Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS

To explain my reasoning, Dr Blackwell noted that the scarf had been pulled tight and to the left. His reasoning was that the killer did this to position her neck. However Dr Phillips noted that Over both shoulders, especially the right, from the front aspect under collar bones and in front of chest there is a bluish discolouration which I have watched and seen on two occasions since. and I have come to a conclusion as to the position of both the murderer and the victim, and I opine that the latter was seized by the shoulders and placed on the ground,

Understood Jon. Cheers

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

How do you know it was a poor choice of word?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I think that you’ve misunderstood what Wess said:

[Coroner] Do low women frequent Berner-street? - I have seen men and women standing about and talking to each other in Fairclough-street.

He was talking generally and not specifically about that night.

Did anyone bother checking this?

Morning Advertiser. Oct 2:

C: Did you meet anybody in Berner-street?
W: I can't recollect; but as I went along Fairclough-street, close by, I noticed some men and women standing together.

The point is, had Schwartz been chased through the streets until he reached a railway arch, someone(s) surely would have seen it. Lo and behold would do indeed have a report of a man being pursued at about 12:45.

Again ‘no.’

We don’t know who ‘they’ were. Why didn’t they come forward? If the woman was Stride then the man might have not come forward for obvious reasons. Not-wanting-to-get-involved syndrome.

The couple spoke to the press. Presumably you refer to going to the police. How do you know the couple didn't make a statement?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What do you mean by ‘smallest target?’ I’m reading the lines whilst you are reading between them to create a mystery. Short incident, not much noise made, no one in the street for that 90 seconds or so….why is that a problem…unless you are scripting a Dan Brown novel and this common sense approach doesn’t work.

Any mystery here is an invention.

Total evasiveness.

[Wickerman]

Did anyone bother checking this?

Morning Advertiser. Oct 2:

C: Did you meet anybody in Berner-street?
W: I can't recollect; but as I went along Fairclough-street, close by, I noticed some men and women standing together...

The reason your quote has never drawn any attention is because, in a previous sentence Wess (West) said:

"I left the club for home at a quarter-past twelve."

It appears he saw "some men and women" roughly 30 minutes before Schwartz claimed to have made his escape towards the railway arches.
Why do you think these people would still be there in Fairclough St. 30 minutes later?

As some members believe, the interpreter who accompanied Schwartz to make his statement was Wess, who will have known the man being chased was not the murderer, it was Schwartz himself who was being pursued by a stranger.

Therefore, there are no grounds for Wess to assume this 'chase' involved Schwartz at all.

[Jon Guy]

The same pattern of bruises were seen on Chapman.

and Alice McKenzie

[Herlock Sholmes]

How do you know it was a poor choice of word?

Because every dictionary definition of a scream includes the word ‘loud’. It’s like saying “he whispered but very loudly.” Therefore I look for explanation as to why ‘scream’ was used that doesn’t involve conspiratorial imaginings and it seems likeliest to me that the fact that Schwartz didn’t speak English and was communicating through an interpreter has to be a likely. Especially as we don’t know who the interpreter was or, more importantly, how good were his language skills? Perhaps he only had a very basic grasp of the language..enough to get by..but perhaps he was the only choice available at the time?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Did anyone bother checking this?

Morning Advertiser. Oct 2:

C: Did you meet anybody in Berner-street?
W: I can't recollect; but as I went along Fairclough-street, close by, I noticed some men and women standing together.

The point is, had Schwartz been chased through the streets until he reached a railway arch, someone(s) surely would have seen it. Lo and behold would do indeed have a report of a man being pursued at about 12:45.



The couple spoke to the press. Presumably you refer to going to the police. How do you know the couple didn't make a statement?

It seems a bit suggestive that at the inquest Wess said that he often saw men and women in Fairclough Street then on the 2nd the Morning Advertiser report it as he did see men and women.

Either way, Wess left the club at 12.15 a full half an hour before the incident. I don’t know why an issue is made of Wess’s statement. He clearly equated the ‘incident’ with the murder. And Diemschitz and Kozebrodski going for a PC with Schwartz fleeing. There’s nothing to the Wess story. A piece of miscommunication, nothing more. Plot-fodder.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Total evasiveness.

I never ‘evade’ anything.

Your ‘making him smaller’ comment has no meaning. We can give a very reasonable idea of how long the incident took. Around 20 seconds. Add the walk along Berner Street and the exit and we have around 90 seconds in total (the vast majority of which would have taken place in total silence apart from footsteps) Of course you want to make it sound as if the Salvation Army band was passing by (just as Michael tried to stretch the time between Louis finding the body and him going for a Constable to ludicrous lengths)

It is complete insanity to even suggest for a second that a 20 second incident couldn’t have gone unseen or heard or noticed. It’s an argument against physics, evidence, reason and sense and yet on and on and on it goes. Textbook conspiracist thinking.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The reason your quote has never drawn any attention is because, in a previous sentence Wess (West) said:

"I left the club for home at a quarter-past twelve."

It appears he saw "some men and women" roughly 30 minutes before Schwartz claimed to have made his escape towards the railway arches.
Why do you think these people would still be there in Fairclough St. 30 minutes later?

As some members believe, the interpreter who accompanied Schwartz to make his statement was Wess, who will have known the man being chased was not the murderer, it was Schwartz himself who was being pursued by a stranger.

Therefore, there are no grounds for Wess to assume this 'chase' involved Schwartz at all.

Exactly.

You beat me to it Wick. I should have read your response before I posted my own.

[Wickerman]

Nah, it just reinforces the point Mike, but something tells me if five posters explained the same view, it would still have no effect.

[Lewis C]

and Alice McKenzie

This was in response to Wick's post: "The same pattern of bruises were seen on Chapman." [as on Stride] This seems to be an important point, significantly strengthening the case for Chapman, Stride, and McKenzie all being killed by the same person.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The reason your quote has never drawn any attention is because, in a previous sentence Wess (West) said:

"I left the club for home at a quarter-past twelve."

It appears he saw "some men and women" roughly 30 minutes before Schwartz claimed to have made his escape towards the railway arches.
Why do you think these people would still be there in Fairclough St. 30 minutes later?

I know what time Wess said he left the club, and I don't suppose the people he saw on his way home were necessarily there 30 minutes later. However, just half an hour before the time in question, Wess spots multiple others on Fairclough St, and he himself is with two others. Should we then be assuming that the neighbourhood streets were all deserted half an hour later?

We have to consider the probability of 4 people independently arriving at the same place and time on Berner St, but there being absolutely no one around to witness Schwartz weave his way to a railway arch, with Pipeman in pursuit.

As some members believe, the interpreter who accompanied Schwartz to make his statement was Wess, who will have known the man being chased was not the murderer, it was Schwartz himself who was being pursued by a stranger.

Therefore, there are no grounds for Wess to assume this 'chase' involved Schwartz at all.

Some members, such as Michael Richards, do believe that Wess was Schwartz's translator. However, that claim has no evidence in support and so your conclusion does not hold. If true though, it would suggest that Israel Schwartz was known to Wess by being a club member, and/or (as MWR has suggested) a temporary resident of the club (like Joseph Lave).

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Because every dictionary definition of a scream includes the word ‘loud’. It’s like saying “he whispered but very loudly.” Therefore I look for explanation as to why ‘scream’ was used that doesn’t involve conspiratorial imaginings and it seems likeliest to me that the fact that Schwartz didn’t speak English and was communicating through an interpreter has to be a likely. Especially as we don’t know who the interpreter was or, more importantly, how good were his language skills? Perhaps he only had a very basic grasp of the language..enough to get by..but perhaps he was the only choice available at the time?

This still ignores the fact that Abberline seems to have accepted "she screamed three times, but not very loudly", as valid. Perhaps a clue to the dilemma can be found by considering your first sentence - screams are loud by definition, but are they very loud by definition? Thus, "she screamed (loudly, by definition) three times, but not very loudly", would be logically coherent, and not require second-guessing anyone's intended meaning. It would not though, explain why these screams went unheard.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It seems a bit suggestive that at the inquest Wess said that he often saw men and women in Fairclough Street then on the 2nd the Morning Advertiser report it as he did see men and women.

Suggestive of what? A plot?

Either way, Wess left the club at 12.15 a full half an hour before the incident. I don’t know why an issue is made of Wess’s statement. He clearly equated the ‘incident’ with the murder. And Diemschitz and Kozebrodski going for a PC with Schwartz fleeing. There’s nothing to the Wess story. A piece of miscommunication, nothing more. Plot-fodder.

You didn't explain why what is clear to yourself, should also be so to anyone else. A useful post would consist of marshalling the evidence and using it to explain why the Echo report only looks similar to Schwartz's account, but in reality, refers to something completely different. Are you capable of doing that?