Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Fiver]

If you do not accept the word 'screams', then you do not accept the evidence as is.

Everybody accepts that what Israel Schwartz said was translated into English as "The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly." A scream is, by definition, loud, so clearly this was a poor translation. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

It might transpire that any witness was found to be lying, but we don't see a similar disclaimer for any other witness. Only Schwartz.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Everybody accepts that what Israel Schwartz said was translated into English as "The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly." A scream is, by definition, loud, so clearly this was a poor translation. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

It's not hard for me to understand why you want to believe that. The fact remains that Abberline accepted these words as valid, and so that is the evidence we have. If you don't like the sound of the evidence, the next step is not to change that evidence to something you do like.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I am motivated by the desire to get as near to the truth as possible by not pursuing flights of fancy or agendas. You begin with a preconception (you’ve already admitted that you suspect Schwartz of being the killer) and so you have the motive to try and shape the evidence to fit that preconception. As anyone will tell you, that has even a rudimentary understanding of the English language, when someone says ‘not very loud’ they never mean ‘loud, but not very loud’ which is the way that you are blatantly trying to skew the evidence in favour of your theory. ‘Not very loud’ means quiet. It means of low volume. Everyone knows what a scream is. A scream is loud. When someone says that someone screamed there is no need for a follow on to explain it. Schwartz however added that it wasn’t very loud. Therefore he was saying that the woman made sounds which were not loud. As opposed to loud. It’s remarkable that on an adult message board I find myself having to explain this but, as everyone knows, this isn’t down to the fact of poor comprehension. You know full well that I’m right but you simply need an alternative to be the case to support your theory. You are absolutely, blatantly wrong and you are fully aware of the fact.

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.

I struggle to believe that you are trying to make a genuine point here. This has to be a wind up.

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.

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?

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

Says this true believer.

You are a text book conspiracy theorist. Everything is a lie. Everything is a plot.

Why let people use the back yard for free?

You now have someone else telling you that you are wrong. Let’s see how many spring up to support your nonsense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It might transpire that any witness was found to be lying, but we don't see a similar disclaimer for any other witness. Only Schwartz.

Yes we do!

Why do you think it ok to say “I don’t believe Schwartz because of Fanny Mortimer” and not “I don’t believe Fanny Mortimer because of Schwartz?”

Why do you put so much weight on what she ‘said.’

We don’t know when she was on her doorstep but still think that she disproves Schwartz. Can anyone see even a smidgeon of logic in that?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You now have someone else telling you that you are wrong. Let’s see how many spring up to support your nonsense.

Your position amounts to supposing the following was the case.

Abberline to self: Now I know the chap just said she screamed three times, but not very loudly, but I don't think he really meant that. I think he meant she made three quiet noises but was just a bit careless in his choice of words. However, I will put his words into my report regardless, because everyone who reads it will know that I was thinking that he was thinking that he really meant something else. Everyone that is, except Andrew.

This is preposterous. We are not supposed to think Abberline thought Schwartz meant something other than what he wrote in his report.

You are a text book conspiracy theorist. Everything is a lie. Everything is a plot.

I am repeatedly told that we should preference the police report over anything we see in the press. I then take the position that we should accept the summary of the police account, verbatim. In response, I am dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. You couldn't make it up.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Fair enough.

The following does not seem to fit with other evidence.

It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so.

It seemingly does not fit because we assume that the woman in question was Fanny, and that had she gone to her door immediately on hearing the policeman's plod, she would have seen Stride with a man. Is that necessarily true, though? What if the couple had stood further up Berner St than Smith recalled? Then Fanny might have seen the couple talking together in the distance, just as she might have caught a glimpse of the board school couple at the corner. Do we have to assume she would have put two and two together, on seeing Stride's body by candlelight? Fanny spoke to the board school couple, so maybe she thought another couple further up that dark street, had nothing to do with the murder. Perhaps Fanny did indeed go to her doorstep seconds after Smith had passed by, and our timelines are incorrect.

[JeffHamm]

It's not hard for me to understand why you want to believe that. The fact remains that Abberline accepted these words as valid, and so that is the evidence we have. If you don't like the sound of the evidence, the next step is not to change that evidence to something you do like.

So you agree that the three sounds Stride made were not very loud sounds, since it is recorded that way. And isn't the volume of the sounds the most critical aspect, whether they be called screams, yells, shouts, calls, or whatnot. In the end, it is whether or not they were very loud sounds, and since they are recorded as being not very loud, we have our answer - don't we?

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your position amounts to supposing the following was the case.

Abberline to self: Now I know the chap just said she screamed three times, but not very loudly, but I don't think he really meant that. I think he meant she made three quiet noises but was just a bit careless in his choice of words. However, I will put his words into my report regardless, because everyone who reads it will know that I was thinking that he was thinking that he really meant something else. Everyone that is, except Andrew.

This is preposterous. We are not supposed to think Abberline thought Schwartz meant something other than what he wrote in his report.

I’d suggest that you stand completely alone with this drivel. Your position amounts to this:

Andrew: What happened?

Mr X: It made a noise but it wasn’t very loud.

Andrew: Ah ok, so it was loud.

What you are suggesting (trying to invent) is that Abberline (who according to you must have been depriving some village of the services of a first class idiot) was thinking: “When this Schwartz chap said ‘not very loudly’ he must have meant ‘loud’ because the word scream was used. So everyone in those houses would have heard them. Oh, hold on, no one heard them. Perhaps they were all singing along with the club members at the time. Yes, that will be it. Problem solved.”

Whilst I am suggesting, along with every other sentient being on the planet is that Abberline thought “ Those ‘screams’ couldn’t have been loud because no one heard them. But why did he say ‘scream’ when ‘screams’ are loud? Oh yes, the man couldn’t speak English. That explains it.”

I am repeatedly told that we should preference the police report over anything we see in the press. I then take the position that we should accept the summary of the police account, verbatim. In response, I am dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. You couldn't make it up.

I’d suggest that you stand completely alone with this drivel. Your position amounts to this:

Andrew: What happened?

Herlock: It made a noise but it wasn’t very loud.

Andrew: Ah ok, so it was loud.

Even Christer can’t rearrange the language to suit like that.

What you are suggesting (trying to invent) is that Abberline (who according to you must have been depriving some village of the services of a first class idiot) was thinking: “When this Schwartz chap said ‘not very loudly’ he must have meant ‘loud’ because the word scream was used. So everyone in those houses would have heard them. Oh, hold on, no one heard them. Perhaps they were all singing along with the club members at the time. Yes, that will be it. Problem solved.”

Whilst I am suggesting, along with every other sentient being on the planet is that Abberline thought “ Those ‘screams’ couldn’t have been loud because no one heard them. But why did he say ‘scream’ when ‘screams’ are loud? Oh yes, the man couldn’t speak English. That explains it.”

[New Waterloo]

Morning Advertiser 3rd October 1888 (London) Covering Inquest

On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the "Bective," [Beehive] at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street, along with a young woman. We had been in a beershop at the corner of Settles-street, Commercial-road, and remained till closing time. I stood at the top of Christian-street for a few minutes, and then walked down the street. We had been standing there about 25 minutes, I suppose, when two Jews came running along.......

Well Herlock it appears sensible for Spooner to have walked up Christian Street which as you suggested would mean they didn't use Berner or Batty Street to walk through. Well not completely I suppose so I will keep going with the idea a bit more (The idea that the couple seen by Brown were Spooner and his girl/lady friend).

It is still a fact that Browns house adjoined the Beehive Pub but he does not see Spooner and friend when leaving or returning to his house. (well correction. He does not report seeing a couple by the pub) and I do believe is a bit odd considering how he (Brown) actually lives where he does. Also the wording in this press report lacks some clarity and seems a bit ambiguous.

And as we know Spooner does not give any details of his girlfriends identity

Will think some more about this.

Thanks Herlock

NW

[The Rookie Detective]

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.

Arguably, the last confirmed sighting of Stride being alive and well, was when she was seen by PC Smith at some point between 12.28am - 12.38am.

That allows for a slight and reasonably plausible extension of the time parameters; based on the idea that Pc Smith timings were wrong.

Stride is with Parcelman

if we are to believe that the other couple who were seen by Brown and referenced by Mortimer were indeed standing in Faircloth St by the Board School and NOT Stride, then it leaves Parcelman as the last person seen with the victim.

But then there's BS Man...

More about him in a mo...

We then have Lave who placed himself at the scene. He claims to go as far as the street, and who had to have physically walked directly past the exact spot Stride was later murdered.

We also have Eagle, who also places himself at the scene. He confirms he walked directly past the exact spot Stride was later found. By stating he tried the front entrance and found it to be locked, he also has to walk past the murder site to go back inside the club.

Independent of each other; Eagle both claim to have gone back into the club at approximately the same time; circa 12.40am

But based on PC Smith, Mortimer and Schwartz, it seems certain that both Eagle and Lave were indeed back inside the club by 12.45am at the absolute latest.

Nobody sees Eagle OR Lave go back into the club

Nobody sees Parcel man go anywhere


It would seem possible that Lave may have been Parcelman.
This would explain the where and when for Lave and Parcel man.

So... back to BS Man...

Bs Man wasn't Parcelman. Their respective physical descriptions simply do not come close enough to be considered as being the same man.


So now let's look at things from Stride's perspective...

The alleged assault on her committed by BS Man at some point AFTER 12.40am.

Seeing as neither Pc Smith, Lave or Eagle witnessed the assault, we can be certain that the earliest the assault took place was 12.40am.

Schwartz tells us the assault took place about 12.45am

Brown also gives the same approximate time of 12.45am; that he saw the couple on the corner as he made his was back from the shop on the corner.

But the assault couldn't have occurred when Brown was there and so let's push his timing back to circa 12.50am.

That way, he doesn't clash with the timings given by Schwartz.

So far, so good.


Let's also keep Mortimer indoors for now, as it can also be considered certain that Mortimer was NOT at her door when the assault took place.

So by pushing Brown back by about 5 minutes and keeping Mortimer indoors; we now have time and space for the assault to fit into the window around 12.45am


So...let's put ourselves in Stride's shoes...



I have just been talking with a young man with a parcel on the opposite side of the road to the club.

A policeman walks past and sees me with this man.

The policeman walks off just as another man steps out from the yard and comes as far as the street. He must be getting some fresh air. He doesn't notice me.
He walks back into the yard and back into the building.

Another man then walks up to the front door and I notice that he can't get in. The door must be locked. He then walks into the yard and goes into the same building.

The young man I am with then walks off and I cross the road and stand in the gateway.

it must be about 12.45am now.

As I get to the gateway I turn around and see another man. He looks a little tipsy. I best stay clear.

Before I can even react, this man just rushes up to me and tries to drag me into the street. I try and fight him off but he's strong on account of those broad shoulders. Before I can get away he just throws me down onto the floor just in front of the gate.
I am so scared that even my screams for help come out as whimpers.
My attacker looks around and shouts something across the road at another man who must have seen me being attacked.

Someone must have heard him shout?

Perhaps this witness can help me?!

Oh no, he has just run away, coward!


The man who attacked me then looks at me. He looks like he wants to kill me.

But he just walks off.

It's fortunate he wasn't Jack the Ripper and just some random street thug.

Okay...what do I do now?

I think I will stay here for a while.

I won't go into the club
I won't go home
And there's no point walking out of this yard because that man who attacked me might still be lingering around the corner.
Not by the Board School though because I am sure there was another couple there earlier.

Why didn't they come to my assistance?

Surely when I screamed a few times, I wasn't that quiet?

Oh look, there's a man with a Pipe.

Nope, he's just walked off too.

I wonder if he and that broad shouldered man were friends?
It doesn't matter, I am just going to stay here and gather my thoughts.
But quietly of course; I don't want to disturb anyone sitting downstairs in that building. Not that they would hear me anyway.

Oh I do wish that man who had kissed me outside the bricklayers arms was still here. I thought the date was going quite well. I got dressed up and everything.

Nevermind

I am just going to stay and wait. No point in walking out from this yard. One of the neighbours might see me. That woman at number 36 especially.

It must be 12.55am now.

Oh, wait, there's a man with a black bag!...

Hello?!

Hello?!

How rude, he just walked hurriedly past me and didn't even think to give us a hand to stand up.

Don't tell me he didn't hear me either!

Do I really speak that quietly?!

Whatever.


Right, time to go home.

Oh, hold on, who's this coming now?

Hi, I'm Lizzie, and you are?

Quiet type are we? Where did you come from? I never even heard you coming. Not like that Policeman who was tramping about earlier. No doubt he will be walking back past here on his beat in a few minutes.

What's that? You like my scarf?

Ok, you can have a feel of my scarf if you like.

Kissing?

Yes, I do. The man I was with earlier was a bit full on though. His breath was awful. Hold on, let me just freshen me breath...


.........



If Schwartz witnessed Bs Man assaulting Stride at 12.45am...and he WASN'T her killer, then not only do we need to move Mortimer out the equation entirely, delay Brown, believe the other couple and Mrs Diemschitz were hard of hearing...we also have to explain Stride's CHOICES AFTER she was assaulted.


Believing Schwartz is one thing, but accepting BS man attacked her and didn't finish her off is a step beyond reasoning.

If BS Man attacked her, then he subsequently cut her throat after Schwattz ran off.

And if Bs Man was her killer...he certainly wasn't the Ripper.

And if Stride wasn't a Ripper victim...

All feels a bit wrong to me... doesn't feel quite right.

But at least Schwartz gave us BS Man and let off that innocent man with the parcel.

[c.d.]

we also have to explain Stride's CHOICES AFTER she was assaulted.

They make perfect sense if it was just a little street hassle. If women on the street fled at the first drop of rain so to speak they would starve to death.

Believing Schwartz is one thing, but accepting BS man attacked her and didn't finish her off is a step beyond reasoning.

Chief Inspector Swanson disagreed with you.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

we also have to explain Stride's CHOICES AFTER she was assaulted.

They make perfect sense if it was just a little street hassle. If women on the street fled at the first drop of rain so to speak they would starve to death.

Believing Schwartz is one thing, but accepting BS man attacked her and didn't finish her off is a step beyond reasoning.

Chief Inspector Swanson disagreed with you.

c.d.

So after being assaulted Stride stayed where she was and didn't move into the street, go into the club, go for help, or go home.

The point then is... so who was she waiting for?

There's no evidence to suggest she was soliciting. On the contrary the evidence suggests she wasn't looking for a client.

And of course; just because she was a prostitute, doesn't mean she was always looking for a client.

On the night she was murdered she wasn't "working."

Which means she was there socially, perhaps on a date or waiting for someone to come out of the club.

She worked for the Jews and spoke Yiddish, so that gave her an in.


And yet she doesn't go into the club.


Why was she there?

Or more crucially...


Why did Stride stay exactly where she was AFTER BS man assaulted her?

If he didn't kill her of course.


The overriding issue is that the kill time could have been any time AFTER Stride is seen with Parcelman.

Parcel man was the primary suspect until Schwartz came along

By introducing Schwartz, we delay the kill time to any time AFTER Schwartz runs away circa 12.45am.

Schwartz not only gets Parcelman off the hook, but he also impacts on the kill time by reducing the window from AFTER 12.40am to AFTER 12.45am.


Interestingly, neither Schwartz nor Mortimer have any impact on the more likely kill time of around 12.55am.

In fact; after the alleged assault the street appears to go back to relative calm and tranquility.

Over and done as though it never even happened.


Interestingly; if we forget BOTH Mortimer and Schwartz, then after observing Lave and then Eagle walk through the yard and the sound of them going into the club, Parcelman had the time to walk across the road with Stride and through the gateway and then cut her throat and exit north and walk through the alleyway just north of Mortimer's House by the time anyone else is on the scene.

Perhaps Mortimer heard the killer leaving north just before she got to her door.

The killer Parcelman could have struck and left Stride dying between 12.41am-12.44am and nobody would have been none the wiser.

Mortimer's watch is then made redundant
As is Miss Letchford
As is the couple on the corner
As is Brown
As is Schwartz


The point is that nobody saw or heard the killer leave.

Schwartz provides us with BS Man as the killer and makes the idea of Stride having been a Ripper victim all the less likely.

But let's not forget...

The main result of Schwartz bringing us BS Man, is that it gets Parcelman off the hook.

Now why would that be necessary IF Parcelman wasn't already a member of the club?


BS man is a diversion to draw focus away from the club and a little anti-semitic slur thrown in for good measure then gets the club off the hook too.


But I agree that Mortimer should be scrutinised just as much as Schwartz.

The only difference being of course that Mortimer's claim of a man with a black bag passing down the street is then justified by Goldstein coming forward, and her talk of a couple on the corner is backed up also by Brown.

If only there was some way that Schwartz could be corroborated too.


Funny that

[c.d.]

There's no evidence to suggest she was soliciting. On the contrary the evidence suggests she wasn't looking for a client.

And of course; just because she was a prostitute, doesn't mean she was always looking for a client.

On the night she was murdered she wasn't "working."

We don't know that for certain, R.D. And even if she were not "actively soliciting" we don't know what her response would have been if approached by Jack.

c.d.

[c.d.]

BS man is a diversion to draw focus away from the club and a little anti-semitic slur thrown in for good measure then gets the club off the hook too.

We don't know that R.D.

c.d.