Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

And yet this appears to be a complex concept for some Lewis. By suggesting that Fanny was indoors and out of earshot we’re apparently in Narnia.

[DJA]

Meh,didn't have iPods and Casebook back then

[Sunny Delight]

And yet this appears to be a complex concept for some Lewis. By suggesting that Fanny was indoors and out of earshot we’re apparently in Narnia.

Far too much weight is put on her assertion that she was at her door almost the whole time between 12:30-1am. This then leads to some taking this as gospel and taking other timings as completely accurate. I think it is fair to say that most of those who estimated times weren't all that far out because the timescale is very narrow.

A lot of movement of people occured between 12:30-1am. PC Smith, Stride and the man with a parcel, Lave, Eagle, Schwartz, BS man and Stride, Mortimer, Goldstein, Brown, Letchford, Diemschutz. The amazing thing is that none tend to contradict each other and if one is nuanced and realistic with timings it is pretty clear that a timeline emerges that fits all the above in pretty neatly.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Far too much weight is put on her assertion that she was at her door almost the whole time between 12:30-1am. This then leads to some taking this as gospel and taking other timings as completely accurate. I think it is fair to say that most of those who estimated times weren't all that far out because the timescale is very narrow.

A lot of movement of people occured between 12:30-1am. PC Smith, Stride and the man with a parcel, Lave, Eagle, Schwartz, BS man and Stride, Mortimer, Goldstein, Brown, Letchford, Diemschutz. The amazing thing is that none tend to contradict each other and if one is nuanced and realistic with timings it is pretty clear that a timeline emerges that fits all the above in pretty neatly.

Exactly Sunny. There’s nothing particularly noteworthy about someone just missing seeing someone else. Look at Lave…we have no idea when he was in the yard but he and Eagle didn’t see each other. Eagle said that he returned at 12.40. So for example we can have Lave coming out just after Smith passes (let’s say 12.33) then he goes back inside at 12.40 and Eagle returns at 12.41 or even 12.40 and 20 seconds! Or perhaps when Eagle returned at 12.40 Lave, who didn’t stand still, was strolling around the yard and was down near to the printers, or in the loo. He then follows Eagle indoors without them seeing each other. These are massively more likely than false witnesses.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

So, you have turned a 20-minute estimate into 10 at most. Will it forever be necessary to move multiple witnesses out of the way, to make room for Schwartz?

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.

It would be misleading for a journalist to include the phrase "she said", when talking about the couple, without mentioning a third-party as the source.

In #909 we have a scenario, based on taking witnesses estimated times as is, which arrives at the conclusion that a small window of opportunity might exist for the events described by Schwartz to have occurred. It is just after Eagle arrives and just before the board school couple arrives - perhaps 2 or maybe 3 minutes. We are told over and over again how little time the "Schwartz incident" would have taken. Would I be right to assume that you regard this scenario as cutting things too fine?

For all the confidence people have in Schwartz, I would have expected someone to say, "yes Andrew, what Schwartz described occurred right in that small space of time". Instead, we are back to assuming witnesses made errors that we can correct so as to make things more comfortable.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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!

I've suggested in several posts now that Abberline must have accepted the notion of not very loud screams, as it was understood that the screams were indeed screams, just not piercingly loud ones.

Your problem is that you want to believe Schwartz, you can see that Abberline has accepted "screamed three times but not very loudly" as valid, but you don't want those noises to have been screams, as it would seem unlikely that they would have gone unheard, which appears to have been the case. You are conflicted.

Everyone knows (and I mean EVERYONE) that when you call something ‘not very loud’ it means something of relatively low volume.

What then, do you make of the following?

Stride´s screams, "not very loud":

About twenty years ago I witnessed a similar incident like the Berner Street- attack. The woman screamed loud, a dangerous situation, people, in another street, heard the screams and rushed to help.

On the other hand:

When I was going out (that was very often) it often happened that women were herassed by drunken men. In the most cases the women knew the men, these men were "friends" or men they knew well by sight. Although they knew that nothing would happen to them there were moments they fell to the ground and screamed but not very loud. This happened inside and outside of certain venues.

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?

Clearly this couple is a problem for you. Perhaps they didn't exist, as you would no doubt prefer, and it was indeed Elizabeth Stride that James Brown witnessed standing at the corner. Is that what you would prefer?

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.

This is in response to the question: On a scale of 1 to 10, how loud was the "measured, heavy tramp" of Smith's boots?

Simple question, evasive answer.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

If no one witnessed Schwartz and Pipeman running through nearby streets, would it be reasonable to conclude that this happened when the entire neighbourhood was deserted?

[New Waterloo]

Spooner and his girl/lady friend are standing outside the Beehive Public House by his own admission. It is easy to imagine that the location of the Beehive is removed from all of this discussion. Standing by the Beehive doesn't have to mean standing by the front door. I really struggle with uploading images but as I have mentioned earlier the Board School appears to be such a short distance from the pub. Would somebody be able to look at distances between pub and school please. I know there are excellent people who can help. My idea is that Spooner and his girlfriend are the people seen by Brown.

NW

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Far too much weight is put on her assertion that she was at her door almost the whole time between 12:30-1am. This then leads to some taking this as gospel and taking other timings as completely accurate. I think it is fair to say that most of those who estimated times weren't all that far out because the timescale is very narrow.

A lot of movement of people occured between 12:30-1am. PC Smith, Stride and the man with a parcel, Lave, Eagle, Schwartz, BS man and Stride, Mortimer, Goldstein, Brown, Letchford, Diemschutz. The amazing thing is that none tend to contradict each other and if one is nuanced and realistic with timings it is pretty clear that a timeline emerges that fits all the above in pretty neatly.

Fanny Mortimer is a corroborated witness. Which witness statements does your emergent timeline use to correct her errors?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Spooner and his girl/lady friend are standing outside the Beehive Public House by his own admission. It is easy to imagine that the location of the Beehive is removed from all of this discussion. Standing by the Beehive doesn't have to mean standing by the front door. I really struggle with uploading images but as I have mentioned earlier the Board School appears to be such a short distance from the pub. Would somebody be able to look at distances between pub and school please. I know there are excellent people who can help. My idea is that Spooner and his girlfriend are the people seen by Brown.

NW

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/scene-of-the-crimes/4846-1888-ordinance-survey-map-of-whitechapel-area?p=194654#post194654

[DJA]

Corner Fairclough and Christian.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
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!

I've suggested in several posts now that Abberline must have accepted the notion of not very loud screams, as it was understood that the screams were indeed screams, just not piercingly loud ones.

No, you’ve added piercingly to introduce a new level just below ‘as loud as possible’ which was still loud. This isn’t being honest. When Schwartz specifically that she screamed ‘not very loudly’ he was making the specific point that they weren’t loud. So it’s entirely understandable that no one heard them. And guess what…no one did.

Your problem is that you want to believe Schwartz, you can see that Abberline has accepted "screamed three times but not very loudly" as valid, but you don't want those noises to have been screams, as it would seem unlikely that they would have gone unheard, which appears to have been the case. You are conflicted.

I’m not in the least conflicted because this is simple stuff. Abberline thought “I wonder why no one heard the ‘screams.’ And then ‘Of course it was because they weren’t very loud.’

That should be the end of the discussion on the subject but you are trying to pursue your own conspiracist agenda.

Everyone knows (and I mean EVERYONE) that when you call something ‘not very loud’ it means something of relatively low volume.

What then, do you make of the following?

Originally posted by S.Brett View Post
Stride´s screams, "not very loud":

About twenty years ago I witnessed a similar incident like the Berner Street- attack. The woman screamed loud, a dangerous situation, people, in another street, heard the screams and rushed to help.

On the other hand:

When I was going out (that was very often) it often happened that women were herassed by drunken men. In the most cases the women knew the men, these men were "friends" or men they knew well by sight. Although they knew that nothing would happen to them there were moments they fell to the ground and screamed but not very loud. This happened inside and outside of certain venues.

How does this change anything? Two situation, one with louder screams, one with quieter. The Schwartz situation was closer to the second example.

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?

Clearly this couple is a problem for you. Perhaps they didn't exist, as you would no doubt prefer, and it was indeed Elizabeth Stride that James Brown witnessed standing at the corner. Is that what you would prefer?

It’s simple, for whatever reason they didn’t see or hear the incident. So either a) they got there times wrong, b) they were never there or c) they were both deaf mutes. I’d say that a or b are likeliest.

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.

This is in response to the question: On a scale of 1 to 10, how loud was the "measured, heavy tramp" of Smith's boots?

Simple question, evasive answer.

And as I always do I’ll answer a simple, if silly, question….

I don’t know how loud on a ‘scale of 1 to 10’ Smith’s tread was. But what I do know is that you are quite deliberately trying to limit the debate by only considering the one criteria. The sound itself. When you are trying to consider whether A heard, or should have heard B there are other criteria (hearing levels, other sounds at the time, position of the person hearing). As I have mentioned about 200 times over the weeks/months/years people don’t stand stock still inside a house. It’s quite possible and entirely normal to, on occasion A, hear a sound out on the street if you are in the living room near to the front door and window. Then on occasion B, not to hear the exact same sound if you are in the kitchen at the rear of the house.

Why the hell is this concept so difficult for you that you would rather dismiss it and accept the entirely silly notion that Schwartz only pretended to have been there?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fanny Mortimer is a corroborated witness. Which witness statements does your emergent timeline use to correct her errors?

No she isn’t.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No, you’ve added piercingly to introduce a new level just below ‘as loud as possible’ which was still loud. This isn’t being honest.

Actually, 'piercingly loud' is one level above 'very loud', which is equivalent to '10' on our hypothetical amplifier. Do you know what that means?

When Schwartz specifically [said] that she screamed ‘not very loudly’ he was making the specific point that they weren’t loud. So it’s entirely understandable that no one heard them. And guess what…no one did.

Having failed to find any witness who could corroborate these screams, it's entirely understandable that the boys at Leman St station came to doubt Schwartz's story.

That should be the end of the discussion on the subject but you are trying to pursue your own conspiracist agenda.

No, but you can accuse me of trying to work out what happened, with very incomplete information. To that I would plead guilty.

Why the hell is this concept so difficult for you that you would rather dismiss it and accept the entirely silly notion that Schwartz only pretended to have been there?

I don't think he did pretend to be there. On the contrary, there is reason to believe that Israel Schwartz was the murderer.

[Sunny Delight]

Fanny Mortimer is a corroborated witness. Which witness statements does your emergent timeline use to correct her errors?

Which errors are you speaking of?