Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Wickerman]

If they were, they may also be the same pair who dispatched Tabram; one of whon was seen by a police officer and who said he was waiting for his mate.

But weren't they soldiers from the Tower, in red tunics, etc.?

[Sunny Delight]

I agree that it isn’t the clearest bit of writing Sunny.

Actually something just occured to me. Why would there have been confusion on who BS man was addressing, if he was looking down the same side of the street as Pipeman was standing. Schwartz would be on the other side of the road? It would be immediately clear who the insult was addressed too.

However if Schwartz and Pipeman were near each other then it would be very difficult to discern who was being addressed.

[Sunny Delight]

If they were, they may also be the same pair who dispatched Tabram; one of whon was seen by a police officer and who said he was waiting for his mate.

The soldier waiting for his mate has always intrigued me. I often think there is more to it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Actually something just occured to me. Why would there have been confusion on who BS man was addressing, if he was looking down the same side of the street as Pipeman was standing. Schwartz would be on the other side of the road? It would be immediately clear who the insult was addressed too.

However if Schwartz and Pipeman were near each other then it would be very difficult to discern who was being addressed.

I think that it was the case that Swanson had the impression, for whatever reason, that BSMan had called out to Parcelman rather than Schwartz.

“On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road ‘Lipski’ & then Schwartz walked away..”

If Swanson had felt that the BSMan had called out to Schwartz he would surely have used his name?

[Lewis C]

FM: 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 can't get 12 minutes to fit with that quote. In the case of 2 minutes, there was a discussion a few pages back regarding what the extent of blood flow at time of the discovery suggested about the time of the murder. Interested to hear your thoughts on that.

As an aside, do Mortimer's words suggest the previous row at the club occurred outside, not inside the club? If yes, I wonder if that has anything to do with the front door being locked.



Sorry, "both" refers to Mortimer and Goldstein. "About 1am" is compatible with just before 1am, and Mortimer said, "It was just after one o'clock when I went out...". The timings of these two and Diemschitz seem to fit well together.

I don't know what to think about the extent of blood flow. We don't know exactly how much time passed between when Diemschutz entered the yard and when the blood flow was first observed (though we do have a general idea), and what I took from the discussion was that we don't know whether the surface was dry, muddy or wet, which would affect how quickly the blood would flow. Also, I don't know how much blood per minute to expect to leave her body.

I agree that from the facts that you quoted, it would seem that Fanny closed her door later than 12:48, probably more like 12:55. But Fanny was also quoted as saying that she went to her door right after she heard what sounded like a policeman passing, and stayed there for 10 minutes, which would lead one to believe that she had closed up by 12:48, and maybe even a couple of minutes earlier. So the range of time that she could have been at her door should account for the fact that part of what she said is probably true, but it can't all be true, so what time she was at her door depends on which part is true.

I would guess that Fanny's words refer to a row outside of the club, because she would be more likely to hear it if it were outside, and she likened the later commotion, which was outside, to the earlier commotion. I don't know if that has anything to do with the door being locked. In that neighborhood, having the door locked when it's that late would be a good precaution anyway.

[Lewis C]

I think that it was the case that Swanson had the impression, for whatever reason, that BSMan had called out to Parcelman rather than Schwartz.

“On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road ‘Lipski’ & then Schwartz walked away..”

If Swanson had felt that the BSMan had called out to Schwartz he would surely have used his name?

Abberline said, "I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say." (from Begg's Jack the Ripper: The Facts, p. 155) If Schwartz didn't know who BS man was talking to, that says to me that either Pipeman and Schwartz were near each other at the time, or Schwartz wasn't looking at BS man when he said it. If Schwartz and Pipeman were standing far apart and Schwartz was looking at BS man, Schwartz would have known who BS man was talking to by who he was looking at when he said it.

[Sunny Delight]

I think that it was the case that Swanson had the impression, for whatever reason, that BSMan had called out to Parcelman rather than Schwartz.

“On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road ‘Lipski’ & then Schwartz walked away..”

If Swanson had felt that the BSMan had called out to Schwartz he would surely have used his name?

I think you have misunderstood me. Lewis above has put it in a far better way than I did but it was what I was getting at.

[JeffHamm]

I think that it was the case that Swanson had the impression, for whatever reason, that BSMan had called out to Parcelman rather than Schwartz.

“On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road ‘Lipski’ & then Schwartz walked away..”

If Swanson had felt that the BSMan had called out to Schwartz he would surely have used his name?

Hi Herlock,

I think Swanson is reporting on Abberline's conclusion after A interviewed Schwartz. He (Abberline) came away thinking it was probable, or at least possible, that Schwartz was initially mistaken in his belief that Lipsky was shouted to Pipeman. Particularly as it appears that after questioning Schwartz retreated to a position of not being sure who was the intended target.

- Jeff

[New Waterloo]

I have mentioned this before. Please all give the observation a bit of a chance before writing it off.

n the subject of Pipeman emerging from the door to the pub.

I am not suggesting (on this occasion) anything to controversial or anything way off the mark.

Just for the benefit of the few who may not be appreciative of English terraced streets (and I say this with kindness and to help, not knocking anyone)

Terraced house are very narrow (not always but often) and entrance doors very very close on occasions (for example Mortimer's house is extremely close to the club, just one narrow property in between I think)

Anyway. If you look at the Berner Street photo of the pub and ignore the front corner doors then you will see a door on the Berner Street side and directly beside that door is the door to the neighboring house.. Well in fact they are so close that its extremely difficult to tell which leads into the pub which is a house or maybe even a door to a passage way.

Anyway Pipe came out of the pub OR out of the next door house. Simple as that. If we believe Schwartz of course

The point being that it is quite feasible that he did not exit from the pub but from the door of the adjoining house.

I have difficulty sending photos but please look and give the idea some thought

Thank you

NW

[DJA]

Berner and Fairclough.
107 Christian Street.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi, Lewis, Sunny and Jeff

I don’t see much of a mystery to be honest. As Schwartz was passing it’s unlikely that he’d have been staring/focusing entirely on the incident so if BSMan called out “Lipski” whilst Schwartz was looking away it’s understandable that he wouldn’t have been sure who the insult was aimed at.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have mentioned this before. Please all give the observation a bit of a chance before writing it off.

n the subject of Pipeman emerging from the door to the pub.

I am not suggesting (on this occasion) anything to controversial or anything way off the mark.

Just for the benefit of the few who may not be appreciative of English terraced streets (and I say this with kindness and to help, not knocking anyone)

Terraced house are very narrow (not always but often) and entrance doors very very close on occasions (for example Mortimer's house is extremely close to the club, just one narrow property in between I think)

Anyway. If you look at the Berner Street photo of the pub and ignore the front corner doors then you will see a door on the Berner Street side and directly beside that door is the door to the neighboring house.. Well in fact they are so close that its extremely difficult to tell which leads into the pub which is a house or maybe even a door to a passage way.

Anyway Pipe came out of the pub OR out of the next door house. Simple as that. If we believe Schwartz of course

The point being that it is quite feasible that he did not exit from the pub but from the door of the adjoining house.

I have difficulty sending photos but please look and give the idea some thought

Thank you

NW

Both certainly possible NW. I’d add that it’s also possible that he’d ducked into that shallow pub doorway to get out of the wind so that he could light his pipe. Lighting a pipe takes a bit longer than a cigarette (especially if the match keeps blowing out) so he could have been there for a few seconds giving the impression that he’d emerged from the pub because he hadn’t been seen walking along the street.

[JeffHamm]

With regards to the pubs closing at Midnight, would that be closing as in last orders, or closing as everybody out? If midnight was for last orders, then those inside would be allowed to finish then leave when done. It's not clear to me what the midnight closing refers to, but obviously if it's last orders then someone leaving a pub at 12:30 wouldn't be unheard of.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

With regards to the pubs closing at Midnight, would that be closing as in last orders, or closing as everybody out? If midnight was for last orders, then those inside would be allowed to finish then leave when done. It's not clear to me what the midnight closing refers to, but obviously if it's last orders then someone leaving a pub at 12:30 wouldn't be unheard of.

- Jeff

If you can make sense of this gibberish Jeff:

(2.) If situated beyond the city of London and the liberties thereof, and the parishes or places subject to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Work's, or beyond the four mile radius from Charing Cross, on Sunday, Christmas Day, and Good Friday during the whole day before the hour of half-past twelve (or, if the licensing justices direct, one) in the afternoon, and between the hours of half-past two (or, if one be the hour of opening, then three) and six in the afternoon, and after the hour of ten (or, if the licensing justices direct, any hour not earlier than nine and not later than eleven) at night, and on all other days before the hour of six (or, if the licensing justices direct, any hour not earlier than five and not later than seven) in the morning, and after the hour of eleven (or, if the licensing justices direct, any hour not earlier than ten and not later than twelve) at night.

It appears, although I’m not by any means certain, that whatever the time stated by law all customers had to vacate the premises:

If during any period during which any premises are required under the provisions of this Act to be closed, any person is found on such premises, he shall, unless he satisfies the court that he was an inmate, servant, or a lodger on such premises or a bone fide traveller, or that otherwise his presence on such premises was not in contravention of the provisions of this Act with respect to the closing of licensed premises, be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings.

Any constable may demand the name and address of any person found on any premises during the period during which they are required by the provisions of this Act to be closed, and if he has reasonable ground to suppose that the name or address given is false, may require evidence of the correctness of such name and address, and may, if such person fail upon such demand to give his name or address, or such evidence, apprehend him without warrant, and carry him, as soon as practicable, before a justice of the peace.

It’s no wonder the people break the Jeff.

[The Rookie Detective]

IIRC the Nelson Beer House wasn't a fully licensed public house and therefore should have closed by 10pm.

There were at least 3 other fully licensed pubs within a couple of hundred yards radius.

The Nelson Beer House; if indeed it was a 'Beer House' would have been required to close before the fully licensed pubs.

I may be wrong of course