Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I’m finding it difficult to understand how you can argue that ‘screams - but not very loudly’ makes sense. What he would actually be saying is “she made three loud noises but not very loud.”

And the fact that Abberline accepted the statement supports my viewpoint not yours. Abberline clearly didn’t think “I think that this Schwartz chap might be lying because how come no one heard this woman scream?” He believed Schwartz, therefore he clearly believe that the incident took place unheard and that there was nothing strange about it.

Which there wasn’t of course, unless you’re trying to create a piece of fiction. Which most of us aren’t.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Suggestive of what? A plot?

That he said that he regularly saw men and women in Fairclough Street which may have been misreported by the paper that you quoted as if he had definitely seen men and women on that specific morning. But, as Wick and myself have both pointed out, this isn’t relevant because it occurred 30 minutes earlier than the incident? Why do you assume that they must still have been loitering around?


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?

You’re not ‘marshalling’ evidence you’re trying to shape it. And you’re having to resort to that because you have no valid argument.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 can’t assume as a certainty but it would have to have been very possible and certainly not in any way unusual. If Wess went home at 12.15, and he did see some people, then it’s surely likely that they were going home after a night in the pubs (which closed at 12.00) so why would they or any other people still be loitering around in the street? Now, to be clear, I’m not saying that all streets must have been entirely deserted as if there was some kind of curfew on, but it’s the case that late at night the streets gradually become quieter before they begin to liven up as people get up for work. Some areas are quieter than others.

Clearly you’re struggling to imagine a small area of 2 or 3 backstreets where there were no people outside at around a quarter to one in the morning. I know..it’s like trying to imagine infinity isn’t it…such a difficult concept.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Hi Lewis,

I’m slightly favouring that she wasn’t a victim (at the moment) but the above point has to go into ‘points in favour’ column.

[New Waterloo]

It is hard to imagine what 'quiet' means in an 1880s densely populated East End. To be honest we have a remarkable amount of names of people in and around Berners Street around the time of Strides murder. From the existing records and from the excellent research by the many posters here and others. I remain optimistic that we can get somewhere with this particular murder. We are just not seeing it yet!

NW

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I’m finding it difficult to understand how you can argue that ‘screams - but not very loudly’ makes sense. What he would actually be saying is “she made three loud noises but not very loud.”

It's simple; loud != very loud

And the fact that Abberline accepted the statement supports my viewpoint not yours. Abberline clearly didn’t think “I think that this Schwartz chap might be lying because how come no one heard this woman scream?” He believed Schwartz, therefore he clearly believe that the incident took place unheard and that there was nothing strange about it.

He believed Schwartz, including the claim that the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. Deal with it.

Which there wasn’t of course, unless you’re trying to create a piece of fiction. Which most of us aren’t.

We need fiction to explain why no one heard the screams. Such as assuming that:

* the singing in the club was louder than witnesses indicted
* that Fanny Mortimer was upstairs back of her place, attending to a crying child
* the sweethearts on the corner were smooching and oblivious to the world around them

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You’re not ‘marshalling’ evidence you’re trying to shape it. And you’re having to resort to that because you have no valid argument.

I'll take that as a 'no'.

[Lewis C]

We need fiction to explain why no one heard the screams. Such as assuming that:

* the singing in the club was louder than witnesses indicted
* that Fanny Mortimer was upstairs back of her place, attending to a crying child
* the sweethearts on the corner were smooching and oblivious to the world around them

Another explanation for why the sweethearts didn't hear the screams is that they might not have been on the corner at the time of the Schwarz incident. James Brown only saw them on the corner when he was on his way back from where he picked up his dinner. He didn't see them there when he was on his way to get his dinner.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Another explanation for why the sweethearts didn't hear the screams is that they might not have been on the corner at the time of the Schwarz incident. James Brown only saw them on the corner when he was on his way back from where he picked up his dinner. He didn't see them there when he was on his way to get his dinner.

Had there been a couple at the board school corner by about 12:45, it is difficult to imagine how they could have missed all of what Schwartz described. Therefore, I'd say "might not have been on the corner" would have to be 'upgraded' to "were yet to arrive at the corner". As you say, Brown did not see the couple until returning from the shop - apparently, they arrived while he was inside the chandler's shop. By his timing, that would have them arriving just before 12:45. The couple themselves "had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises." I take the 20 minutes to refer to a period up until they were alerted to a commotion in the yard. Had that commotion been a few minutes after 1am, the young woman's comments suggest they arrived just prior to 12:45. So, very similar to the estimate of Brown.

Now if we consider Eagle's estimated return to the club, of 12:40, we have tiny window in which everything Schwartz related must occur. However, there are several things that need to be considered. For example, if one (or both) of couple arrived by walking down Berner St from Commercial Rd, that would cut into the window. If one (or both) arrived along the same path that Schwartz and Pipeman ran, that would cut into the window. Stride must be on the street but not noticed well enough by Eagle, and she must go the gateway almost immediately after he heads up the passageway. Fanny almost certainly must not be at her doorstep during that window and Lave must not be in the yard. The list goes on...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
I’m finding it difficult to understand how you can argue that ‘screams - but not very loudly’ makes sense. What he would actually be saying is “she made three loud noises but not very loud.”

It's simple; loud != very loud

You’re clearly doing this deliberately to annoy. I’ve explained this in the simplest of terms and yet you are posting as if you haven’t grasped it.

-A scream by definition means loud.
-Schwartz very clearly said that the sound that Stride made wasn’t loud.
-It is impossible to make a sound that is both loud and not very loud.
-Therefore the word scream was incorrectly applied at the time.
-And this is far from surprising considering that Schwartz spoke no English and was using an interpreter of unknown competence

.
And the fact that Abberline accepted the statement supports my viewpoint not yours. Abberline clearly didn’t think “I think that this Schwartz chap might be lying because how come no one heard this woman scream?” He believed Schwartz, therefore he clearly believe that the incident took place unheard and that there was nothing strange about it.

He believed Schwartz, including the claim that the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. Deal with it.

This again illustrates my point. You are simply echoing the point that I made against your position as if you are now agreeing with me.

We have no evidence that Abberline ever said or thought “well it’s a bit suspicious that she screamed but no one heard her.” But you think that it was suspicious. The fact that he clearly believed Schwartz tells us this - that the man in charge, the experienced office that interviewed Schwartz face to face, thought exactly as I and others do and not as you do. He heard that Schwartz had said ‘not very loudly’ and that’s what he meant - not very loudly. And that it was just a case of a poor choice of word.

Which there wasn’t of course, unless you’re trying to create a piece of fiction. Which most of us aren’t.

We need fiction to explain why no one heard the screams. Such as assuming that:

* the singing in the club was louder than witnesses indicted
* that Fanny Mortimer was upstairs back of her place, attending to a crying child
* the sweethearts on the corner were smooching and oblivious to the world around them

We don’t need fiction, that’s your department. We need an understanding of the English language so that we can deduce that ‘not very loudly’ means ‘not very loudly’ which means ‘of low volume’ which means ‘not audible to everyone in the vicinity.’

Fanny didn’t hear because the sounds weren’t very loud and she was indoors. When I’m indoors I can’t hear everything out in the street. It’s not a freak occurrence. Just because a sound is audible it doesn’t mean that it was audible to everyone. Im glad that you made your second point though. I once suggested that Fanny might have been at the rear of the house when the incident occurred. A mere suggestion, nothing more. Only you though would consider that as some kind of unlikely fantasy. “The very thought!! As if a woman might move into a different room in the rear of the house, or even go to the outside loo. It’s like something Tolkien would invent!!”

Your unending ability to explain the prosaic in terms of the fantastic knows no bounds.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another explanation for why the sweethearts didn't hear the screams is that they might not have been on the corner at the time of the Schwarz incident. James Brown only saw them on the corner when he was on his way back from where he picked up his dinner. He didn't see them there when he was on his way to get his dinner.

You’re making the mistake of trying to apply reason Lewis.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

We don’t need fiction, that’s your department. We need an understanding of the English language so that we can deduce that ‘not very loudly’ means ‘not very loudly’ which means ‘of low volume’ which means ‘not audible to everyone in the vicinity.’

This is just wrong. If very loud on an amplifier = 10, and low volume is anything less than about 4, then loud would be around 7 or 8.

What part of that analogy don't you understand?

When the call of 'Lipski' supposedly occurred, Schwartz has crossed the road and is starting to walk away. Is he at point in the vicinity, or closer? Is Pipeman in the vicinity, or closer? The couple at the board school corner? The women in the kitchen? The people in the Dutfield's Yard tenements?

Fanny didn’t hear because the sounds weren’t very loud and she was indoors.

You have already told us we can never know exactly when Fanny was at her doorstep. Thus, your claim that "she was indoors" is problematic. However, let's assume she was indoors. You assert she would therefore not have heard sounds on the street that weren't very loud. On a scale of 1 to 10, how loud was the "measured, heavy tramp" of Smith's boots?

[Lewis C]

Had there been a couple at the board school corner by about 12:45, it is difficult to imagine how they could have missed all of what Schwartz described. Therefore, I'd say "might not have been on the corner" would have to be 'upgraded' to "were yet to arrive at the corner". As you say, Brown did not see the couple until returning from the shop - apparently, they arrived while he was inside the chandler's shop. By his timing, that would have them arriving just before 12:45. The couple themselves "had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises." I take the 20 minutes to refer to a period up until they were alerted to a commotion in the yard. Had that commotion been a few minutes after 1am, the young woman's comments suggest they arrived just prior to 12:45. So, very similar to the estimate of Brown.

Now if we consider Eagle's estimated return to the club, of 12:40, we have tiny window in which everything Schwartz related must occur. However, there are several things that need to be considered. For example, if one (or both) of couple arrived by walking down Berner St from Commercial Rd, that would cut into the window. If one (or both) arrived along the same path that Schwartz and Pipeman ran, that would cut into the window. Stride must be on the street but not noticed well enough by Eagle, and she must go the gateway almost immediately after he heads up the passageway. Fanny almost certainly must not be at her doorstep during that window and Lave must not be in the yard. The list goes on...

According to some sources, 12:45 was the time that Brown left his house, which would mean that he left the chandler's shop at about 12:50. If Brown's estimation is off by a few minutes, the couple could have arrived at the corner not much before 12:55.

The 20 minutes mentioned is a newspaper report of what Mortimer said that the couple said, so it's a third hand account. Even if the couple really said exactly what was reported, what they thought was 20 minutes could easily have been 15 minutes, or maybe even a little less.

[Lewis C]

You have already told us we can never know exactly when Fanny was at her doorstep. Thus, your claim that "she was indoors" is problematic. However, let's assume she was indoors. You assert she would therefore not have heard sounds on the street that weren't very loud. On a scale of 1 to 10, how loud was the "measured, heavy tramp" of Smith's boots?

If Fanny didn't see the Schwartz incident, it's reasonable to conclude that it didn't happen when she was at her door.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is just wrong. If very loud on an amplifier = 10, and low volume is anything less than about 4, then loud would be around 7 or 8.

What part of that analogy don't you understand?

Desperate semantics. You appear to be suggesting now that the phrase ‘not very loudly’ meant the equivalent of ‘not very loud but still loud.’ If this is what you are suggesting then it’s one of the most embarrassing attempts at shoehorning that I’ve ever seen. And I’ve seen a lot! Everyone knows (and I mean EVERYONE) that when you call something ‘not very loud’ it means something of relatively low volume.

When the call of 'Lipski' supposedly occurred, Schwartz has crossed the road and is starting to walk away. Is he at point in the vicinity, or closer? Is Pipeman in the vicinity, or closer? The couple at the board school corner? The women in the kitchen? The people in the Dutfield's Yard tenements?

The couple at the corner for whom we have no corroboration were there you mean? The couple who were there before and after the incident but became invisible when Brown passed that spot to go for his supper. The unnamed, unidentified couple who spoke only to Fanny Mortimer? Is that the couple that you’re talking about?

You have already told us we can never know exactly when Fanny was at her doorstep. Thus, your claim that "she was indoors" is problematic.

Why is it? Is ‘being indoors’ such a fantastically rare state of affairs? Smith didn’t see her at 12.30-12.35. Eagle didn’t see her at 12.40. Lave didn’t see her whenever he was around. Schwartz didn’t see her at 12.45. We don’t even have a record of Goldtein mentioning seeing a woman that he walk right past a yard or two away.

However, let's assume she was indoors. You assert she would therefore not have heard sounds on the street that weren't very loud. On a scale of 1 to 10, how loud was the "measured, heavy tramp" of Smith's boots?

When you are in your house Andrew do you spend your time anchored to the same spot; always in the front room near to the front door and window? Thought not.

The simple fact of the matter is that she didn’t hear a very short incident which included three not very loud noises from a woman and a man call out one word to a bloke across the street. SO WHAT!! Honestly, this is so silly. Why such an effort to try and create a mystery? This isn’t a John Grisham novel. Dummy witnesses don’t happen in the real world.