Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Which errors are you speaking of?

The errors overlooked by those who take her words as gospel.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

I’m interested in this charade. ‘Not very loudly’ means that it wasn’t very loud. That it was of low volume. Everyone can see that you are trying to twist these words.

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.

Rubbish. Schwartz was never ‘not believed.’

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

No. You are creating a fantasy.

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

Absolute nonsense. For a start, if he was guilty why would he claim to have been present?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Hi NW,

I understand your point about Spooner and his lady friend. When Brown said: “when I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of the Board School,” you are suggesting that it could have been the case that he was referring to the Batty Street corner rather than the Berner Street corner. I won’t bother trying to post images because there are chimps with better tech skills than me but I took a look on Google Earth and I’d estimate that the distance from the location of the Beehive to the Board School corner of Batty Street is around 40 yards (someone would be able to give a more accurate distance)

At the Inquest Spooner said:” We had left a public- house in Commercial-road at closing time, midnight, and walked quietly to the point named. We stood outside the Beehive about twenty-five minutes, when two Jews came running along, calling out "Murder" and "Police."

Spooner doesn’t say how they got from Commercial Road to the corner of Christian Street so it’s been assumed that they walked down Christian Street which would be an issue for your suggestion. Why would they walk to the corner of Christian Street and then wander 40 yards to the Board School and then back in time to be seen by Diemschitz near the Beehive. The alternative though is that they could have walked down Batty Street from Commercial Road and then walked to the Beehive. Spooner estimated that they had arrive 25 minutes before they saw the two men.

So it could have been the case that as Brown returned from getting his supper he saw Spooner and his lady friend standing near the Board School on the corner of Batty and Fairclough Streets. After he passed they moved on to stand outside the Beehive from where Spooner joined Diemshitz in his return to Dutfield’s Yard.

[Fiver]

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?

No one witnessed Stride being killed, should we therefore conclude she wasn't murdered, but committed suicide? Not everything is observed and not every observer talks to the police.

And the Schwartz-Pipeman chase might have been observed.

"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?] [?] 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 [?] [?] [?] 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 [?] 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 [?] fresh addition to the already formidable list of mysterious murders forms the general subject of conversation." - 1 October 1888 Echo.

This might show showing that Pipean thought Broadshouldered Man had accused Schwartz of being a murderer by calling him 'Lipski". Schwartz fleeing could have been interpreted as a sign of guilt by Pipeman, and thus he pursued.

[Fiver]

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

Some of Mortimer's statements are corroborated - Leon Goldstein passing through and the arrival of Diemschutz. What isn't confirmed, not even by Mortimer, is exactly when Mortimer was at her door and if she noticed everyone present.

For example, Mortimer did not observe Stride, PC Smith, Brown, or Eagle.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And if we were being really picky we would have to say that even Goldstein doesn’t prove that Fanny was on her doorstep because we have no record of him mentioning seeing her and she could have seen him through her window. I certainly would suggest that she was never on her doorstep but there’s no more evidence in favour of Fanny than there is for Schwartz, especially when we add that Fanny didn’t see Eagle either.

[Wickerman]

.... 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,...

By the time this story hit the press (Evening of 1st Oct.), who is this man whom the public "prefer to regard as the murderer"?
The article implies the public believe one suspect has been identified, but no such suspect is described in the Monday morning press.
I wonder if the article is alluding to the theory that the public 'think' the murderer was a Jew, that the writer is suggesting a Jew was being pursued that morning.

[Abby Normal]

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.



What then, do you make of the following?




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?



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.

what part of ... she screamed.. but not very loudly... dont you understand.

some other similar examples, its not that difficult:

he ran, but not very fast
she fell, but not very hard
he slept, but not very well
it smelled, but not that strong
it hurt, but not that bad
etc etc,

also, her not screaming very loudly reinforces the evidence that she was with the same man (peaked cap man)for a long period of time.. as in she felt she knew him and wasnt crying out in bloody murder, just for him to leave her alone.

i believe another poster put forth that her screams werent loud because she was being pulled/choked by her scarf, or perhaps her throat had already been cut which are also a couple of other possibilities.

[c.d.]

i believe another poster put forth that her screams werent loud because she was being pulled/choked by her scarf, or perhaps her throat had already been cut which are also a couple of other possibilities.

Hard to believe that Schwartz wouldn't have noticed that her throat had been cut.

c.d.

[Sunny Delight]

The errors overlooked by those who take her words as gospel.

Can you outline them as you have asked me about a timeline and her errors and how they can be reconciled. I need to know which errors you are referring to before I can do that.

[Sunny Delight]

And if we were being really picky we would have to say that even Goldstein doesn’t prove that Fanny was on her doorstep because we have no record of him mentioning seeing her and she could have seen him through her window. I certainly would suggest that she was never on her doorstep but there’s no more evidence in favour of Fanny than there is for Schwartz, especially when we add that Fanny didn’t see Eagle either.

I think Goldstein co-orborates Mortimer strongly. There is no reason to suggest she saw him from the window and was never at her door. Why would she lie about that? She saw him and such was her description that Goldstein felt compelled to go to the Police.

[Sunny Delight]

Those who choose to focus on the screams not being loud seem to forget one huge factor. Schwartz words were interpreted and we all know the difficulties with that. It isn't like nowadays either where the Police would supply an interpreter for you, a professional. This was a friend who interpreted his words. Scream may not have been the correct terminology. Maybe she cried out but not very loudly would have more accurate. Who knows.

[c.d.]

In a legal deposition a witness can make changes to his sworn testimony before signing it. But here, Schwartz would have no way of knowing how his words were interpreted.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think Goldstein co-orborates Mortimer strongly. There is no reason to suggest she saw him from the window and was never at her door. Why would she lie about that? She saw him and such was her description that Goldstein felt compelled to go to the Police.

I wouldn’t say that she did see Goldstein from the window only that’s it’s physically possible and even if you just consider it and sideline it then there is no other corroboration for her being on her doorstep

She doesn’t see the incident - yes, some claim that it didn’t occur.
She didn’t see Eagle return - does anyone claim that he didn’t return?
She doesn’t see Stride arrive - which she certainly must have done at some point.

The only thing that can be used as evidence that she was ever on her doorstep is her sighting of Goldstein which, theoretically, she could have done from her window.

[Lewis C]

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?

I don't know how you got this conclusion or this question from what you were responding to.

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.

What I'm assuming is that times given by witnesses are estimates and might be off by a few minutes. I think that to do otherwise is unrealistic. It's especially unrealistic if the only way that it works for all given times to be exactly right is if we baselessly assume that one of the witnesses is lying. Someone that believes that we need to have a reason to assume a witness is lying, but takes the given times to be estimates, is following the witness testimony much more closely than someone who believes that either all times given by witnesses are exactly right or at least one of the witnesses is lying.