Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

You’re absolutely right RD.

”Beer houses had another disadvantage besides not being able to sell spirits: shorter hours of operation. In London, pubs with a full license could stay open until half past midnight, while beer houses had to close at 10 p.m.”

(It doesn’t say this in the article but I believe that closing time for pubs was 12.00 on a Saturday.)

This is the short article.

https://www.beeradvocate.com/articles/14589/the-rise-and-fall-of-beer-houses/

The Vine pub mentioned in the article is still in business in Brierley Hill. I remember having a pint in there many years ago.

[Wickerman]

...

(It doesn’t say this in the article but I believe that closing time for pubs was 12.00 on a Saturday.)

Thats right, it's in the Police Code, because Sunday begins at midnight the pubs had to close early, at 12:00, for all licensed premises withing 4 miles radius of Charring Cross.

[Sunny Delight]

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

Why would there be confusion if Pipeman and Schwartz were on opposite sides of the street?

[Lewis C]

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.

Hi Herlock,

That might well be the most likely explanation: Schwartz didn't know who BS man was talking to because Schwartz wasn't looking at him.

[Wickerman]

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.

Agreed, but the press version appears to embellish Schwartz's story. They place a knife in the hand of a man whom, in the police report, was carrying a pipe, and the 'warning' is shouted by the man coming from the doorway, whereas in the police notes, it comes from BS-man.
Who knows what else they got wrong?

[Wickerman]

...
That might well be the most likely explanation: Schwartz didn't know who BS man was talking to because Schwartz wasn't looking at him.

I suspect the same, Schwartz might have had his back to what was taking place as he started to cross the street. Which is why he was unsure about who shouted what, to whom.

[Sunny Delight]

I suspect the same, Schwartz might have had his back to what was taking place as he started to cross the street. Which is why he was unsure about who shouted what, to whom.

If that was the case would he have known from what direction the shout came? There was 20-30 yards between BS man and Pipeman? The press did report that as he passed by the couple he turned back on hearing the scuffle and then Lipski was shouted. Now if Schwartz was on the opposite side of the road to Pipeman he would have know immediately who it was aimed at. If however he was still on the road as he turned back to look and Pipeman was on the footpath near him it may have been much more ambiguous to Schwartz who Lipski was being directed too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why would there be confusion if Pipeman and Schwartz were on opposite sides of the street?

If Schwartz wasn’t looking directly at BSMan at the exact time that he called Lipski then wouldn’t have known if the shout was directed at himself or Pipeman.

[The Rookie Detective]

Berner and Fairclough.
107 Christian Street.

What's interesting about this photograph is that it provides some visual proof as to the relative proximity between the main club entrance onto Berner Street with the gateway into Dutfield's yard.

We are talking no more than 5 yards

Therefore, when Eagle tried the main entrance and found it to be locked, he was standing facing the club door practically next to the gateway itself.

We know from Eagle's double negative response to being asked if he saw anyone, that there were others in the street at the time he returned to the club circa 12.40am.

However; it would seem extremely unlikely for him to have tried the front entrance and then failed to notice a couple standing just 5 yards away from him in the gateway.

This then provides us with some degree of certainly that when Eagle tried the front door, found it locked, and then walked through the gateway into the yard to access the side door, that Stride was at that point NOT standing in the gateway AND not already laying deceased on the floor; as based on his physical trajectory from the front door, he should have tripped over her had she have already been there.

And so, if we take it back to Pc Smith's sighting sometime between 12.30am -12.35am as he walked down Berner Street and then saw a couple standing a few yards from the gateway on the opposite side of the road, it would indicate that Stride and Parcelman were standing on the East side of the street and were almost certainly standing in the same spot when Eagle arrived back in Berner Street and initially approached the front door of the club.

In other words, Stride did not move from the spot she was in when seen by PC Smith, until AFTER Eagle had walked through the gateway after he had initially found the front entrance to be locked.

The only anomaly therefore between 12.30am and 12.40am would appear to be Lave, who despite being rather vague; DID state that he went "as far as the street."

The same would seem to apply to Lave in that it's extremely unlikely that Stride had moved to the gateway until AFTER he had gone back into the club.
Furthermore, his timing of circa 12.40am would perhaps indicate he re-entered the club AFTER the front entrance had been locked.

That said; there is a chance that Lave was also Parcelman.

That doesn't make Parcelman the killer, but would explain Lave's comment of going as far as the street.
If he did indeed engage in conversation with Stride; then he was unlikely to have admitted doing so even if he did.
One would assume however that PC Smith would have identified Lave as Parcelman if they had indeed been the same man.

And then we have BS man; who was seen by Schwartz, assaulting Stride in the gateway circa 12.45am.

Due to Eagle and Lave both having gone back into the club BEFORE Stride moves from the East Side of the street over to the gateway situated on the opposite side of the street (west) we can be fairly sure that Stride moved over to the gateway at some point AFTER Eagle (and Lave) had gone through the gateway to the side door but BEFORE BS man assaults her.

Based on Eagle leaving and BS man assaulting Stride, this makes the time Stride moved from one side of the street to the other side, some time between 12.41am and 12.44am.

But that then requires Parcelman to have gone somewhere in that time frame because it seems that the main description of Parcelman and BS man are different enough to make it seem very unlikely they were the same man.

So where did Parcelman go?


Well perhaps if he was Lave, then that would explain a lot.


The next question would be; well why did Stride move over to the gateway?

Well perhaps if Lave was Parcelman and he had left the club not to get some fresh air; but to give Stride a package; then that would explain why Lave was so vague and also support Parcelman having been Lave.


Of course; if Schwartz was not correct or truthful and BS man never even existed; then we have a scenario whereby Stride may have gone over to the gateway with Lave (parcelman) just after Eagle had gone back into the club circa 12.40am.

This would then leave the street quiet and empty for Mortimer's vigil which must have taken place AFTER Stride had gone over to the gateway (AFTER Eagle) i.e. AFTER 12.40am.

Of course, there is another scenario whereby Stride and Parcelman never crossed the road and just after Parcleman left by going back into the club with his parcel, another man arrived and accosted Stride as she walked AWAY from the club (the couple seen by Brown)

After saying "No, not tonight" Stride may have then tried to go into the club because she had just seen Parcelman go in, but was followed by the man seen by Brown and before she could reach the side door, he cut her throat and just walked away BEFORE Mortimer got to her door.

Either way the kill time is approximately the same.

Schwartz is the only witness to see Stride in the gateway.

But if Schwartz was wrong or lied; then the time that Stride moved over to gateway side of the road, after having been seen by PC Smith on the other side of the road, becomes crucial.

Mortimer never saw Stride and so the time Stride moved can only be 12.41-12.44am OR in the moments just AFTER Mortimer goes back inside her house.


So much to decipher, and yet it remains all the more intriguing

[JeffHamm]

Why would there be confusion if Pipeman and Schwartz were on opposite sides of the street?

That depends upon the specifics of the situation, including Schwartz's state of mind. For example, if he's already a bit nervous, the shout and sudden appearance of Pipeman would combine with his nervousness to result in a "worst case scenerio" type interpretation. One could even suggest that if B.S. was looking at Schwartz, calls out, and Pipeman emerges, that could be interpreted as "I've got my eyes on you - I'm calling for my buddy to deal with you", so where or at whom B.S. is looking doesn't necessarily determine who he must be calling too.

Again, the above is just an example to illustrate that point. The actual "why" would require us being able to get information from Schwartz to clarify, which is obviously not possible.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

If Schwartz wasn’t looking directly at BSMan at the exact time that he called Lipski then wouldn’t have known if the shout was directed at himself or Pipeman.

Even if Schwartz were looking at B.S. and B.S. were looking at Schwartz, that doesn't mean B.S. couldn't be calling out to a friend who is not necessarily in his line of sight. Regardless of their actual positions, what matters in the end is that, based upon the news reports, Schwartz seems to have believed that B.S. was calling out to an accomplice named Lipski. When he is interviewed by Abberline, who was able to do what we would like to do (get information directly from Schwartz), Schwartz comes to the realization that perhaps he could have been mistaken. However, he doesn't completely change his mind and go "Oh, yah, that makes more sense; he was insulting me!" but rather ends up being unable to definitely say one way or the other, which means he still to some extent believes that the shout could have been to Pipeman but accepts it could have been at him. So his statement is equivocal in the eyes of the police.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

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.

Oh my, and I thought I could be confusing! That is up there with Jabberwocky, although that makes sense! ha ha!

From it, though, I was wondering if "...otherwise his presence on such premises was not in contravention of the provisions of this Act with respect to the closing of licensed premises..." might allude to "...provisions of this Act..." found in some other part that defines "closed" in terms of "last orders", and allows a period of time for which those already on the premises prior to "closing" to finish anything they purchased within that grace period?

However, I think the likelihood of every determining that are slimmer than identifying Jack, so I'm happy to go with "out by 12" for simplicity.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Even if Schwartz were looking at B.S. and B.S. were looking at Schwartz, that doesn't mean B.S. couldn't be calling out to a friend who is not necessarily in his line of sight. Regardless of their actual positions, what matters in the end is that, based upon the news reports, Schwartz seems to have believed that B.S. was calling out to an accomplice named Lipski. When he is interviewed by Abberline, who was able to do what we would like to do (get information directly from Schwartz), Schwartz comes to the realization that perhaps he could have been mistaken. However, he doesn't completely change his mind and go "Oh, yah, that makes more sense; he was insulting me!" but rather ends up being unable to definitely say one way or the other, which means he still to some extent believes that the shout could have been to Pipeman but accepts it could have been at him. So his statement is equivocal in the eyes of the police.

- Jeff

Nicely summed up Jeff.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh my, and I thought I could be confusing! That is up there with Jabberwocky, although that makes sense! ha ha!

From it, though, I was wondering if "...otherwise his presence on such premises was not in contravention of the provisions of this Act with respect to the closing of licensed premises..." might allude to "...provisions of this Act..." found in some other part that defines "closed" in terms of "last orders", and allows a period of time for which those already on the premises prior to "closing" to finish anything they purchased within that grace period?

However, I think the likelihood of every determining that are slimmer than identifying Jack, so I'm happy to go with "out by 12" for simplicity.

- Jeff

Whereof the parties hereunto agree after due consideration being given.

[Wickerman]

Berner and Fairclough.
107 Christian Street.

Just one point of trivia, why is 107 Christian St. on that post?
It must be a typo, 107 is a rowhouse, and not on a corner.
The bottom image does not appear to be the Nelson either - puzzling.