Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Lewis C]

The discussion about what side of the street Pipeman and Schwartz were on has gotten me thinking about the confusion about whether BS man was saying "Lipski" to Pipeman or to Schwarz. If those two were on opposite sides of the street, it should have been clear whom BS man was talking to if Schwartz was looking at him. BS man was talking to whomever BS man was looking at, which should have been obvious if Schwartz and Pipeman weren't close to each other and if Schwartz was looking at BS man. So if Schwartz and Pipeman were on opposite sides of the street, then Schwartz probably wasn't looking at BS man when he said "Lipski". I don't know if this helps us to figure anything else out, but maybe someone will have a useful application for this idea.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock Sholmes

Hi Lewis,

That just about sums the possibilities up nicely. I think it likeliest is that Smith passed at around 12.35, then Eagle returned not long after then Fanny went onto her doorstep (mistaking Eagle’s steps for a Constable’s) She goes back inside just before 12.50. The incident occurs and is done by around 12.50. She hears Louis at a time that he believes is 1.00 but is actually 1

Except Eagles route back to Berner Street wouldn't have taken him past Mortimer's house.

The only individuals that we are aware of who walked past Mortimer's house within that time frame, were Pc Smith, Goldstein and Schwartz.

I’d always taken it that Eagle had walked south on Berner Street when he came back but I have to admit, now that you mention it, I can’t recall why I assume it. Do you know of any information to say that he came from the other way RD?

LAVE went from the club to as far as the street and then back again. Even if he exited from the front door but reentered through the side door, he still didn't walk past Mortimer's house.

Agreed

BS MAN was seen by Schwartz when BS man was situated between Mortimer and the murder site; suggesting that IF it was Bs man that Mortimer had heard, then she should have heard Schwartz too.
But she only heard 1 man.

It wouldn’t have been impossible for FM to have been in a room at the rear of the building when BSMan passed so she didn’t hear him, then she came straight away into the front room and so could have heard Schwartz, though I’m certainly not pushing this one.

This may have been Schwartz IF BS man had remained SOUTH of Mortimer's location.
This supports BS man having walked BACK to assault Stride.

PARCELMAN - unknown entity in terms of which direction he went after leaving Stride.

Surely he went into Fairclough Street as Schwartz initially thought that he might have been following him?

There is of course a scenario whereby Parcelman waits for Eagle to go back inside the club at 12.40am and then gestures Stride into the yard. He then cuts her throat and then leaves heading NORTH directly past Mortimer's house.

But wouldn’t Eagle have seen Stride if she was loitering around?

This would be between 12.42-12.44am and correspond to the time that Mortimer comes to her door just after she heard the killer pass by.

Sorry to be a broken record on this RD but we don’t know what time she went onto her doorstep.

That would mean that Mortimer hears the murderer Parcel man as he heads NORTH.
He turns left just past Mortimer's house and through the passageway that leads directly into Back Church Lane.

Mortimer then comes to her door at 12.45am and Stride is already dead.

To further the possibility that Parcelman was the killer and the man heard walking past Mortimer's house, there's also a chance that Parcelman and Schwartz were the same man.

At 11.20pm that’s a bit of a brain-frazzler! We have Schwartz becoming a man that he himself must have invented! Come on RD, have mercy.

If there's a chance Parcelman was the killer and thought he had been seen; what better way that to divert attention and invent a story that coincides with the approximate time the woman was murdered but with the emphasis on what occurred SOUTH of the club.

Perhaps the focus should be on the idea that the killer was heard leaving the scene by Mortimer and she just missed seeing him as she came to her door and he darted left through into Backchuch Lane.

Worth consideration

I admire your persistence with the Parcelman theory RD. If I didn’t know you as an honest chap I’d be wondering if you actually knew who he was and that he was someone that had committed some offence against your family in the past and that you are now looking for revenge by fitting the poor chap up.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Except if she was standing at the door nearly the whole time, she would have seen PC Smith pass her house, not heard him, and she would have seen Stride and Parcelman, which she did not.

Really?

These people were not spotted by Letchford, his sister, Lave, Eagle or Brown, and they were collectively on the street, it would seem, for a fairly brief period and those periods overlap.

Why I am being told that the no one witnessed what Schwartz did because the event was so short in time, but Fanny's nearly the whole time claim must be dismissed because she missed a few minutes of that half hour?

Moreover, in the other news report she clearly indicates she was out once, for 10 minutes by her reckoning. While I can only speculate, it strikes me that this news article (which is repeated in a few papers, but it's clearly the same article), she may have said something along the lines like "I was at my door between 12:30 and 1:00 ..." meaning at some point between those times, not from A to B, but the reporter presents it as if she were there the whole time. If she was there nearly the whole time, then she should have seen the murder given it happened between those times.

I don't agree she indicates she was only out once. Going to her unbolted door at a certain point does not preclude her having been there earlier. Furthermore, why would she tell one reporter a story that contradicted what she told another? I'm not sure what you mean about seeing the murder, which was not possible from her location.

So now you are questioning the news report, which is fair enough. But clearly, as you say, if she immediately went out, she would have seen both PC Smith and also Stride and Parcelman. Unless, as some have suggested, it wasn't PC Smith, but then if she immediately went out and the footsteps were not PC Smith, she would have realised her error and said she saw a man walking along Berner, which she didn't. So she couldn't have gone out immediately in the literal sense, but rather it was the next thing she did although it was technically shortly after hearing the footsteps. And that is what I suggested, which means there's a bit of time for PC Smith to see Stride and Parcelman, and for them to move to somewhere she does not see them. Wickerman suggests they move into the ally by the club, so out of her sight, I suggested they moved south to Fairclough. But clearly, Stride and Parcelman move from where PC Smith sees them to some location Fanny cannot in the time between PC Smith passing her house and her coming out.

So, "immediately" is incorrect. Why then, should we have confidence that this report faithfully represents what Fanny said?

Clearly, if the reporter was aware that PC Smith had seen Stride, he would know her body could not yet be in the yard. But being incomplete on that doesn't matter since it's the bits that Fanny tells him that matters at the moment, and she tells him she went out after hearing the footsteps of a PC, and that Stride wasn't in view when she did so. That tells us there was a delay, sufficient for Stride to vacate the location PC Smith saw her, before Fanny comes out.

Hence why Fanny did not see the murder?

It's hard enough dealing with statement made by a witness after they've come through the editing of a reporter. Now we have a reporter presenting what someone said someone else told them ... Basically, all this tells us really is that at some point before 1:00 Charles' sister may have stood at her door for some unknown amount of time, and he says she didn't see anyone. You'll forgive me I hope if I don't carve that 12:50 into stone.

I don't mind if you're happy to take the risk that the Schwartz stuff occurred when Letchford said his sister was at her doorstep.

There is another risk I believe we are all taking with this report. Do we know for a fact that the subject of the report is Fanny Mortimer?

The consensus at this forum seems to be that this rather dubious report, in which Fanny is not quoted or named, should be preferred to a direct quote from the witness. I find that odd, to say the least.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

In previous discussions you have expressed your disapproval when stated times aren’t stuck to.

Rubbish. As almost all witnesses give estimated times by their own admission, why would I disapprove of someone not sticking to stated times?

On your second point, it was me that talked about ‘Smith time’ and ‘Diemschitz time’ not necessarily being aligned (applying to all stated times). We can’t assume that they used the same clock. Why is it that you keep talking about 35 minutes? From his own words we get that his beat took 25 or 30 minutes. (Let’s pick 30 for the sake of this discussion) Also from his own words he said that he passed at around 12.30-12.35. (Let’s pick 12.35 for the sake of this discussion)

So he passes at 12.35…walks for 30 minutes…and arrives back at 1.05. And as we can’t know which clock Smith set his time by it’s absolutely possible that he believed that it was nearer to 1.00 than 1.05. He might even have thought that it was just after 1.00 but he simply rounded it back to 1.00 feeling that a couple of minutes hear or there would make no difference.

You want to use your own estimate of when Smith returned and ignore what he himself said. It's ludicrous.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Isn't that the majority view, that Pipeman came out from the doorway?

Yes, it is. The majority view is that in the police report, "opposite" moves around with Schwartz, but in the press report "opposite" is (implicitly, as no one has specifically said) fixed and relative to the gateway. That is, the majority views the police report as confusingly using "opposite" to mean relative to Schwartz, whereas the press account takes a consistent 'birds-eye view' of the crime scene, and not the man they are writing the report about!

It's just laughable.

It can't be absurd, when Schwartz reached the east side then the doorway of the Nelson pub is now opposite, so any man stepping out from there is 'opposite' to Schwartz.

The press report is from the point of view of Schwartz.

...feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off,...

The majority view is the convenient view, but it ignores the fact that as Schwartz steps of the kerb, the Nelson is not a few doors off.

You likely meant 'doesn't', but which correspondence do you mean?

Yes, 'doesn't'. Thanks.

https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...0proper%20name.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

To be fair the first one is ambiguous but I think the press report- as problematic as they can be- helps clear up that Pipeman came out of the Nelson. Therefore he was on the same side as Stride and BS man.

As the Nelson was closed at the time, a man coming out of it would seem to dramatically narrow the possible candidates. The publican or a member of staff, for example. Yet apparently no luck in identifying him.

Why do you suppose this man would have seen Schwartz as an intruder on activity at the gateway, and lunged at him with a knife, or a pipe, or any implement you care to name?