Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I hope this works?

A miracle I just cut and pasted from an earlier post. I didn’t think that could be done with pictures. You live and learn.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Key:

Red - Dutfields Yard.

White - Couple seen by Brown - or perhaps not if we go with your suggestion NW?

Blue - Marshall, 64 Berner St.

Purple - Brown, 35 Fairclough

Pale Blue - Beehive PH, 36 Fairclough

Orange - Spooner, 26 Fairclough

Green - Fanny Mortimer, 36 Berner Street

[New Waterloo]

Thanks for all that work Herlock really appreciated. To be honest I am really surprised that Brown lived in a house next door to the Beehive Pub. I have to have a long think about this.

NW

[New Waterloo]

Back quicker than I thought. DJA recently posted an excellent photo of the Beehive Pub. Dare I suggest that the door on the very left of the photo is in fact the door to Browns House. (probably has been mentioned before) In any case the photo shows that there is no significant porch to the corner door of the pub. Not deep enough for a couple to stand in. I think we can strongly suggest that if Spooner and his girlfriend were standing on Fairclough street by the pub they would have been seen by Brown when he left his house and certainly when he returned to his house but he does not mention another couple.

Yes they could be round the corner in Christian Street that's the only problem.

NW

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.’

That's right, they weren't very loud, but they were screams and therefore they were loud.

‘Not very loud’ is a commonly used phrase and it always means ‘of low volume.’

No, it does not always mean that. 'Not very loud' refers to anything less than very loud, including 'loud', 'moderately loud, 'average', and 'quiet'. If you are near a driver revving his engine, it might not be very loud. Is it therefore 'low volume'?

There is no such thing as a 'low volume scream', which is a contradiction.

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.

Wrong again. Abberline appears to have accepted Schwartz's description of the noises. That would suggest he understood Schwartz to mean that although the woman screamed, the screams weren't loud enough to wake the entire neighbourhood.

You trust the Press, I prefer to trust the police who never showed any doubt about Schwartz.

It's not a question of trusting one over the other. The Leman St police were part of the police force, and the Star had a source at that station.

Perhaps they made an assumption due to the fact that no further action was taken with the arrested man?

No, don't try to explain it away. Accept what the report says and accept that the situation wasn't black and white.

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

Swanson's "If Schwartz is to be believed..." is arguably a subtle reference to the doubts mentioned in the Star report.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's right, they weren't very loud, but they were screams and therefore they were loud.



No, it does not always mean that. 'Not very loud' refers to anything less than very loud, including 'loud', 'moderately loud, 'average', and 'quiet'. If you are near a driver revving his engine, it might not be very loud. Is it therefore 'low volume'?

There is no such thing as a 'low volume scream', which is a contradiction.

Rubbish. They weren’t loud because no one heard them. Not very loud means just that. Low volume. It’s the word that’s wrong not the meaning. Scream was a poor choice of word…just as a non-English speaker might use. You are intentionally trying to manipulate evidence to support a half-baked theory that a toddler could see through.


Wrong again. Abberline appears to have accepted Schwartz's description of the noises. That would suggest he understood Schwartz to mean that although the woman screamed, the screams weren't loud enough to wake the entire neighbourhood.

Rubbish. He believed Schwartz therefore he MUST have assumed (correctly) that the noise that she made wasn’t loud and so wasn’t heard by anyone fairly close.

It's not a question of trusting one over the other. The Leman St police were part of the police force, and the Star had a source at that station.

Rubbish. Schwartz was trusted. They went looking for an Lipski. They arrested at least one man on the strength of it. End of.

No, don't try to explain it away. Accept what the report says and accept that the situation wasn't black and white.

Rubbish. It was black and white.

Swanson's "If Schwartz is to be believed..." is arguably a subtle reference to the doubts mentioned in the Star report.

Waves of rubbish. Deliberate attempts to bend the evidence to support another barking theory from the man that suggested that Mrs Richardson might have been running a brothel from the cellar of number 29 Hanbury Street.

If you can’t make sensible contributions…

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thread after thread after thread of conspiracist silliness. Why is it that some are so intent on pushing a theory that they try do anything to support it.

[Wickerman]

...

Swanson's "If Schwartz is to be believed..." is arguably a subtle reference to the doubts mentioned in the Star report.

I don't think he is referring back to the opinion in the Star, specifically.

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and (if) the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows", etc.

If "the police report casts no doubt upon it", then Swanson can't say "if Schwartz is to be believed", in the same sentence - it already is believed justified by the police report.
Which is contradictory, and suggests we are not reading it right.

Swanson's statement is illogical without the second "(if)", inserted by me.

Then the logic becomes apparent - Schwartz's story was still being investigated by the police. They had not completed their report which may, or may not, verify Schwartz. Therefore, Swanson is permitted to begin with "if Schwartz is to be believed" (his story has not yet been established).

[Lewis C]

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.

I agree, but I'll add that if the report that she was at her door for 10 minutes is true, then there's no need to dismiss either Fanny or Schwartz. There's room for both of them. If the "nearly the whole time from 12:30 to 1:00" is accurate, then Schwartz wouldn't be the only witness we'd need to call into question. That's why I think that the 10 minute estimate is far more likely.

[Sunny Delight]

I don't think he is referring back to the opinion in the Star, specifically.

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and (if) the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows", etc.

If "the police report casts no doubt upon it", then Swanson can't say "if Schwartz is to be believed", in the same sentence - it already is believed justified by the police report.
Which is contradictory, and suggests we are not reading it right.

Swanson's statement is illogical without the second "(if)", inserted by me.

Then the logic becomes apparent - Schwartz's story was still being investigated by the police. They had not completed their report which may, or may not, verify Schwartz. Therefore, Swanson is permitted to begin with "if Schwartz is to be believed" (his story has not yet been established).

I think that is going around some mental gymnastics that are unnecessary. It isn't a contradictory statement. Swanson is basically saying, If Schwartz is to be believed and the report from the guys below me cast no doubt upon it. He is being a little disingenuous and not nailing his own opinion to the mast, but rather leaving a little room, so that should it ever transpire Schwartz was found to be lying, Swanson has someone to blame.

[Lewis C]

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?

The purpose for making allowances of timings being off by a few minutes is to see if there's a way that all of the evidence can be fit together, to see how much common ground can be found between all of the witness statements, unless there's a reason for discounting a particular witness statement. So I don't have any problem with the allowances that you made for Eagle and Letchford's sister, provided that they are done for the purpose of helping to fit all of the evidence together rather than for the purpose of dismissing certain witnesses.

[Sunny Delight]

Thread after thread after thread of conspiracist silliness. Why is it that some are so intent on pushing a theory that they try do anything to support it.

Don't engage with it is my own opinion on that matter. A thankless task.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Don't engage with it is my own opinion on that matter. A thankless task.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Back quicker than I thought. DJA recently posted an excellent photo of the Beehive Pub. Dare I suggest that the door on the very left of the photo is in fact the door to Browns House. (probably has been mentioned before) In any case the photo shows that there is no significant porch to the corner door of the pub. Not deep enough for a couple to stand in. I think we can strongly suggest that if Spooner and his girlfriend were standing on Fairclough street by the pub they would have been seen by Brown when he left his house and certainly when he returned to his house but he does not mention another couple.

Yes they could be round the corner in Christian Street that's the only problem.

NW

I would have thought that doorway is almost certainly Brown’s house NW.

When Brown went for his supper Spooner and his girl could still have been on Commercial Road. I’d estimate that the walk to Fairclough Street would have taken around 90 seconds so they could have arrived for when Brown returned with his food. It’s just a pity that we don’t know which pub on Commercial Road they had been to because if it was east at the top of Christian Street then my suggestion of a walk down Batty Street is almost certainly a non-starter. If it was to the west then they could have turned down Batty Street, stood at the Board School corner, been seen by Brown and then walked to The Beehive after he’d gone indoors.

Speculation of course but possible imo.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Rubbish. They weren’t loud because no one heard them. Not very loud means just that. Low volume. It’s the word that’s wrong not the meaning. Scream was a poor choice of word…just as a non-English speaker might use. You are intentionally trying to manipulate evidence to support a half-baked theory that a toddler could see through.

If you do not accept the word 'screams', then you do not accept the evidence as is. Changing the evidence to something you find acceptable, has nothing to do with trying to work out what happened, and more to do with protecting the reputation of a long dead witness. What motivates you do to that; I have no idea.

If the right choice of word as you see it was not 'screams', but rather a word that is compatible with the noises being of low volume, then there would be no reason to add the "not very loudly" qualifier. For example, "He began speaking to the woman in the gateway, but not very loudly" - the qualifier is redundant. Not so in the case of "screamed three times", so your claim that Schwartz chose the wrong word, fails.

You want Schwartz to have told the truth and for Abberline to have accepted his words as at least plausible. On the other hand, you can't take the risk that Schwartz actually meant what he said. You are conflicted.

Rubbish. He believed Schwartz therefore he MUST have assumed (correctly) that the noise that she made wasn’t loud and so wasn’t heard by anyone fairly close.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Had Abberline known of the singing in the club, and he probably did by the time he spoke to Schwartz, he might have assumed that the screams were not heard over the singing. Why didn't you think of that possibility?

Rubbish. Schwartz was trusted. They went looking for an Lipski. They arrested at least one man on the strength of it. End of.

So, you are in denial of the report in the Star. What a surprise.

Rubbish. It was black and white.

Says this true believer.

Waves of rubbish. Deliberate attempts to bend the evidence to support another barking theory from the man that suggested that Mrs Richardson might have been running a brothel from the cellar of number 29 Hanbury Street.

Why let people use the back yard for free?