While the idea of 'considering' all the evidence is morally and procedurally correct, it doesn't work beyond that in practical terms.

In other words; Packer and Schwartz can't both be correct in what they said, and therefore, at least one of them was either wrong, embellishing the truth, or simply lying.

No amount of time tweaking alterations or chronological sequence shuffling can be used to try and squeeze all the "evidence" in, because of the sheer fact that not all the so called witness "evidence" is truthful and accurate in this particular murder case.

I personally believe that upon consideration of Packer and Schwartz; that neither of them bring validity, credence or truth to proceedings.

But of course, that's just my own opinion.

Opinions aside, the objective fact remains that at least Packer OR Schwartz fail to make it past the "consideration" stage, because it is practically impossible for BOTH of them to be right.

Cue some outlandish timing and chronological sequence tweaking from other Casebook members, in a desperate bid to try and fit both Packer and Schwartz's statements in to that maximum 35 minute kill time window.

It's no wonder why the case of Stride has lacked any significant progression over the years.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Suggestion:

11.45 - Liz Stride is seen in Berner Street by William Marshall talking to BSMan. They walk on and then eventually part, possibly intending to meet up again later.

12.31 - PC. Smith passes south on Berner Street seeing a women that he believed was Stride talking to Parcelman on the opposite side of the street.

12.31:20 - PC. Smith has exited Berner Street and the couple begin to move off and leave the immediate location.

12.31:40 - Joseph Lave goes into the Dutfield's Yard for some air. He moves around the yard and at some point stands in the gateway looking into the street for a short time.

12.32 - Fanny Mortimer comes onto her doorstep. The poorly lit street appears empty. She doesn’t see Lave for a number of possible reasons. The short time he spent at the gates, the fact that he might not have stood far enough out onto the pavement to someone in Mortimer’s position, the fact that at least for some of the time Mortimer might have been looking north or standing slightly back behind the level of the front of the building. Also the street lighting is poor.

12.39:15 - Joseph Lave goes back inside the club.

12.39:30 - Leon Goldstein passes along Berner Street, moving south, seen by Fanny Mortimer.

12.40 - Fanny Mortimer goes back inside

12.40:30 - Morris Eagle returns from taking his girlfriend home. He sees nothing as the street is empty

12.41 - BSMan turns into Berner Street and walks south. He has had a few more drinks since parting with Liz earlier. Israel Schwartz is a few yards behind him moving in the same direction and on the same side of the road.

12.41:30 - Liz Stride returns from wherever she has been and proceeds north on Berner Street.

12.42 - The incident occurs, Schwartz flees the scene (as does Pipeman). BSMan pulls Stride into the yard to continue their discussion out of the sight of prying eyes. In a short time he loses his temper, pulls a knife and kills her, immediately fleeing the scene.

12.43 - The street is now empty.

12.44 - James Brown heads to the Chandler’s shop for his supper.

12.44:30 - While he’s getting his supper a couple arrive by walking west on Fairclough Street. They stand chatting at the corner.

12.48 - Brown returns and sees the couple standing there.

12.58 - The couple move off - destination unknown.

1.00 - Louis Diemschitz returns to Dutfield’s Yard and sees the body by lighting a match. He immediately goes into the club to find his wife.

1.01:30 - Diemschitz decides to go to look for a Constable. Kozebrodski goes with him and they head to Fairclough Street. James Brown hears them shouting as they run.

1.02 - The club members realise that there are members upstairs who haven’t been told so Gilleman goes upstairs and informs Eagle and the others.

1.02:30 - Eagle and the other members are now all in the yard jostling for a look at the corpse. Eagle is told that Diemschitz and Kozebrodski have gone for a Constable and which way they have gone.

1.03:15 - Eagle runs for a Constable north on Berner Street.

1.03:30 - Kozebrodski returns followed by Diemschitz who now has Spooner with him. Kozebrodski is told that Eagle has gone so he decides to run and catch him up; which he does in Commercial Road.

1.04 - They see PC. Lamb and inform him about the body.

1.05- They return to Dutfield’s Yard with PC. Ayliffe who has joined them.

1.05:30 - PC. Smith arrives

1.06 - Lamb sends PC. Ayliffe to get Dr. Blackwell and tells Morris Eagle to run to Leman Street Police station to inform Inspector Pinhorn.

1.08 - Ayliffe informs Blackwell’s assistant, Edward Johnson, of the murder. He in turn informs Dr. Blackwell (who is in bed) who gets up and readies himself.

1.11 - Johnson arrives at Dutfield’s Yard.

1.16 - Dr. Blackwell arrives.

…..

Although Israel Schwartz is always going to be the main focus due to what he claimed to have seen, for me the real fly-in-the-ointment is Fanny Mortimer. Why the hell couldn’t they have called her to the inquest and then we might have got a proper explanation as to when she was and wasn’t on her doorstep? Without specifics we simply can’t say when she was there because we essentially have two versions. The main one is this:

The London Evening News, October 1st

‘Mrs. Mortimer, living at 36, Berner-street, four doors from the scene of the tragedy, says: “I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by. I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club-house, and on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the yard with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates. It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School.”’

Here we get the “nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o’clock…” but no detail. All that we can ‘deduce’ is that she had only just gone inside when she heard a commotion. This would either have been from the yard or from Eagle passing. The word ‘commotion’ surely leads us to suspect noise from the yard which would have occurred just after 1.00. So perhaps an estimate of 12.55 as the time that Fanny went indoors. What time she went onto her doorstep though remains a mystery.

She also said this:

“If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him.”

But she can’t have been on her doorstep all of that time because she would have seen Stride arrive and she would likely have been aware of an attack that provably occurred. So there was unquestionable a period of time when Fanny Mortimer was indoors. When, we can’t say. But, if there was a time that she was indoors (and there has to have been) then we have a period of time when the Schwartz incident could have occurred unseen.

In the Evening News, October 1st, we get a more dramatic report which includes these details:

“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.”

This isn’t presented as a direct quote so we have to wonder how much is Fanny Mortimer and how much was added, assumed or ‘deduced’ by the journalist but it appears to be the only mention of ‘just before 12.45’ and ‘10 minutes.’ So how long is ‘just before?’ How accurate was the 10 minutes?

At no point in any report/interview does Fanny claim to have gone onto her doorstep, gone back inside, gone back onto her doorstep and then went back inside again before hearing the commotion. And if it’s claimed that she went onto her doorstep at just before 12.45 then this can only be interpreted as being her first visit during that period. So that’s almost half of the 30 minutes gone already!

Im not suggesting that Mrs Mortimer lied but I suggest that we take any ‘times’ mentioned in connection with her with a healthy pinch of salt

[Sunny Delight]

Yes, but Sugden's research was all by hand, today we have a lot more information due to computers.

As for Swanson, he didn't find any answers. If he had, then we could say his decision was correct, but as he didn't find any solution to who the killer was, then maybe the decisions he made were the wrong ones.
We do know Parcel-man was a legitimate suspect, his ID was published, so anyone who saw him had to be an important witness.
Which includes Packer, but not Mortimer, she didn't see him.

The fact remains Packer saw Stride with a man who carried a package of grapes standing in the street about 12:30 am, and PC Smith saw Stride with a man carrying a parcel about 12:30 am.
Unless someone chooses to believe Stride was with two different men at the same time, both carrying a package. Then we need to accept they were the same man, regardless of description, PC Smith confirms Packer.

It doesn't help solve the case, but it does tell us Parcel-man arrived on the scene with Stride, he did not come out of the club.

All the evidence needs to be considered.

Sugden's research was based on Packer's testimomy- his inconsistencies, his constantly changing story, the private detectives who interviewed him and their history; his continual attempt to push himself forward with further stories. Sugden demolished his story or should I say stories. You can continually believe in him- that's up to you.

[New Waterloo]

All very good ideas. I have read the reports etc as carefully as I can. Spooner states he was with his lady friend at the corner of Christian Street and Fairclough Street (I think he says 12.30 till 1am. That location is only yards from the Board School junction with Berner Street. If he an his lady friend walked a very short distance towards Berner Street are they not the couple seen by Brown. Also we had Stride and Parcelman in Berner Street as a couple at 12.35 all times approximate. But surely this is all a bit silly isnt it. 3 couples? Standing around. Is there just one couple. Two at a push but 3.

Also nobody mentions Spooners lady friend. He states he was with her. I may have got that wrong so please put me right. I am sure you will.

oh perhaps Brown did see the Schwartz incident as that was when he wax inddors eating his dinner

Cheers NW

[The Rookie Detective]

"Chief Inspector" eh?

Don't mind if I do.


haha!


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Chief Inspector" eh?

Don't mind if I do.


haha!


RD

Yeah your 1500 points promotion.

I have no promotions left.

I think 20,000 should make me Home Secretary. But that would make Fisherman Prime Minister.

[JeffHamm]

If we limit the + or - to 5 minutes we would flying in the face of the research that has been carried out. If Jeff is reading this perhaps he could repost that table showing how far out humans can be when estimating times? 10/15 minutes is nothing.

...

Hi Herlock,

The table that you refer to has to do with the accuracy of people estimating a duration, not estimating the actual time on a clock (i.e. I waited 10 minutes type thing, not it was 1:10). I've tried a few searches trying to locate studies looking at the reliability of "clock time statements" people give, but so far no luck. I'm sure somewhere there's decent data on this, but tracking it down hasn't proven to be all that easy.

I did post some historical research with regards to the synchronisation between clocks in Victorian London, and the problems of clocks reading very different times was well noted and continued into the 1900s. While London had passed a by-law that public clocks should be set to GMT, they didn't do anything to ensure their clocks were properly maintained (bureaucrats have a long and proud tradition of fixing things on paper but not in reality). While it's difficult to accept, as soon as we have two individuals stating a time from different clocks, we cannot treat them as if those two clocks mean the same thing (i.e. are in sync with each other) and we have to allow for an unknown amount of clock sync error. From the historical research, +-10 minutes would be a reasonable starting point. But of course, the more people their are giving testimony, the more clocks involved (and the more individual errors of time estimation) we have, which in turn means we're more likely to get some comparisons outside that +-10 minute range.

Think of it this way, if you and I both flip a coin, there's a 50/50 chance you get a different result from me. But if 10 of us flip coins, the probability that someone gets a different result than my coin is all but guaranteed. Any attempt at reconstructing a time-line, which I've tried to do myself, needs to keep in mind that times stated are not coming from the same clocks. Either one takes JackO's approach, and just presents sequential events (perfectly valid), or one can choose a clock as the reference clock, and try and align other statements to that clock (which is what I've tried to do in the past). After re-alignment, one can then try and evaluate things by looking at how many individuals you end up with whose own clocks were way out. As I recall, when setting things to Dr. Blackwell's Watch, most other "time statements" could be recreated to within +-5 minutes I think. The one person whose reference clock seemed to be a bit further out than most was PC Smith's, who would have updated his time based upon a clock somewhere on his beat. But even then, I think the error was something like 5 or 7 minutes (with him running a bit slow, so when he says "1:00", that would be something like "1:05 or 1:07" on Dr. Blackwell's watch.

It's a time consuming process, and often when one presents the results, because the "times" listed for the events do not correspond with the statement by the witness it can be uncomfortable to look at. But because we're trying to re-align stated times to another clock, given the known variability of public clocks in Victorian London, if those re-aligned times all ended up to be the same as what was stated, that to me would be suspicious!

Anyway, sorry to say, but I don't have information pertaining to the accuracy of "stated clock times", only with regards to estimating temporal durations (we're rubbish at it actually). However, I would be highly surprised if it were to be the case that people in general are reliable to within +-5 minutes; but I've been wrong before and will be again.

- Jeff