Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Lewis C]

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?

Pipeman might not have run very far, but anyone who was on the street Schwartz ran down at the time he ran down it would have seen him if he wasn't distracted. And maybe someone did, but we just know about it.

[Lewis C]

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.

Herlock, I would also propose an in-between scenario: she went to her door, but not outside. In one of the reports, she said she was standing at the door". In another report, she said that she "went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts". It doesn't look to me like she even said that she went outside. Would one have to go outside to shoot the bolts? If she was at her door but not outside, it might explain at least one thing that she didn't see, and it would also make it more understandable that Goldstein didn't mention seeing her.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yet another thread descends into conspiracy corner.

This is what happened……the incident occurred, there was no one around to see or hear it apart from Schwartz. That’s it. I know…Roswell, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and Skinwalker Ranch all pale into insignificance compared to this freakish event but hey ho.

What should be said next is “yes, that’s clearly what happened, now let’s move on to a topic where there might be an element of mystery.”

But no….on we go.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, I would also propose an in-between scenario: she went to her door, but not outside. In one of the reports, she said she was standing at the door". In another report, she said that she "went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts". It doesn't look to me like she even said that she went outside. Would one have to go outside to shoot the bolts? If she was at her door but not outside, it might explain at least one thing that she didn't see, and it would also make it more understandable that Goldstein didn't mention seeing her.

Hi Lewis, yes that’s a possible.

I only do this in a light-hearted way (just in case I get accused of arrogance) but i wrote a few maxims just like Sherlock Holmes and Herlock’s Maxim No 4 is - “Something cannot be proven or disproven by using unknowns as factors.”

The time that Fanny spent on her doorstep is an unknown. We don’t know when she was on there or for how long. Therefore we can’t dismiss Schwartz based on Fanny but this is exactly what some try to do. Why are they so desperate to do this? Often because they have a theory.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

So, the screams were loud, by definition, but were also low volume. Anyone who disagrees is trying to twist words.

Rubbish. Schwartz was never ‘not believed.’

Star, Oct 2: In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

Swanson alluded to these doubts. You want the situation with the police to be black and white. It wasn't.

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

You would first have to consider the Echo report. That might be difficult for you.

[FISHY1118]

Unsubstantiated newspaper reports should be treated with caution.

Official reports regarding Schwartz witness eye accounts should always be treated ahead of such articles as the Stars report .

The Official stance at the time was that Schwartz's version of events were believed by the police at the time who were in charge of the ripper investigation .

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Stride was killed in the dark. The chase, or whatever and if it was, was in poor light but not darkness. It not being observed on streets that were not deserted is a curiosity. The police spoke to a great many people. It seems that belief in Schwartz requires a list of supporting assumptions to be made and accepted.

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.

The Echo report has been under discussion for the last few days by a few of us (not including Herlock, who wrote it off as "plot-fodder").

According to Schwartz, he had left the scene before the murder. For the BS Man to have accused Schwartz of murder, which was understood by Pipeman, could only make sense if Schwartz's claim to have left the scene prior, was false.

The next thing to think about is how this alternate story made its way to Wess, but apparently not the police.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

c.d.

I think Abby's theory is that Stride had her throat cut on the footway, and then tried to walk to the side door to get help.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

I think it fair that I also get to move witnesses around.

I will start by moving Eagle's return to the club from 12:40 to 12:45. At that time, Stride had not yet moved to the gateway, and Schwartz was still a few minutes up Commercial Rd. He will not reach the gateway until almost 12:50.

Next, I will move Charles Letchford's sister back in time, so that she is on her doorstep by 12:48. That's only a couple of minutes.

Is everyone okay with this, so far?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Unsubstantiated newspaper reports should be treated with caution.

Official reports regarding Schwartz witness eye accounts should always be treated ahead of such articles as the Stars report .

The Official stance at the time was that Schwartz's version of events were believed by the police at the time who were in charge of the ripper investigation .

You love your authority figures, so what about Coroner Baxter? What was his stance?

[FISHY1118]

You love your authority figures, so what about Coroner Baxter? What was his stance?

Well they were the Authority of the day were they not ?, as opposed to....... well just a ''Reporter''

I wasn,t aware Coroner Baxter interviewed Schwartz , where exactly might i find that official document.?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, the screams were loud, by definition, but were also low volume. Anyone who disagrees is trying to twist words.

You just can’t help yourself. The ‘screams’ were ‘not very loud’ because the person that heard them said that they were ‘not very loud.’ So we have Schwartz (again…the man that heard them) saying that they ‘weren’t very loud.’

‘Not very loud’ is a commonly used phrase and it always means ‘of low volume.’ What you are trying to do, by using semantics, is to change the phrase from ‘not very…loud,’ to ‘not…very loud.’ Your deliberate misinterpretation would have Schwartz meaning ‘well the screams were loud but not incredibly loud,’ or something similar. Every singly person breathing will understand that this was clearly not what he meant. He was using the phrase a way that everyone uses it. There is no way that Schwartz was trying to distinguish between loud and very loud. He added the phrase to indicate that Stride wasn’t loud.

The (deliberate) ‘confusion’ is caused by the use of the word ‘screamed’ which wasn’t the best choice of word but not surprising for a non-English speaker.

Star, Oct 2: In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

Swanson alluded to these doubts. You want the situation with the police to be black and white. It wasn't.


You trust the Press, I prefer to trust the police who never showed any doubt about Schwartz. Perhaps they made an assumption due to the fact that no further action was taken with the arrested man?

You would first have to consider the Echo report. That might be difficult for you.

And you would have to consider Abberline, Swanson and Anderson but, as authority figures, they were probably ‘in on it.’

[New Waterloo]

Thanks Herlock for the response yes I see what you mean about not knowing the route taken by Spooner and his girlfriend. This has made me think. I am sure it has been said before but we know Brown went to get his supper from the chandlers at the corner of Berners street and Fairclough (I believe) and we know where he lived, 35 Fairclough Street.

So we have a good witness who walks from his house to the chandlers and then returns by the same route.

We have Spooner on his own admission stating that he was near the Beehive pub during the period of Browns walk.

Would Brown have seen Spooner and his girlfriend on the route he took? The problem is of course if Spooner and his girlfriend were round the corner of the pub on Christian Street, but if they were on Fairclough would Brown have been within a reasonable sight of them?

This all hinges on where number 35 is. Also I think Spooner lived at 26 and that would be interesting to see also.

Problem for me is I cant find a map that gives house numbers. Can anyone help please

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

At various points we get suggestions of how long Fanny spent on her doorstep but we aren’t always certain of when we are reading her own words or a journalist’s interpretation. We get ‘most of the time between 12.30 and 1.00.’ We get that she went onto her doorstep just after Smith passed but this is also recorded as ‘just before 12.45.’ We also get that she spent 10 minutes on her doorstep and that after she went inside she heard Diemschitz cart around 4 minutes later. This is what’s is used to try and dismiss Schwartz…an indecipherable mess.

So let’s give Fanny two points. That she went onto her doorstep just after PC. Smith passed (so let’s call this approx 12.35) and that she went back indoors not long before Diemschitz returned (so let’s call this approx 12.55) So, in general, we have Fanny continually on her doorstep for the 20 minutes between around 12.35 and 12.55. Is this possible or likely?

No, it’s not because didn’t see Eagle return at around 12.40 (according to him) Could she have missed him if she was on her doorstep? No, he would have been 3 feet from her nose. She also didn’t see Stride arrive at the yard and we know that’s were she was found and we also know that she wasn’t beamed there by Scotty. Could a woman have arrived at the gates of Dutfield’s Yard with Fanny on sentry duty a mere 2 doors away? No. So reason tells us that between her first going onto her doorstep (at around 12.35) and her going back indoors (at around 12.55) Fanny must have gone back inside and come out again. Why? Who knows…the reason important.

So how long would she have had to have been indoors to have missed Eagle’s return and the Schwartz incident? I believe Jeff said that to enter and exit Berner Street would have been a matter of 90 seconds. It’s even possible that Eagle and BSMan were at one point both in Berner Street at the same time, with Eagle being up ahead. So Fanny would only have had to a gone back indoors for 2 or 3 minutes to have missed Eagle’s return and the incident. And would she have gone back inside to stand near to the door so as to hear what she could or is it likelier that she went inside because she had something to do; or that her husband had called her for some reason to perform some task?

I’m only going on what Fanny (possibly) said in the Press and then factoring in things that we know occurred that we know that she didn’t see so it seems an entirely reasonable suggestion that Fanny went back indoors for a short period. So, a timeline incorporating this and NW’s suggestion about Spooner and his girl.

…

Approximate times of course


12.32 - PC.Smith passes and sees the couple (who leave the street after he passes)

12.33 - Fanny comes onto her doorstep and sees nothing.

12.40 - Fanny goes indoors.

12.41- Eagle returns.

12.42 - Stride returns and meets BSMan at the gates and the Schwartz incident occurs.

12.44 - Fanny comes back onto her doorstep.

12.45 - Brown goes for his supper.

12.45 - Spooner and his girlfriend arrive after walking down Batty Street from Commercial Road to stand by the Board School on the corner of Batty and Fairclough.

12.48 - Brown returned and saw the couple. The couple then walked on to Christian Street

12.50 - Goldstein passed, seen by Fanny.

12.51 - Letchford’s sister goes to her doorstep to lock up and sees nothing.

12.55 - Fanny goes back indoors.

1.00 Fanny hears Diemschitz return.

….


Just another of the numerous possible scenarios showing that there is nothing remotely suspicious about the events of that night. Yes, there are things that we have no definitive explanation for but that doesn’t mean that these events are inexplicable or mysterious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Herlock for the response yes I see what you mean about not knowing the route taken by Spooner and his girlfriend. This has made me think. I am sure it has been said before but we know Brown went to get his supper from the chandlers at the corner of Berners street and Fairclough (I believe) and we know where he lived, 35 Fairclough Street.

So we have a good witness who walks from his house to the chandlers and then returns by the same route.

We have Spooner on his own admission stating that he was near the Beehive pub during the period of Browns walk.

Would Brown have seen Spooner and his girlfriend on the route he took? The problem is of course if Spooner and his girlfriend were round the corner of the pub on Christian Street, but if they were on Fairclough would Brown have been within a reasonable sight of them?

This all hinges on where number 35 is. Also I think Spooner lived at 26 and that would be interesting to see also.

Problem for me is I cant find a map that gives house numbers. Can anyone help please

NW

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=12c32a9e01a03173&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB70 4GB704&hl=en-GB&sxsrf=ADLYWILK8AW_7ZGLlHQwtauV7hpUn0V68A:17300 2 4529901&q=jtr+Berner+Street+map&udm=2&fbs=AEQNm0Aa 4sjWe7Rqy32pFwRj0UkWd8nbOJfsBGGB5IQQO6L3J5m2RNdZ7T qBBDB_EAGU4N1WxBlB1HAP-ebrmYUwjpqjtAeEQdkyZ8RGOmQV9h_7PSCyeQMayQdFwjovhrX XbIjIRh9Y7xRH33CteG-15VbEMBtF3dkn2myhCM3l3ZAepgUpZ2etG4YuIpiyxTbXaJuRG BKasjBXgDXZhR_QGjXZBRV2Yw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjlvrrMq6 6JAxV8VUEAHctHJFEQtKgLegQIEhAB&biw=1024&bih=1247&d pr=2#vhid=INl_isKf5UZ5iM&vssid=mosaic

Sorry NW that map doesn’t show the Fairclough Street numbers. I have one but I’m useless with tech. I’m sure there’s one on this thread.