Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[c.d.]

Well did Mortimer say what she actually saw? What about Lawende? Hutchinson? Maxwell? You might as well throw out all witness testimony in this case.

I mean if you want to go down that road.........

c.d.

[Wickerman]

If it weren't for the press version, would there be any argument?

The meaning of "On crossing to the opposite side of the street" can be ascertained from Schwartz's initial location when he spots the woman in the gateway.

...on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

At that point, Schwartz, first man and the woman are all at the gateway. The board school side is where Schwartz crosses to and is therefore the opposite side. All Met and HO correspondence is based on this understanding.

Right, "the opposite side of the street" is fixed - it does not jump around following Schwartz.

Except there is no evidence that Schwartz doubled-back across the street.

Which is not on the opposite side of the street, as understood by Swanson, and therefore the notion of Pipeman coming out of the doorway of the Nelson is, while convenient, incorrect.

I wasn't taking one view in preference to another, I was describing how the word 'opposite' has been interpreted differently, all depending on where Schwartz was at the time. It is not clear whether 'opposite' refers to the location of the altercation, or to where Schwartz was standing.
Just take the second example:

The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road

Is that from Schwartz's perspective (as he reached the Board School side?), in that case 'opposite' means on the same side as the altercation - which is now opposite to where Schwartz is standing.
Or is it from the Stride's point of view?

You prefer one view, but there's no certainty that you are correct.
Does "on crossing" mean as he begins to cross, or after he has crossed?

[Herlock Sholmes]

He doesn't have to pass 6 or 7 minutes prior. I based that on the commonly held view that Fanny locks up about 4 minutes prior to Diemschitz arriving and sees Goldstein shortly before she does so. Actually, I'm more inclined to accept Walter Dew's claim that she locks very close to the point of the pony and cart turning into the street.

The same Walter Dew that said that Emma Smith was found unconscious in the street?

In your 12:55 Diemschitz arrival scenario, at what time does Eagle return to the club? Does Half-Tipsy/BS Man walk down the street just before, just after, or at the same time?

I’m not going down your usual avenue of trying to tie everything down to precise timing because no honest appraisal of events can take place under that u reasonable premise. All that we know for certain is the incident occurred and Eagle returned whilst Fanny was inside. Goldstein passed whilst Fanny was on her doorstep. Diemschutz returned whilst Fanny was indoors. We can produce timelines where the incident either occurred before Fanny came onto her doorstep and timelines where it occurred after she’d gone inside. Every single one is massively more believable than the suggestion that Schwartz pretended to have been there. Could he have been mistaken? Certainly. But deliberately deceitful? Unlikely in the extreme.

[Wickerman]

The press report refers to a man coming out of a doorway....

Have you noticed in the police version (by Swanson) there are no details to identify which street he is in.

Schwartz passed a gateway, is the gate open, or closed? - he does not say.
No mention of a pub on the corner, so no 'doorway' either.
No mention of the Board school.

Then we have the press version, where all these details materialize, but from who?
Has the journalist coloured Schartz's story with location details that fit Berner St., but Schwartz wasn't really sure what street he was in. It was nearly 1:00, it was dark, and he wasn't paying attention.
He saw a woman assaulted in a gateway as he was hurrying home, then later in the day he heard of a woman's body found in an alley in Berner St., so he just assumed the incidents were related. Schwartz just assumed he saw the same woman being assaulted.

The sheltering in a doorway to light a pipe notion, appears in neither the police nor press report. According to the press report, the man doesn't even have a pipe, he has a knife. Only in our imaginations does a man shelter from an assumed wind in the Nelson doorway, to light his pipe.

Yes, 'we' have attempted to rationalize a story that lacks detail - if we feel the need to flesh out the story, then why not the journalist who spoke to Schwartz at the time?

As I've suggested, if "the doorway of the public-house a few doors off" is interpreted as meaning the entrance to the court that leads to the public house on Batty St, then not only are the "opposite side of the street" and closing time issues resolved, but something slightly extraordinary happens - we can see that Pipeman appears from the same location that PC Smith had shortly before seen a man talking with Stride.

You say - "if "the doorway of the public-house a few doors off" is interpreted as meaning the entrance to the court that leads to the public house on Batty St" - is a lot more than "a few doors off", especially when the Nelson is only yards away.

[Wickerman]

...

However; it's not the visual sightings; or lack of, that concerns me primarily; it's the complete absence of any audible corroboration of events that Schwartz claims transpired.

We have a man seemingly under the influence of alcohol attack a woman standing in a gateway.
The assault is seen as being spontaneous and the man is seen throwing the woman down to the ground.

The witness to all of this crossed the road to avoid any confrontation; perhaps a natural "flight" response to seeing an assault occur just yards in front of him.

The witness then claims that the woman screamed 3 times...but "not very loudly."

Convenient perhaps, but worthy of being given the benefit of the doubt.

Either just before, during or after the woman has screamed 3 times, the man who has just assaulted the woman then realises that his assault on the woman has been witnessed and appearing to acknowledge Schwaetz's presence; the assailant shouts over towards the witness the word "Lipski!."

Around the same time, the witness notices another man step out from a doorway...

Exactly, it's like a story within a story, yet there's no interaction between the two - they sit in isolation with each other.
Something is amiss...

[c.d.]

By claiming he sees her assaulted, but not being killed; he not only vindicates his reason for being there, but he also diverts any focus of suspicion that may otherwise be cast onto him.

Well if he wanted to absolutely ensure that no suspicion was cast onto him he could have chosen not to come forward at all with his story. Why put yourself in that situation if you don't have to?

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree that the entire event that Schwartz witnessed could have taken just a few minutes.

I think that it’s also worth pointing out that the actual incident itself could easily have taken 20 seconds or so (I understand of course that you are describing the time between Schwartz entering Berner Street and then exiting.)

However; it's not the visual sightings; or lack of, that concerns me primarily; it's the complete absence of any audible corroboration of events that Schwartz claims transpired.

We have a man seemingly under the influence of alcohol attack a woman standing in a gateway.

The assault is seen as being spontaneous and the man is seen throwing the woman down to the ground.

I accept that but it’s not impossible that Stride knew BSMan and that perhaps he was someone that she was trying to avoid.

The witness to all of this crossed the road to avoid any confrontation; perhaps a natural "flight" response to seeing an assault occur just yards in front of you.

The witness then claims that the woman screamed 3 times...but "not very loudly."

Convenient perhaps, but worthy of being given the benefit of the doubt.

Either just before, during or after the woman has screamed 3 times, the man who has just assaulted the woman then realises that his assault on the woman has been witnessed and appearing to acknowledge Schwartz’s presence; the assailant shouts over towards the witness the word "Lipski!."

Around the same time, the witness notices another man step out from a doorway.

It is seemingly the combination of the assault, the shout of "Lipski!" and the presence of another man that causes Schwartz to flee from the scene by running away...

... as far as the railway arch.

The witness has the awareness to look back and see the 2nd man moving in the same direction as himself, perhaps a case of both men fleeing or the 2nd man being an accomplice to the man who had been seen assaulting the woman.

Okay...

Now.

Despite all of the above sequence taking around 2 minutes (any less would not account for all the main played leaving the scene undetected).. we still have an important question that needs to be addressed...

Why did no other individual within a 100 meter radius HEAR ANY of the entire sequence of events described above?

Brown

Mortimer

Goldstein

PC Smith on his beat rotation

The couple on the corner by the board school

The multiple individuals situated downstairs inside the club on the yard side of the building

Packer (okay, forget him)

The fact that nobody witnessed SEEING the assault or the at least one man running away, it is he fact that nobody HEARD ANYTHING vaguely relating to anything that Schwartz said whatsoever.

IIRC the only incident reported in the press was the report of the alleged assailant being chased down the road by someone known to the club; but not a member.

That would appear to correspond to Schwartz being chased by Pipeman.

And so, did Schwartz come forward and say he RAN AWAY from the assault as a way to cover the fact that he was instead being CHASED after being seen assaulting the victim?

This would explain his placing himself at the scene.

Even his appearance was noted at the time.

A man playing a part perhaps.

So when we take all the individual pieces, we are left with a few questions that cannot be ignored, and require explanation...


1- Why did nobody hear Stride being attacked?

I’d suggest for many of the same reasons that neither Emma Green nor Walter Purkiss heard the attack on Polly Nichols or that the police Constable whose house backed onto Mitre Square heard nothing of the attack on Catherine Eddowes.

2- Why did nobody hear Bs man shout "Lipski?!"

Things just go unnoticed or unheard. We hear that singing could be heard from the men upstairs in the club, possibly an open window? Would one word have stood out that much?

3- Why did nobody hear Schwartz and/or Pipeman run away?

How much noise would their footsteps have made?

4- Why does Schwartz's timings clash with Brown and the other couple seen by Brown being within EARSHOT of the assault?

Many times clash. I mentioned in another post that PC Long and DC Halse both claim to have passed along Goulston Street at the same time but they didn’t see each other. Would you find that suspicious?

5 - Why does Schwartz get his sides of the road wrong in relation to Pipeman?

He didn’t.

6- Why does Stride choose to scream 3 times, but not loud enough for anyone else but Schwartz to hear her?

Maybe she knew her attacker and didn’t fear for her life. We have to remember that these women were sadly accustomed to rough treatment.

7- Why does Schwartz run as far as the train archway, when the geographical route doesn't fit with this claim?

I can’t answer that one RD. I haven’t looked into it.

8- Why did Schwartz not appear at the inquest?

We don’t know. All that we do know is that as far as the specific aims of an inquest go Schwartz wasn’t a vital witness but we know that non-vital witnesses are often called. David Orsam suggested 8 possible reasons why Schwartz might not have attended. I’ve added one or two as have others. None of us know though.

9 -Why did he give an address of 22 Ellen Street when he didn't actually live there?

I haven’t looked into this background RD so I can’t give a proper answer. Couldn’t it be possible that he and his wife lodged with another family and had moved on by the time of the next census?

10- Why can nobody find any trace of Schwartz outside of the murder of Stride?

I was under the impression that possible ‘Schwartz’s’ had been located? But no definitive one?


Regardless of whether the assault took as little as 2 minutes; when you combine all of the above questions; it is clear to see that things can't be conveniently explained away just because it goes against the grain to question what has been an established part of Ripper Lore for well over a century.

I have to disagree RD. I’d say that there isn’t a thing that can’t be reasonably explained in terms of time errors

Multiple witnesses stated it was relatively quiet in Berner Street.

If we dare to consider just for a moment the possibility that the Schwartz incident never happened; then we are left with a scenario whereby nothing happened right up until the moment Stride was found.

That a man lied to place himself at the scene of a murder with no one to confirm that he wasn’t the killer is massively less likely that a short incident occurring unseen or heard.

A silent kill in the dark, with no witnesses and no dramatic goings on in the build up.

The reason why Mortimer, the other couple on the corner, Lave, individual’s downstairs in the club and anyone else within close proximity heard NOTHING untoward...is because that's precisely correct.

The only muted sound coming from the lock-in inside the club upstairs, and perhaps the wind and rain.

Mortimer and Lave are poor witnesses. In the Press we get multiple versions of what Lave did so that we don’t know when he went into the yard, what exactly he did when he was out there and what time he went back inside. Mortimer is almost as bad. We haven’t a clue what time she went onto her doorstep. We haven’t a clue how long she stayed there. So…

Herlock’s Maxim No 4 - “Something cannot be proven or disproven by using unknowns as factors.”

[Wickerman]

...

My question to you is, what would Parcelman have done if he'd become aware of Elizabeth being mistreated?

I think that all depends on who Parcelman was, if he was a regular citizen, Stride's date, or even a client, then likely him seeing her get assaulted in front of him, he might step forward to intervene.

Alternately, if he was the Ripper, he has chosen his victim, who coincidentally gets assaulted by some passing drunk who didn't see him, then no he certainly is not going to get involved. That would only draw attention to himself, the last thing he wants.
Within the next five minutes he will kill her anyway.

[Sunny Delight]

I think that all depends on who Parcelman was, if he was a regular citizen, Stride's date, or even a client, then likely him seeing her get assaulted in front of him, he might step forward to intervene.

Alternately, if he was the Ripper, he has chosen his victim, who coincidentally gets assaulted by some passing drunk who didn't see him, then no he certainly is not going to get involved. That would only draw attention to himself, the last thing he wants.
Within the next five minutes he will kill her anyway.

I tend to think Parcelman may have been an acquaintance of Stride's. It is possible he came forward but the paperwork has not survived. There is so much we just don't know. I would say he left prior to BS man's appearance. The description that PC Smith provides I think shows two people at ease, not drunk and seemingly engaged in normal conversation.

Of course there is zero evidence to support my assertion and I accept that. It's just my own surmising and interpretation of what we know.

[Sunny Delight]

Mortimer and Lave are poor witnesses. In the Press we get multiple versions of what Lave did so that we don’t know when he went into the yard, what exactly he did when he was out there and what time he went back inside. Mortimer is almost as bad. We haven’t a clue what time she went onto her doorstep. We haven’t a clue how long she stayed there. So…

Herlock’s Maxim No 4 - “Something cannot be proven or disproven by using unknowns as factors.”

I would really disagree in regards Mortimer. If we take events as they were we can be fairly certain that she was at her door around 12:55am, as we think, or it is generally accepted this was when Leon Goldstein made his way down Berner Street. She can't have been at her door at 12:35am when PC Smith passed or she would have seen him and if Schwartz is accurate she wasn't there at 12:45am either. We seem to become fixated on her words, 'almost the whole time' but we have to look past that.

The other evidence tells us that when she was at her door and when she wasn't. The fact she was co-orborated by Leon Goldstein is absolutely key. The first press report also said she went to her door at around 12:45am after hearing the measured footsteps of a PC pass. So we could estimate she was at her door between 12:45-12:55am.

I would imagine the Police would have been very keen to speak with her but unfortunately that hasn't survived if they did. It may have clarified things.

[Sunny Delight]

My question was why did Goldstein have to pass 6 or 7 minutes before Diemschitz arrived? We don’t know what time Goldstein passed as none was ever given. If Diemschitz returned at (in reality) 12.55 then Goldstein could have passes at 12.54.

Mortimer stated she had seen him before she turned in and shortly afterwards she heard Diemschutz cart. Mortimer was a crucial witness in this case. I can't believe people don't take her seriously. Walter Dew seemed to remember her which suggests the Police spoke to her and valued her statement.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would really disagree in regards Mortimer. If we take events as they were we can be fairly certain that she was at her door around 12:55am, as we think, or it is generally accepted this was when Leon Goldstein made his way down Berner Street. She can't have been at her door at 12:35am when PC Smith passed or she would have seen him and if Schwartz is accurate she wasn't there at 12:45am either. We seem to become fixated on her words, 'almost the whole time' but we have to look past that.

The other evidence tells us that when she was at her door and when she wasn't. The fact she was co-orborated by Leon Goldstein is absolutely key. The first press report also said she went to her door at around 12:45am after hearing the measured footsteps of a PC pass. So we could estimate she was at her door between 12:45-12:55am.

I would imagine the Police would have been very keen to speak with her but unfortunately that hasn't survived if they did. It may have clarified things.

But we don’t know when Goldstein passed Sunny.

She said in one newspaper that she went onto her doorstep immediately after she’d heard a PC pass shortly before 12.45. But Smith said that he passed between 12.30 and 12.35. So if he passed at 12.35 and she went onto her doorstep immediately we would have to say 12.36 which of course is a full 9 minutes before 12.45 and can’t be described as immediately. If Schwartz passed at 12.45 then she went back inside at 12.46. Why does she say that she heard Louis around 4 minutes later when it would have been closer to 14 minutes?

And if she was on her doorstep from around 12.36 to 12.46 that’s only 10 minutes out of 30. How could she say that she’d been on her doorstep for most of the time? 10 out of 30?

I don’t think that Mrs Mortimer lied but rather the reporting is unreliable so that we cannot pin down her timing enough for her to be of much use.

Add to this the fact that we have no way of tying down Schwartz time exactly either, likewise Eagle, we are in a situation where we can’t assign times to anyone with confidence. Only approximate ones.

[Sunny Delight]

But we don’t know when Goldstein passed Sunny.

She said in one newspaper that she went onto her doorstep immediately after she’d heard a PC pass shortly before 12.45. But Smith said that he passed between 12.30 and 12.35. So if he passed at 12.35 and she went onto her doorstep immediately we would have to say 12.36 which of course is a full 9 minutes before 12.45 and can’t be described as immediately. If Schwartz passed at 12.45 then she went back inside at 12.46. Why does she say that she heard Louis around 4 minutes later when it would have been closer to 14 minutes?

And if she was on her doorstep from around 12.36 to 12.46 that’s only 10 minutes out of 30. How could she say that she’d been on her doorstep for most of the time? 10 out of 30?

I don’t think that Mrs Mortimer lied but rather the reporting is unreliable so that we cannot pin down her timing enough for her to be of much use.

Add to this the fact that we have no way of tying down Schwartz time exactly either, likewise Eagle, we are in a situation where we can’t assign times to anyone with confidence. Only approximate ones.

I agree the reporting is problematic but we do tend to focus on the 'almost the entire time' quote. There were others on the street however who can give us an estimation of when Mortimer came to her door. The first report where it states she came to her door around 12:45am seems to be the most likely. She was not at her door at 12:35am when PC Smith passed. Morris Eagle said he returned to the club about 12:40. Israel Schwartz witnesses an assault at 12:45am. Louis Diemschutz finds Stride's body at 1am. Mortimer being at her door from shortly after 12:45-12:55am and witnessing Goldstein passing, before 4 minutes later hearing Diemschutz just seems the most logical sequence of events.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree the reporting is problematic but we do tend to focus on the 'almost the entire time' quote. There were others on the street however who can give us an estimation of when Mortimer came to her door. The first report where it states she came to her door around 12:45am seems to be the most likely. She was not at her door at 12:35am when PC Smith passed. Morris Eagle said he returned to the club about 12:40. Israel Schwartz witnesses an assault at 12:45am. Louis Diemschutz finds Stride's body at 1am. Mortimer being at her door from shortly after 12:45-12:55am and witnessing Goldstein passing, before 4 minutes later hearing Diemschutz just seems the most logical sequence of events.

I agree Sunny. Eagle, incident, Fanny on step, Goldstein passes, Fanny back inside, Louis returns is likeliest.

[The Rookie Detective]

Mortimer stated she had seen him before she turned in and shortly afterwards she heard Diemschutz cart. Mortimer was a crucial witness in this case. I can't believe people don't take her seriously. Walter Dew seemed to remember her which suggests the Police spoke to her and valued her statement.

Sadly; the primary reason why Mortimer is sometimes negated as a potential witness; is because she clashes with the more populist choice of witness; namely the enigmatic "Schwartz."

12.45am - 12.55am would seem the most likely time frame, but it can't be correct because we have to fit in Schwartz's story.

The result of which is that Mortimer suddenly becomes redundant and unreliable and even Brown is relegated to having his "around 12.45am" time changed so that we can allow for Schwartz to have his way and say.

Schwartz has always taken precedence over both Mortimer and Brown...

... which is odd because both Mortimer and Brown gave their statements later on the same day of the murder, whereas Schwartz came out of the woodwork after the press had already printed the story.

Funny that.