Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Exactly Abby. For example, who corroborates how long Fanny was on her doorstep? No one saw her after all. Yes, she mentioned Goldstein but she could have seen him through her window for all that we know. Why is FM a paragon of honesty but Schwartz can’t be trusted? Look at Lave as an example of a useless witness. And yet these two are used to ‘prove’ Schwartz unreliable.

[Wickerman]

...

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 wouldn't know anything about Lawende's sequestration (Eddowes) if not for a throw-away line in a newspaper.
There's no official paperwork on the subject, yet apparently the reporter believed it happened.
It is not necessary for the coroner and prosecuting officer to agree on who will appear at an inquest. We all know the coroner has the final say.

Schwartz's apparent disappearance may have been due to nothing more than the Met. Police sequestering him for his own safety, but in anticipation of him being called to give evidence, which never happened.
Swanson seems to hint that the police were still investigating his story, so they had not dismissed him, which is why they continued to use the suspect description he gave them?

[Wickerman]

...For example, who corroborates how long Fanny was on her doorstep? No one saw her after all. Yes, she mentioned Goldstein but she could have seen him through her window for all that we know. Why is FM a paragon of honesty but Schwartz can’t be trusted? Look at Lave as an example of a useless witness. And yet these two are used to ‘prove’ Schwartz unreliable.

Being used by some Casebook members, not by the authorities.
Lave & Fanny were not used at the inquest, likely for the same reasons. Negative evidence is not evidence, some members here try to use what they didn't see to bolster their theories - that's called negative evidence which is no evidence at all.

[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.

In case no one saw it, this is a screen grab posted by Rob Clack over on JTRForums. We don’t know who painted it at the moment though.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/ripper-other-crime-media-forum/ripper-art-collectibles/616629-thomas-bond?p=616630#post616630

edit - It was painted in 1887 by George Frederic Watts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Frederic_Watts

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

This is a comforting thought, but it overlooks that Abberline accepted these words. He does not appear to have asked for a clarification or explanation for the anomaly of non-loud screams. If you want to call on the police's acceptance of Schwartz's story in defending him, you have to accept the police account as is, and not 'edit' the bits that don't sit well.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

When Schwartz ran as far as the train line (and did he run all or part of the way?) it was close to 1.00 in some poorly lit East End backstreets. Why is it surprising that no one saw him? Who was around at that time?

Spooner was on Fairclough St with a lady friend. When Wess went home at about 12:15, he said he saw people on Fairclough St. That was before Spooner was there, so we know there were multiple people in just that street in the hour leading up to the murder.

To believe that the Schwartz incident didn’t occur you have to accept two things..

1. The Israel Schwartz would easily have won London’s Stupidest Man 1888 because he places himself at the scene of a murder when he doesn’t have to. And in doing this he puts himself in a position where he’s the only person that the police can actually interview who potential saw Stride being killed. Was he so thick that he didn’t realise that the police could have said “what if this guy killed her but invented another man to throw suspicion away from himself?”

I believe that award was actually given to Leon Goldstein, and Woolf Wess was on stage to translate his acceptance speech.

2. That it’s physically impossible for sounds not to travel to certain locations.

Sound diffracts around corners. At about 12:45, James Brown spots a couple at the board school corner, who are, from the point of view of the Dutfield's Yard gateway, just around the corner. The couple arrived while Brown was in the chandler's shop. They heard nothing unusual.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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?

The implication being that Stride did not stand in the gateway alone - she had company. So, how did Schwartz not see this other man, having himself stopped at the gateway to watch yet another man assault Stride?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

We should now be at the stage where we are looking at things from the point of view of others, and not just Schwartz.

Elizabeth Stride: How long was I at the gateway before this man came down Berner St?

B.S. Man: How long did I remain taunting and assaulting the woman after that pesky Jew took off, before I finally killed the bitch/walked away?

If you're so confident in Schwartz, why the continual effort to make him the smallest target you can conceive?

[Wickerman]

The implication being that Stride did not stand in the gateway alone - she had company. So, how did Schwartz not see this other man, having himself stopped at the gateway to watch yet another man assault Stride?

For the same reason Diemschutz didn't see a body as his horse & cart made its way through the yard - it was his horse that called attention to the body - Diemschutz couldn't see it.

Those who commented say it was dark in the entry to the yard due to no light coming from either side of the premises facing the street.
The cottages that did face the yard were further back, there it was not totally dark.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

In the Echo, Oct 1, we read:

A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the two latter running up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body. Complaint is also made about the difficulty there was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be called from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation. There is, notwithstanding the number who have visited the scene, a complete absence of excitement, although naturally this fresh addition to the already formidable list of mysterious murders forms the general subject of conversation.

Consider the phrase "the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work". In other words, there is seemingly no doubt in Wess's mind that the murderer had other 'work' to do, but that work was disturbed, presumably by an intruder. Yet, there is also the hint that the man pursued as a result of this disturbance, and whom "the public" supposed to have been the murderer, was in fact not. Why then, the certainty that the murderer had the intention of mutilating his victim?

As this event is said to have occurred at about a quarter to one, what do we suppose Wess is actually referring to? The conversation seems to have occurred late in the afternoon of the day of the murder. It was that evening, according to the Star, that Israel Schwartz went to Leman St police station.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Exactly Abby. For example, who corroborates how long Fanny was on her doorstep? No one saw her after all. Yes, she mentioned Goldstein but she could have seen him through her window for all that we know. Why is FM a paragon of honesty but Schwartz can’t be trusted? Look at Lave as an example of a useless witness. And yet these two are used to ‘prove’ Schwartz unreliable.

What is your point about seeing Goldstein through her window? Is that she did not need to be at her doorstep to observe events on the street?

From Interview with a Neighbour:

I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.

You ask, "Why is FM a paragon of honesty...". Did you read RD's post #793?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Were these screams, or are we dealing with a mistranslation?

In #771, you said:

No, no no, it doesn't work that way.
Claiming 'error in translation' is not a blank sheet that allows you to invent any scenario that comes to mind.
You are required to offer an example.

If you remember the issue of the man carrying a pipe or knife was suggested to be an error in translation. Several of us at the time looked up the word for knife in Hebrew (if I recall correctly?), and the word for knife sounded much like the word for pipe (or was it the other way around?).
Regardless, the argument had no substance without showing how close the words were in pronunciation, in order to justify the claim of 'error in translation'.
You have treated the 'error in translation' scenario as if it is a black hole that permits you to make any suggestion you feel like.
In what language does 'court' sound like 'doorway'?

What word might have been used in the case of the non-loud screams?

[DJA]

Squeals.

[The Rookie Detective]

It's also important to understand that the reason why humans are instinctively responsive to an individual "screaming"

It was translated that Stride "screamed 3 times, but not very loudly"

But what people sometimes tend to forget is that as humans we are not just alerted by the sound of someone screaming because of the VOLUME alone.

We also respond to the PITCH of someone screaming.

In the context of being assaulted on the street, it would be inherently instinctive for Stride to have screamed.

But the repairs to that sound is just as much about the pitch as it is about the volume.

in other words, the fact that Stride screamed at all, should have alerted at least one other person within close proximity; of which there were several.

Stride screams
Bs Man shouts
Schwarrz runs


Schwartz's only defence is that he didn't speak English.

But that acts as a double edged sword in some respects, because if his sighting was lost in translation, then his words suddenly become to mean very little when put into context.

If Schwartz could have spoken English, then it may have acted as a benefit to him, because there would be no excuses needed for any potential mistranslation getting in the way of such a potentially important witness.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is a comforting thought, but it overlooks that Abberline accepted these words. He does not appear to have asked for a clarification or explanation for the anomaly of non-loud screams. If you want to call on the police's acceptance of Schwartz's story in defending him, you have to accept the police account as is, and not 'edit' the bits that don't sit well.

Abberline accepted his story that he saw what he said that he saw. As far as we know, at no time did Abberline say “I just can’t understand why no one heard these screams?” I’ll say it again - Abberline wasn’t an idiot. If it was the issue that you seem to think that it was then he’d have thought the same but we have no evidence that he did. In fact, as he continued to believe Schwartz reason tells us that he thought exactly the same as I and others do. That it was a poor choice of word and that whatever Stride called out, it wasn’t very loud.

This is so simple. Schwartz said that it wasn’t very loud. That should be end of story. And yet, 136 years later people who weren’t there claim to know better.