Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Lewis C]

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

Hi Herlock,

Since we have 2 different estimates in the sources about how long Fanny was on her porch, and the 10 minute estimate fits with the rest of the evidence while the nearly 30 minute estimate doesn't, I figure that the 10 minute estimate is probably the more accurate one, and the "nearly the whole time" statement is likely a mistake by the journalist.

This statement may be a clue about when Fanny closed her door: "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." Fanny is implying that there wouldn't have been enough time for the murder to have occurred after she closed her door. She wouldn't have known exactly how long the murder would have taken, but it does suggest to me that it wouldn't have been much more than 5 minutes between when she closed her door and Diemschutz' wagon passed her house.

[Lewis C]

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

Hi NW,

In considering how many couples there were, I would start with the couple the Fanny talked to after the murder. That woman couldn't have been Stride. Also, the woman that Spooner was with wasn't Stride unless he concealed that fact from us, which I very much doubt. We have about 5 different people saying that they saw Stride with a man, so these people (if they really saw Stride, and surely at least one of them did) are sighting a different couple from the one Fanny talked to, and probably a different one from the one that Spooner was a part of. So that's at least 2 couples. Someone with more detailed knowledge than I have would need to comment on how likely it is that Spooner was the man in the couple that Fanny talked to, but my instinct is to very much doubt it. So if not, that's 3 different couples.

Coming back to Brown, I do think that one of the couples mentioned above is the couple that Brown saw.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Thanks for that Jeff. It’s an issue I’ve spent so much time on with Michael R when we talk about Kozebrodski and Heschberg but it applies to other witnesses too. Someone estimates a time and not only do we not know which clock was used (and how closely it was synchronised to other clocks) we have no way of knowing how much time had elapsed. So if someone is thinking “I saw a clock around 30 minutes before the event and it said 2.00.” That 30 minutes might easily have been 40 or 45 minutes. So instead of the event occurring at 2.30 it actually occurred at 2.40 or 2.45. Or, if the clock was out 2.50 or 2.55. These can be sizeable discrepancies and by no means is it stretching reason to acknowledge it.

[JeffHamm]

Thanks for that Jeff. It’s an issue I’ve spent so much time on with Michael R when we talk about Kozebrodski and Heschberg but it applies to other witnesses too. Someone estimates a time and not only do we not know which clock was used (and how closely it was synchronised to other clocks) we have no way of knowing how much time had elapsed. So if someone is thinking “I saw a clock around 30 minutes before the event and it said 2.00.” That 30 minutes might easily have been 40 or 45 minutes. So instead of the event occurring at 2.30 it actually occurred at 2.40 or 2.45. Or, if the clock was out 2.50 or 2.55. These can be sizeable discrepancies and by no means is it stretching reason to acknowledge it.

Hi Herlock,

I think most do acknowledge that the times stated are best viewed as approximations, but it can be difficult to apply then when trying to bring together so many statements and there can be a tendency to revert to treating the stated time as a proven fact.

Personally, I think there are 3 independent sources of potential error that make the stated times "approxiations" at best.
1) the reliability of the clock upon which they are basing their time. (reliability can be thought of as how far out that clock is from GMT, so if two clocks are off GMT by different amounts, those two clocks will both read different times, neither of which is actually GMT).

2) as you suggest, how much time has passed since they actually read/heard the clock, which means now they have to add in their estimation of that duration, and we know people are very bad at that. So now we have clock error and duration estimation error combining. I include heard here because, of course, given the chimes used at the time, one doesn't have to look at the clock to get a time update, so one can estimate the duration since the chimes.

3) the potential for memory errors. When people have to recall the time about an event that was trivial when it happened, but is now important, they have to now recall the time the clock read, and also try and recall the duration between their reading/hearing the clock and then estimate that recalled duration. All of this is memory, and therefore will introduce further errors.

What actually surprised me when I was putting together the simulations wasn't how mangled the stated times were, but rather, despite the above sources of error, generally the match up between the time I would calculate and the time a witness actually stated was pretty good (the vast majority being within +-5 minutes - and I don't recall if all were actually within +-5 minutes, or if it was more like all witnesses but one, who was within +-7 or 8?. Regardless, the process generally suggests that there's no reason to think anyone is giving deliberately false testimony and it also demonstrates that there is some "between clock error" as well. On some occasions, there might be reason to consider the possibility of memory errors as well, meaning the person may have mis-recalled either the time of last clock reading, or mis-recalled the duration between that reading and the event to which they are testifying.

- Jeff

[New Waterloo]

Out of the 6 people that make up the 3 couples all standing around within the relative time period. On the street. Close to the scene where people would pass by them and they would see what was going on in the area only 2 are accountable. Stride and Spooner! Who and where the other 4 are we don't know. Seems a bit odd that or maybe not.

Also we often question why Schwarz was not at the Inquest. Well why was Spooner AT the Inquest. He had nothing to add. Stride had already been looked at by various people and his timings are different to everyone else.

what is Spooner doing at the inquest he doesnt provide any confirming evidence other than Stride was dead. In fact his timing runs contrary. Doesnt mean he is wrong on timing though.

having said that he appears to be the only witness at the scene that night called to the Inquest who wasn't an official or connected to the club. Or have i missed someone neutral so to speak.

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Since we have 2 different estimates in the sources about how long Fanny was on her porch, and the 10 minute estimate fits with the rest of the evidence while the nearly 30 minute estimate doesn't, I figure that the 10 minute estimate is probably the more accurate one, and the "nearly the whole time" statement is likely a mistake by the journalist.

This statement may be a clue about when Fanny closed her door: "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." Fanny is implying that there wouldn't have been enough time for the murder to have occurred after she closed her door. She wouldn't have known exactly how long the murder would have taken, but it does suggest to me that it wouldn't have been much more than 5 minutes between when she closed her door and Diemschutz' wagon passed her house.

Hi Lewis,

I agree that the lesser time period has to be the likeliest but I that “A man touched her face…” is only ringing distant bells for me. Where is it from?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another one that I’ll throw in there….we assume that the woman that Smith saw was Stride because he was a Constable and someone who is paid to be observant but how certain should we be? He was walking along a poorly lit street after all. He’d have seen quite a few people over the course of an evenings beat including couples either heading home or otherwise engaged. Would he have been able to have ID’d them all if he’d been tested? Women of the poorer classes at the time would have dressed fairly similarly I’d have thought. How unlikely would it have been for him to have seen a woman dressed similarly to Stride, with the same general build and hair colouring?

I’d suggest that there has to exist a chance, however small (possibly minute) that the woman with Parcelman wasn’t Stride.

[Jon Guy]

Another one that I’ll throw in there….we assume that the woman that Smith saw was Stride because he was a Constable and someone who is paid to be observant but how certain should we be? He was walking along a poorly lit street after all. He’d have seen quite a few people over the course of an evenings beat including couples either heading home or otherwise engaged. Would he have been able to have ID’d them all if he’d been tested? Women of the poorer classes at the time would have dressed fairly similarly I’d have thought. How unlikely would it have been for him to have seen a woman dressed similarly to Stride, with the same general build and hair colouring?

I’d suggest that there has to exist a chance, however small (possibly minute) that the woman with Parcelman wasn’t Stride.

Hi Michael

Smith was certain that the woman he saw with Parcel Man was Stride. When he saw the crowd gathered outside the Club he rushed down and saw the deceased (and saw her again later at the mortuary), and was certain it was the woman he had passed earlier.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Michael

Smith was certain that the woman he saw with Parcel Man was Stride. When he saw the crowd gathered outside the Club he rushed down and saw the deceased (and saw her again later at the mortuary), and was certain it was the woman he had passed earlier.

Hello Jon,

I agree that he’s likely to have been correct but witnesses have been wrong on identification in the past even under more favourable circumstances that Smith’s. It can’t be that unlikely to get two women who looked similar, were of similar build and dressed in the same colour clothes. That said, I’m certainly not suggesting that it wasn’t her.

[Jon Guy]

Hello Jon,

I agree that he’s likely to have been correct but witnesses have been wrong on identification in the past even under more favourable circumstances that Smith’s. It can’t be that unlikely to get two women who looked similar, were of similar build and dressed in the same colour clothes. That said, I’m certainly not suggesting that it wasn’t her.

Smith`s a good witness. He tells Reid at the inquest that "when i saw deceased lying on the ground I recognised her at once and made a report of what I had seen". he noticed her flower both times he saw her.

But notice the similarities between Parcel Man and Mrs Long`s shabby genteel man. Both had a dark over coat and wore a dark deer stalker. !!

[Wickerman]

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.

Spooner says he was with his lady in Christian St., when he reached Fairclough, and joined the two Jews, he doesn't say whether he left her, or she tagged along behind. I suspect the latter, but this was after 1:00 (regardless of his confusion), so I wouldn't count Spooner + one, as one of the Berner St. couples - they both arrived after the murder.

The couple mentioned by Mortimer were traced, or at least the female was, she spoke to the London Evening News:

When the alarm of murder was raised a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty-minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

There was another 'Sweetheart' couple (yes, a fourth), but they must have left Berner St. before it all kicked off.

It is established almost beyond doubt that the poor creature met her death some time between twelve and one o'clock. And yet no one seems to have heard a struggle, or a groan, or the slightest indication of what was going on. From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart.

"We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."
Echo, 1 Oct. 1888.

That couple have been ruled out by most people, but it was a busy night the streets were not deserted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Smith`s a good witness. He tells Reid at the inquest that "when i saw deceased lying on the ground I recognised her at once and made a report of what I had seen". he noticed her flower both times he saw her.

But notice the similarities between Parcel Man and Mrs Long`s shabby genteel man. Both had a dark over coat and wore a dark deer stalker. !!

Also between Marshall’s man - middle-aged and stout, about 5ft 6in tall, respectably dressed in a small black cut-away coat and dark trousers. He was wearing a small peaked cap

and Schwartz’s man - age about 30, height 5 ft. 5 in., complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered; dress, dark jacket & trousers, black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

[Sunny Delight]

Hello Jon,

I agree that he’s likely to have been correct but witnesses have been wrong on identification in the past even under more favourable circumstances that Smith’s. It can’t be that unlikely to get two women who looked similar, were of similar build and dressed in the same colour clothes. That said, I’m certainly not suggesting that it wasn’t her.

We can't really approach the case like that as otherwise we would have absolutely nothing to go on. Not one witness who claimed they saw a victim can be proven to be correct, unless they knew the deceased.

[Jon Guy]

Also between Marshall’s man - middle-aged and stout, about 5ft 6in tall, respectably dressed in a small black cut-away coat and dark trousers. He was wearing a small peaked cap

and Schwartz’s man - age about 30, height 5 ft. 5 in., complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered; dress, dark jacket & trousers, black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

Oh yes. They`re the same man.

[The Rookie Detective]

Smith`s a good witness. He tells Reid at the inquest that "when i saw deceased lying on the ground I recognised her at once and made a report of what I had seen". he noticed her flower both times he saw her.

But notice the similarities between Parcel Man and Mrs Long`s shabby genteel man. Both had a dark over coat and wore a dark deer stalker. !!

What's interesting about Parcelman; is that his description is not at all similar to that of Bs Man.

Jon kindly highlighted this fact recently when I raised the question to try and compare the 2 men.

So we have Parcelman who was as close to certain talking with Stride circa 12.35am.

And we have BS man...a DIFFERENT man who was alleged to have assaulted her AFTER Parcelman had been seen with Stride.

Parcel man was initially considered the prime person of Interest when the story first broke in the press...that was until Schwartz came along afterwards and told of the assault he had witnessed by Bs Man.

The introduction of Bs Man by Schwartz effectively changes the focus from Parcelman to Bs man on the simple basis that Bs Man was said to have been with Stride approximately 10 minutes after Parcelman was.

Parcel man could therefore not have been the killer if Stride was subsequently assaulted by Bs man.

But that all depends on whether you believe Schwartz in the first place.

Schwartz effectively got Parcel man off the hook.

It wouldn't surprise me if Parcel man was the real killer and Schwartz was the same man incognito who came along and gave a false statement to essentially give himself an alibi.

The idea that Parcelman and Schwartz were the same man should be considered...and if they were; then there's your killer.

Whether he was also the Ripper, is another story