Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

How convenient that Stride appears to be the only female murder victim in history to have the capacity and time to produce multiple audible screams, but then choose to not do it loud enough for anyone else to hear her, including a woman sitting a few yards with the door open.

Either she was inexplicably foolish, or it didn't happen in the first place.

You left out another explanation and probably the most obvious one -- it was simply a bad translation and the "screams" just showed surprise not fear. In other words they were not loud.

c.d.

Hi c.d.

Backed up by the fact that Schwartz couldn’t speak English and was using an interpreter (and we have no way of knowing how competent an interpreter he was? Maybe he just knew enough to make himself understood but not enough about the subtler aspects of language that a natural speaker would appreciate?). No reasonably literate English speaker would use the phrase “screamed but not very loudly,” because all dictionary definitions of ‘scream’ include the word ‘loud.’ Schwartz was trying to communicate that the sounds made by the woman weren’t very loud. Therefore the use of the word ‘screamed’ was inappropriate. Too much is made of this in terms of trying to see mystery.

[c.d.]

I agree, Herlock. I think the same can be said for the "shout" of Lipski. Way too much can be read into it.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

I agree, but it's odd that he wasn't called to the inquest when he states he was out in the yard and went as far as the street.
With the front door locked when Eagle returns and Lave mentioning being in the yard, we can be sure that Lave went outside AFTER the front door was locked; which i would imagine was circa 12.30am?

If he was so vague and had physically placed himself as having literally walked past the exact place Stride was murdered; then why didn't he appear at the inquest?

I would say because the Inquest had a more reliable statement from Eagle who passed through the empty yard at 12:40 am.
No need for two witnesses who make the same claim.

If Parcelman was Lave, then that would explain where Parcelman went.

If Parcelman wasn't Lave, then we have an unidentified man seen with Stride standing on the opposite side of the road and within sightline of Mortimer.

We know that Stride had to have moved by crossing over to the gateway AFTER Eagle walked into the yard and into the side door.

The question is; did Parcelman walk with her?

This was Victorian London, no man leaves a woman alone at night in a strange street. Chivalry requires, if he is her date, that he walks her home.
Alternately, if he is her client, then where/when did they consummate their contract?

The tradition of a client paying her fee then she takes him up a dark alley to give him his treat, was customary after closing time.
More often the client meets up with the prostitute while the pubs are open, she is treated to food and drink until closing time, then they go up some dark alley and he gets his treat.
So, how does that work with what we know about Stride's activities this night?

If Parcelman didn't accompany Stride across the road, then where did he go?

if Parcelman left the scene, then he obviously couldn't have been Lave.

Let's also not forget that Parcelman wasn't BS Man


If the Schwartz incident happened then Parcelman has to have either left the scene beforehand, or go into the club; in which case he was Lave.

But if the Schwartz incident didnt happen; then there was more time for Parcelman in general.

Lave was not believed by the authorities. As their principal witness was P.C. Smith, who saw & described Parcelman, it may have been clear to the officers who interviewed Lave, that he was quite a different person, and was not carrying a parcel.
We can't arbitrarily place a parcel in the hand of any witness just to create a suspect.
If we are not careful, Lave may well become the next Lechmere.

[The Rookie Detective]

I agree, Herlock. I think the same can be said for the "shout" of Lipski. Way too much can be read into it.

c.d.

But why didn't the interpreter then also add the phrase "...but not very loudly" after the mention of Bs Man shouting the word "Lipski!?"

Stride screams 3 times " but not very loudly"
Bs Man shouts "Lipski' across the road... and yet no mention of a suppressed volume.

If neither a "scream" or a "shout" were loud enough for anyone else to hear them, then i suggest the so-called "interpreter" needed shooting.

[c.d.]

R.D., I just tried yelling Lipski as I probably would have done in that situation. It just wasn't that loud nor need it be because I assume it was accompanied by a look and a gesture for emphasis. You seem to want to turn the B.S. man into some sort of Paul Revere trying to wake up an entire town. It was apparently just one quick shout and we really don't know how loud it was. If you find it suspicious so be it. I do not.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You could ask why didn’t everyone in Miller’s Court hear Mary Kelly singing? It was a small court, rooms close together, plus McCarthy’s shop. Why only a couple of people? Some things get heard, some don’t and one word ‘Lipski’ is a split second. There’s usually an element of background noise too. What if someone was talking to Mrs D at the same time as the Lipski? We don’t know how loud the ‘Lipski’ was but we know that Schwartz wasn’t that far from BSMan so it didn’t need to be that loud.

[The Rookie Detective]

You could ask why didn’t everyone in Miller’s Court hear Mary Kelly singing? It was a small court, rooms close together, plus McCarthy’s shop. Why only a couple of people? Some things get heard, some don’t and one word ‘Lipski’ is a split second. There’s usually an element of background noise too. What if someone was talking to Mrs D at the same time as the Lipski? We don’t know how loud the ‘Lipski’ was but we know that Schwartz wasn’t that far from BSMan so it didn’t need to be that loud.

The phrase...

"10% of something, is better than 100% of nothing"

... springs to mind.


There were multiple witnesses who heard the cry of "oh murder" and multiple witnesses who heard Mary Kelly singing in her room.

Not ALL heard of course, and one must question why.

However, more than one person heard Mary on more than one occasion, namely, her singing and her crying out "oh murder!"

The difference with Schwartz is that NOBODY saw OR heard literally ANYTHING that he said happened, and NOBODY saw OR heard ANYONE that Schwartz claimed he saw in the street either at the time, OR before, OR after the alleged assault.

That fact should tell us all we need to know and give a credible and viable reason for why the police subsequently dropped Schwartz's dramatic posthumous tale and thus negated any reason for him attending the inquest and effectively wasting everyone's time.


If just ONE other person could have corroborated at least ONE thing that Schwartz said, then he would have been the primary key witness to the build up to the murder of Elizabeth Stride.

In the end, he faded into obscurity where he belonged.

That is of course testament to him; as to why nobody has even been able to identify him.

[Lewis C]

It has been suggested that the footsteps that Fanny heard before she went to her door may have been those of Leon Goldstein. I doubt this. For this to have been the case, Fanny would have had to have gotten to the door after the footsteps had passed, but while the person was still close enough to see him and to see which way he turned his head. If this had been the case, surely Fanny would have realized that the footsteps that she heard were made by the person that she was looking at, and not by a policeman.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The difference with Schwartz is that NOBODY saw OR heard literally ANYTHING that he said happened, and NOBODY saw OR heard ANYONE that Schwartz claimed he saw in the street either at the time, OR before, OR after the alleged assault.

Because for a mere 90 seconds no one was in Berner Street to witness an incident which, in itself, must have lasted for all of 20 seconds.

No one saw me put the bins out..but I did. And I made quite a bit of noise clumping them down the steps…I bet that no one heard me either.

That fact should tell us all we need to know and give a credible and viable reason for why the police subsequently dropped Schwartz's dramatic posthumous tale and thus negated any reason for him attending the inquest and effectively wasting everyone's time.

If they had lost interest in him by the time of the Inquest…

Why was Swanson still mentioning him in his report of October 19th?

Why does Abberline mention him in the November 1st report?

Why does Anderson mention him in a letter to the Home Office on November 5th?

Why is there a short file (Home Office I believe) which concerned looking into the use of the name Lipski in regard to Schwartz stamped November 7th?

Why is there a 2 page report from Warren which appears to be a response to the above about the use of the word ‘Lipski’ to Schwartz.
November 7th.

Considering that the Inquest began on October 1st the police and the Home Office appeared to be spending an inordinate amount of time on a man that they distrusted.

Weeks after the murder the police were still considering Schwartz a valid witness. So I really can’t see your evidence for the police ‘dropping’ him and I’ll wager that no one else has either.

.

As has been shown on here by myself (numerous times RD) and by others inquests aren’t trials. They have 4 specific aims. Schwartz was vital to none of them. Not one. No matter how counter-intuitive it may seem to some it is however a fact. Yes, he might still have been called because other non-vital witnesses were called but it also appears to have been the case that some gave evidence because they turned up and offered their testimony without being called.

We don’t know why Schwartz wasn’t called (but we know that he could add nothing to the 4 aims so he certainly wasn’t a vital witness) David Orsam has made 8 suggestions as to why he might not have been called. One or two others have been suggested too. But what we do know; what we know as a cast-iron, 100% certainty is that it couldn’t have been because the police didn’t trust him. The police continued to trust him into November and, for all that we know, long after that. Certainly post-inquest.

There is an ongoing and longstanding movement to try and weave Schwartz into some kind of plot and I have to be honest in that I really don’t get it. Speculation is fine but leaps of faith can get out of hand. If we get to a stage where it’s suggested that it’s somehow ‘fishy’ that a 20 second incident where not much noise was made occurred unseen in a deserted, poorly lit, East End backstreet in the early hours then absolutely anything can be turned into a mystery. And we should avoid getting to that stage at all costs imo.

[Wickerman]

...... It was apparently just one quick shout and we really don't know how loud it was. If you find it suspicious so be it. I do not.

c.d.

It comes across to me like a cry for help to the man stood behind her - nothing more than a 'come help me here' type of cry, no need to wake the dead.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am watching Antiques Roadshow at the moment and someone has brought in an oil painted portrait of Doctor Thomas Bond. Valued at £10,000-£15,000.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was just watching Antiques Roadshow and a couple brought in an oils painted portrait of Doctor Thomas Bond. Valued at £10,000-£15,000.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Haven’t a clue what went on there. A couple of weird boxes came up and I end up with a double post.

[Abby Normal]

As has been shown on here by myself (numerous times RD) and by others inquests aren’t trials. They have 4 specific aims. Schwartz was vital to none of them. Not one. No matter how counter-intuitive it may seem to some it is however a fact. Yes, he might still have been called because other non-vital witnesses were called but it also appears to have been the case that some gave evidence because they turned up and offered their testimony without being called.

We don’t know why Schwartz wasn’t called (but we know that he could add nothing to the 4 aims so he certainly wasn’t a vital witness) David Orsam has made 8 suggestions as to why he might not have been called. One or two others have been suggested too. But what we do know; what we know as a cast-iron, 100% certainty is that it couldn’t have been because the police didn’t trust him. The police continued to trust him into November and, for all that we know, long after that. Certainly post-inquest.

There is an ongoing and longstanding movement to try and weave Schwartz into some kind of plot and I have to be honest in that I really don’t get it. Speculation is fine but leaps of faith can get out of hand. If we get to a stage where it’s suggested that it’s somehow ‘fishy’ that a 20 second incident where not much noise was made occurred unseen in a deserted, poorly lit, East End backstreet in the early hours then absolutely anything can be turned into a mystery. And we should avoid getting to that stage at all costs imo.

well said herlock, and as usual lord orsam put tje whole why wasnt he at the inquest question to bed along time ago. and there is indirect corroboration with Schwartz in that many other witnesses describe pretty much the same suspect that night. if we were dismiss all "uncorroborated" evidence there would be nothing left to go on at all.

And i think people need to be constantly reminded that even in a court of law uncorroborated testimony is totally admissible. i think there is a tendency on here for people to conflate mysteries when there isnt any.

There is nothing wrong with schwartz accept there was no one else around in the short time he witnessed the events, and perhaps a couple people off a little on their times.

[Wickerman]

...

The difference with Schwartz is that NOBODY saw OR heard literally ANYTHING that he said happened, and NOBODY saw OR heard ANYONE that Schwartz claimed he saw in the street either at the time, OR before, OR after the alleged assault.

That fact should tell us all we need to know and give a credible and viable reason for why the police subsequently dropped Schwartz's dramatic posthumous tale and thus negated any reason for him attending the inquest and effectively wasting everyone's time.

If just ONE other person could have corroborated at least ONE thing that Schwartz said, then he would have been the primary key witness to the build up to the murder of Elizabeth Stride.

Agree 100%, yet the police used the description he gave three weeks later, the Daily Telegraph, in their 12 Nov. issue reported:

"These authentic descriptions, we have reason to know, have been secretly circulated by the authorities of Scotland-yard since Oct. 26,..."

"Apprehensions sought. Murder. Metropolitan Police District"

"At 12.35 a.m., 30th September, with Elizabeth Stride, found murdered at one a.m., same date, in Berner-street - A man, aged 28, height 5ft 8in, complexion dark, small dark moustache; dress, black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; respectable appearance; carried a parcel wrapped up in a newspaper.

At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street, a man, aged about 30, height 5ft 5in, complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.

"Information to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Police Office, Great Scotland-yard London, S.W.

So, why this state of confusion with regard to the person of Schwartz himself, and his story?
How can the police believe the description he gave (above), yet not believe his story?
Or, if they do believe his story, why did the Coroner not call him to the inquest?
Why also, as late as 19 Oct. did Swanson suggest the viability of Schwartz's story rests on the conclusion of their report concerning him?