Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Leaving aside the question of the police account describing an assault vs a little street hassle, another question arises. You say Stride couldn't afford to flee after this incident. Fair enough, yet Pipeman did flee, or so it seems. Why would a man out on the street alone at night, after witnessing an incident as common as man hassling a woman, decide that he needed to run off? Not only run off, but far enough that Schwartz felt he need to run all the way to a railway arch to get to safety. Seems incongruous.

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.

Smith: Her clothes were not disarranged. Even the boots were scarcely to be seen. She looked as if she had been gently laid down.

Could this BS character have left her in this state? I don't think so either.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I did that because a rose by any other name would smell as sweet type thing. A scream does not have to be ear piercing, but one may refer to a noise people make ("ahhh" or "eeek" or however one writes a scream in text) as a scream regardless of its volume. So some screams might be very loud, some are only loud, and some are not very loud. We have one of the latter in evidence.

Pretty much exactly what I have been saying and have been pilloried for. Only one point of disagreement - a not very loud scream must still be loud, because 'loud' is in the definition.

A different witness might choose a different word for that same sound, such as a yell, shout, call, etc, but the sound itself is the same sound, just by another name. While the word scream, when left unqualified, tends to suggest the volume of the sound to be on the "loud" end, when it is qualified (as in "not very loud") then we know this particular scream is not at the loud end. Because it is qualified with respect to the volume it doesn't enable one to say "it was loud because it was a scream" and to then go on to describe situations with "loud" or "very loud" screams because to do so is against the statements we have. Such descriptions do not describe the event as recorded.

What you saying here is that, while you accept the distinction between loud and very loud screams as valid, you reserve the right to keep the "not very loud" bit, but substitute another word for scream, based on how a hypothetical witness might hypothetically describe the same sounds. Furthermore, you want to deny that a scream is necessarily loud, even though a scream is loud by definition.

The suggestion that scream may be a poor word choice, or poor translation, is getting at the same underlying idea because some are insisting that a "scream" has to be of the sort you conjure up - a woman screaming at the gateway; but that leaves out the important bit of recorded information about the volume. If you ask because "a woman screaming not very loudly at the gateway going unnoticed by anyone inside or on the street, clashes with our intuitions", I would have said "no, since it's not very loud it could easily go unnoticed by someone inside, and given that Pipeman then emerges from his doorway, it looks like it wasn't unnoticed by him, who was as far as we know the only other person in the street at that time."

- Jeff

The poor translation or poor choice of word argument insists that Schwartz is to be believed, except for the bits that need to be changed to make them believable.

As for your claim that these screams could have easily been missed, I will once again refer to the comments of the steward's wife and club servant.

Mrs Diemschitz: I am positive I did not hear any screams or sound of any kind. Even the singing on the floor above would not have prevented me from hearing them, had there been any. In the yard itself all was as silent as the grave.

Mila, the servant at the club, strongly corroborates the statement made by her mistress, and is equally convinced there were no sounds coming from the yard between 20 minutes to one and one o'clock.

Another point about these screams is that this is not just a question of why no one heard them. A neutral investigator might wonder if the witness got the time and/or place wrong.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And the Lipski as an anti-semetic slur was Abberline's idea, not Schwartz's. Schwartz thought Lipski was shouted to Pipeman as his name, which we know was his original statement because the police started looking up all the Lipski families in the area based upon it. We also have the Home Office asking about the search for Lipski's, which is where Abberline informs them that he thinks Schwartz was mistaken and Lipski was actually directed at Schwartz as a slur.

So it is invalid to suggest that Schwartz added an "anti-semetic slur to get the club off the hook" because Schwartz didn't include an anti-semetic slur but a name. It was Abberline who introduced the slur idea .... so if one follows the usual argument that because Schwartz introduced an anti-semetic slur to get the club off the hook, then once we realise it was Abberline who introduced the slur then logically we are left with the conclusion that Abberline was trying to get the club off the hook!

Alternatively, we might then decide that perhaps the conclusion that the person who introduces Lipski as a slur is trying to get the club off the hook doesn't really follow. And in that case we have to accept that even if Schwartz was the one to introduce it the conclusion is just as invalid as what actually seems to have happened (Abberline is the source of "Lipski = slur at Schwartz").

Basically, the whole idea of Lipski as evidence of Schwartz aiding the club falls apart when one keeps track of the source of the Lipski was a slur idea, which we know was Abberline, not Schwartz.

- Jeff

Abberline: I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say.

If he were unable to say, he could not have supposed the man was calling a name. So, the only way this argument can work is to assume that Schwartz initially thought it was a name being called, and then Abberline introduced the slur idea, which Schwartz accepted, and consequently wasn't sure who the call was to.

If all that is true, we have a bit of a problem. It seems Abberline was not just asking probing questions and taking down the answers in a statement, he was also colouring the witnesses' memory by suggesting how he should interpret what he saw. Not sure if I would call that good police work.

Having said that, I'm not sure I agree with RD either. If Schwartz was trying to get anyone off the hook, it was himself. The club may have known more about a ~12:45 incident than we are led to believe, but that doesn't mean there was collusion between Schwartz and club members.

[JeffHamm]

Pretty much exactly what I have been saying and have been pilloried for. Only one point of disagreement - a not very loud scream must still be loud, because 'loud' is in the definition.

Sadly, people do not use language in actual speech only after consulting a dictionary. You are adhering to a dictionary definition but the evidence is from spoken language, moreover from someone who does not speak English. For all we know, the Hungarian word that directly translates to "screamed" in English could actually refer to what in English we might phrase as "called out". Obviously I have no idea if that's the case, not speaking Hungarian, but it is clearly not possible to apply Oxford's definitions to vernacular speech, particularly the speech after translation.

What you saying here is that, while you accept the distinction between loud and very loud screams as valid, you reserve the right to keep the "not very loud" bit, but substitute another word for scream, based on how a hypothetical witness might hypothetically describe the same sounds. Furthermore, you want to deny that a scream is necessarily loud, even though a scream is loud by definition.

I reserve the right to take note of the recorded description's details in their entirety, so whether or not you agree that the definition of a scream allows for it to be "not very loud", what we have is a statement that this one was "not very loud."

The poor translation or poor choice of word argument insists that Schwartz is to be believed, except for the bits that need to be changed to make them believable.

Actually, the only one changing bits is you at the moment, as you want to change "not very loud" to mean "loud" or greater.

As for your claim that these screams could have easily been missed, I will once again refer to the comments of the steward's wife and club servant.

Mrs Diemschitz: I am positive I did not hear any screams or sound of any kind. Even the singing on the floor above would not have prevented me from hearing them, had there been any. In the yard itself all was as silent as the grave.

Mila, the servant at the club, strongly corroborates the statement made by her mistress, and is equally convinced there were no sounds coming from the yard between 20 minutes to one and one o'clock.

If they didn't hear them, or at least don't recollect hearing them (because they didn't come across as remarkable at the time), of course they will be confident there wasn't one and so in turn be confident they would have heard them! It's a common fallacy that people make when they don't notice something - I looked and if it were there I would have seen them! /looks again/ Who put them there?

Another point about these screams is that this is not just a question of why no one heard them. A neutral investigator might wonder if the witness got the time and/or place wrong.

Again, given Pipeman emerges from his location at a time that seems to correspond to roughly when Schwartz gets frightened (so just after the 3 not very loud screams by Stride, and B.S. call out of Lipski), it seems reasonable that his emergence is because he did hear them. You can't say nobody heard them given it appears likely that Pipeman did. I can't guarentee he did because he wasn't interviewed on this point (or if he was, we don't have that information), but his actions point towards it.

It is quite probable that Schwartz got some things wrong, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if his time estimation is off. That applies to all the witnesses though, which is why when people try to construct timelines what they produce generally will place events at times different from what a witness states. In the various proposed timelines I've seen, the difference between witness statements and the presented timelines have always been unremarkable. One of the projects I want to get back to, in fact, is the Berner Street timeline. But it is a big undertaking, and as I'm in the middle of exam marking, it's a job for when I have some leave time. What I'm interested in trying to do though, is see if what Schwartz describes could fit before Fanny comes out, or would it have to be after she went back in? I know it can fit after she went in, as I've already done that one (in the simulation version), and R.D.'s 2nd option makes it look like it could fit in before (provided one allow Fanny to mistake Stride's killer to be the source of the footsteps rather than PC Smith). It might even work even if she heard PC Smith, if one allows for her to go outside 5 or 6 minutes after hearing the footsteps (while she recalls going out as "immediately after hearing them", there must have been some time pass as she doesn't see Stride and Parcelman, and since memory for time isn't great, a 5-6 minute delay might be worth looking at. Much more than that might be pushing it though).

Anyway, we're clearly not going to agree as your interpretation of "3 screams, but not very loudly" is for "3 loud sounds", while mine is for "3 not loud sounds". I'm allowing for people to speak differently than the dictionary, while you hold them to the dictionary. If you chose a thesaurus though, you might find "screech, yell, howl, shout, bellow, bawl, call out, cry out, yelp, squeal, wail, squawk", as I just did. When people speak, they are conveying a concept, and to do so they must choose a word, which might not always be the best fit based upon the dictionary definitions when there are a number of options. Without us being able to interview Schwartz, I would not be confident in asserting that his use of scream means "loud", given he then paradoxically says "but not very loudly", which means "not loud". As a result, I tend to prefer my interpretation because it doesn't alter the overall intent of his statement, she made 3 sudden sounds, but not very loudly. He used the word scream for those 3 sudden sounds, but that doesn't mean they looked the word up in the dictionary first and went "Ah ha! That's the right one!"

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure why this strikes you as so remarkable as it seems to me to be entirely reflective of everyday speech - the words we use are not always exactly the right one definition wise, and so we often include any "modifications" to indicate that.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Abberline: I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say.

If he were unable to say, he could not have supposed the man was calling a name. So, the only way this argument can work is to assume that Schwartz initially thought it was a name being called, and then Abberline introduced the slur idea, which Schwartz accepted, and consequently wasn't sure who the call was to.

If all that is true, we have a bit of a problem. It seems Abberline was not just asking probing questions and taking down the answers in a statement, he was also colouring the witnesses' memory by suggesting how he should interpret what he saw. Not sure if I would call that good police work.

I suspect that's what happened. Schwartz's initial thought that Lipski was shouted to Pipeman, either stating or at least implying it was/might be Pipeman's name, would mean that's an important point to clarify given Abberline's awareness of it being a slur, and his opinion that Schwartz looked recognizably Jewish somehow. If Schwartz said he shouted "Lipski at me", it wouldn't be so interesting to Abberline.

And I fully agree, that by his line of questioning, he probably did influence Schwartz's memory, unfortunately. At the very least, he appears to have made Schwartz second guess himself (but he clearly doesn't fully change his mind, and retreats only being unsure of whom Lipski was shouted at, so he's not fully abandoned the idea it was shouted at Pipeman).

However, to be fair to Abberline, we can't really say it was bad police work because the influence of such questions on a witness's memories wasn't known until about 90 years later when Elizabeth Loftus really investigated how interview questions alter a witness's memory. Her work has led to a lot of improvements in how such interviews are conducted. In 1888, though, best practice would have been to question and prod and explore from various angles. But yes, we have to now take into account that Schwartz being unable to say for sure whom Lipski was shouted at is quite probably due to how he was questioned, rather than reflective of his belief when he first gave his statement. It is a real shame we do not have those transcripts.

Having said that, I'm not sure I agree with RD either. If Schwartz was trying to get anyone off the hook, it was himself. The club may have known more about a ~12:45 incident than we are led to believe, but that doesn't mean there was collusion between Schwartz and club members.

No, I don't think there is any foundation to the idea of Schwartz colluding with the club either.

- Jeff

[The Rookie Detective]

Could there be an option whereby Mortimer hears Goldstein pass her door and after going to her door immediately afterwards she sees Goldstein walk hurriedly down the road before he looks up at the club and goes around the corner of the Board School?

And so Mortimer is actually saying that the man she saw walk down Berner Street earlier, was ALSO the man she heard walk past her door?

So the sequence would be that she hears Goldstein, opens her door and then observes him walk past the club and around the corner?

And so what she's telling us, is that the only person she had seen was ALSO the same person she had heard, just before she stands at her door and looks out.

Just a thought

[GBinOz]

Again, given Pipeman emerges from his location at a time that seems to correspond to roughly when Schwartz gets frightened (so just after the 3 not very loud screams by Stride, and B.S. call out of Lipski), it seems reasonable that his emergence is because he did hear them. You can't say nobody heard them given it appears likely that Pipeman did. I can't guarantee he did because he wasn't interviewed on this point (or if he was, we don't have that information), but his actions point towards it.


Anyway, we're clearly not going to agree as your interpretation of "3 screams, but not very loudly" is for "3 loud sounds", while mine is for "3 not loud sounds". I'm allowing for people to speak differently than the dictionary, while you hold them to the dictionary. If you chose a thesaurus though, you might find "screech, yell, howl, shout, bellow, bawl, call out, cry out, yelp, squeal, wail, squawk", as I just did. When people speak, they are conveying a concept, and to do so they must choose a word, which might not always be the best fit based upon the dictionary definitions when there are a number of options. Without us being able to interview Schwartz, I would not be confident in asserting that his use of scream means "loud", given he then paradoxically says "but not very loudly", which means "not loud". As a result, I tend to prefer my interpretation because it doesn't alter the overall intent of his statement, she made 3 sudden sounds, but not very loudly. He used the word scream for those 3 sudden sounds, but that doesn't mean they looked the word up in the dictionary first and went "Ah ha! That's the right one!"

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

To me the word "scream" contains a connotation of fear, To "scream" at a low volume would seem incongruous.

The way I see the scene transpiring is, Schwartz sees what he thinks in the start of a domestic argument and crosses the road to avoid involvement. On reaching the opposite side he is only about 10 seconds from the Fairclough intersection. I find it unlikely that he would have watched while he walked. More likely that, as he was stepping off the Fairclough kerb, he responded to a series of "not very loud" sounds. I suggest that these were protestations or remonstrations rather than screams. I don't believe that Schwartz actually saw how Stride ended up on the ground. I think she overbalanced while trying to pull away from BSman's grip on her arm as he tried to pull her away from the yard. BSman look around to see if anyone has heard Stride's protests just as Pipeman emerges from the closed doorway entrance where he has been sheltering to light his pipe. He sees a woman on the ground and a man looking in his, and Schwartz's, direction who then shouts "Lipski". Unsure who has put the woman on the ground he approaches Schwartz, who runs away.

At this stage it is unknown if Pipeman followed Schwartz very far, or whether he quickly abandoned that chase and approached BSman for an explanation Given that the police arrested and questioned two men and stated that they were not pursuing this line of enquiry without further evidence, my conclusion would be that the evidence given by these two witnesses pointed to the possibility that the incident was, as Schwartz originally supposed, just a domestic dispute.

JMO.

Best regards, George

[The Rookie Detective]

Just as an aside...

It's interesting that this is the only thread that has been commented upon in the past 24 hours.

The boards are very quiet at the moment it seems.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

To me the word "scream" contains a connotation of fear, To "scream" at a low volume would seem incongruous.

The way I see the scene transpiring is, Schwartz sees what he thinks in the start of a domestic argument and crosses the road to avoid involvement. On reaching the opposite side he is only about 10 seconds from the Fairclough intersection. I find it unlikely that he would have watched while he walked. More likely that, as he was stepping off the Fairclough kerb, he responded to a series of "not very loud" sounds. I suggest that these were protestations or remonstrations rather than screams. I don't believe that Schwartz actually saw how Stride ended up on the ground. I think she overbalanced while trying to pull away from BSman's grip on her arm as he tried to pull her away from the yard. BSman look around to see if anyone has heard Stride's protests just as Pipeman emerges from the closed doorway entrance where he has been sheltering to light his pipe. He sees a woman on the ground and a man looking in his, and Schwartz's, direction who then shouts "Lipski". Unsure who has put the woman on the ground he approaches Schwartz, who runs away.

At this stage it is unknown if Pipeman followed Schwartz very far, or whether he quickly abandoned that chase and approached BSman for an explanation Given that the police arrested and questioned two men and stated that they were not pursuing this line of enquiry without further evidence, my conclusion would be that the evidence given by these two witnesses pointed to the possibility that the incident was, as Schwartz originally supposed, just a domestic dispute.

JMO.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Could be, although I think Schwartz describes seeing Stride ending up on the ground. Your "fear" idea, though, sparks an interesting possibility. We know Schwartz was not feeling overly comfortable, and was fearful of the situation. It could be that "scream" reflects him projecting of his fear onto the situation, making what someone else might call a "yell" or "shout" become a "scream" to him.

And as you say, we don't know how far Pipeman actually followed Schwartz. He seemed to think Pipeman chased him, but again, if he's afraid and mistakes Pipeman's entering into the street as the start of a chase, Schwartz may have high tailed it out of there, not stopping to look if he's being followed until he gets to the railroad arch! All he actually says is that Pipeman chased him, but not as far as the Railway arch - but he doesn't say how far he was chased, only how far he wasn't! So if Pipeman didn't chase him at all, but Schwartz thought he was, then his interpretation of the events will be skewed by his misinterpretations of what was going on. Similar to "yell" -> "scream" type thing.

While the two men arrested might have included either or both of Pipeman and Broad Shoulders, it could also be that they were just arrested as "possible Pipeman and/or B.S." and were released when they could prove they were not. I wish we had more about those arrests, but unfortunately and like so many things, we have cryptic teases and snippets.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Could there be an option whereby Mortimer hears Goldstein pass her door and after going to her door immediately afterwards she sees Goldstein walk hurriedly down the road before he looks up at the club and goes around the corner of the Board School?

And so Mortimer is actually saying that the man she saw walk down Berner Street earlier, was ALSO the man she heard walk past her door?

So the sequence would be that she hears Goldstein, opens her door and then observes him walk past the club and around the corner?

And so what she's telling us, is that the only person she had seen was ALSO the same person she had heard, just before she stands at her door and looks out.

Just a thought

If that were the case, why would she refer to the footsteps as being those of a police officer given in the above she sees it was not?

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Just as an aside...

It's interesting that this is the only thread that has been commented upon in the past 24 hours.

The boards are very quiet at the moment it seems.

Especially "Pub talk" who knows why. One can only guess.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=NotBlamedForNothing]

. Only one point of disagreement - a not very loud scream must still be loud, because 'loud' is in the definition.

You keep pushing this nonsense in the hope of getting some traction but it’s clearly not working. You are making the bizarre claim that Schwartz was saying “she screamed out loudly but it was perhaps not as loud as most screams that you would expect to hear.” Or something similar. If someone said that someone ‘screamed’ there is never any need for an addition comment as Schwartz made about the loudness because we all know that screams are loud, unless someone says ‘screamed loudly’ for emphasis. So unless the hearer is carrying a Decibel Meter at the time and can say “well one would expect a scream to have been of x volume but this one was slightly quieter” we can dismiss the silly notion. The fact that no one else heard it points clearly to the effect that ‘not very loud’ means what it always means in English….of low volume. And very obviously this is exactly how Abberline saw it….because there’s no other way of seeing it.

Now why would someone use the word ‘scream’ inappropriately? No one who could speak English would say “scream but not very loudly” would they? No….but hold on….could Schwartz speak English? What a coincidence…a word used in an inappropriate way by a man who couldn’t speak English and was using an interpreter of unknown competence.

Its a difficult one….

Another point about these screams is that this is not just a question of why no one heard them. A neutral investigator might wonder if the witness got the time and/or place wrong.

Which is why I, as a neutral, have suggested that the witness might have got the time wrong numerous times (and Wickerman made the suggestion that the witness might have got the place wrong)

If he were unable to say, he could not have supposed the man was calling a name.

He heard a word that he recognised. Lipski was a well known name within the Jewish Community. The fact that he couldn’t be sure who it was directed at is perfectly understandable. He was across the road and he wouldn’t have been staring constantly at BSMan.

[Lewis C]

Which is why I, as a neutral, have suggested that the witness might have got the time wrong numerous times (and Wickerman made the suggestion that the witness might have got the place wrong)

I too endorse the idea that Schwartz may have gotten the time wrong, and I think that most of us will grant that.

[JeffHamm]

The "screamed, but not very loudly" issue is a good example of the difficulty in dealing with witness statements.

As everyone agrees, the dictionary definition of "scream" involves a loud sound. When used in isolation, the sound is generally presumed not to be an actual word, but it can be used to describe how someone spoke (The teacher screamed "Get over here!" at the unruly child, type thing), where again it means loud. But unless speech is explicitly included, screamed tends to just mean a "loud sound which is not itself a word" - of the "Ahhhh" or "Eeek" sort. I'll call this an "act".

George also points out that screamed, when not used to describe speech but an "act", carries the connotation of fear as well.

So in isolating the word "screamed" leads to all sorts of implied details, loud, possibily indicative of fear, and probably not a word. But, of course, when speech is explicitly included, that changes scream from the "act" version, and given the above example I would suggest the fear aspect gets removed as well (perhaps replaced with anger and/or frustration?), and in general just leaving the "loud" bit.

With the "screamed, but not very loudly", we see a similar stripping of the "default" meanings, and the volume aspect has been explicitly removed. That would suggest that what is being conveyed is she made 3 "non-word sounds", possibly including a note of fear to them, or at least some sort of emotion - anger, surprise, etc.

Now, some argue that screams have to be loud and then go on to show how 3 loud sounds create potential problems (why weren't they heard, etc). And because of those problems, they argue that Schwartz must be lying because he claimed 3 loud sounds that went unheard, which they feel is too improbable to be true.

I can see how 3 loud sounds might be indicative of a problem, but Schwartz didn't claim the sounds were loud, and explicitly indicates they were not. So the "problem" points to the interpretation imposing "loudness" on the sounds, because Schwartz's full statement doesn't contain loud sounds being made.

So if Schwartz is saying 3 screams not very loud, and one feels that the sound has to be loud to be properly called a scream, then that points to the problem being that Schwartz's choice of word might not have been the best word to choose. I personally think it's fine, as it is very common to choose a word and then explicitly "modify the definition" with qualifiers or by context (as in how screamed becomes a description of how someone spoke, when generally screamed refers to non-word sounds being made).

Regardless, if one thinks that screams cannot be "not very loud", then the problem is simply that they disagree with Schwartz's word choice. It is invalid to try and impose a paradox on the witness by trying to claim that in the same phrase Schwartz intended to say that the sounds were loud and not loud at the same time. It would be like saying "and then this tall man, who was very short, came into view". That is what one is trying to claim Schwartz meant when he said "screamed but not very loudly", if one doesn't allow words to be modified by qualifiers or context - but that is to basically deny how people actually use language. The paradox should signal that the interpretation we're giving is wrong, not that Schwartz was contradicting himself.

If one thinks that screams really shouldn't be qualified as being "not very loud", then one is focusing on Schwartz's word choice (or at least the word chosen by the translator when converting Schwartz's Hungarian into English). And critiquing the word choice of a translator, while fine if evaluating their translation skills, is a bit of a sideline issue with regards to the information about the case that Schwartz contributes. One can suggest perhaps alternative words that might have been chosen, but in the end, we're left with the same information that Stride made 3 sounds, probably not words, possibly indicative of some emotion like fear/anger/shock, that were not very loud.

But to argue that people suggesting alternative words, or suggesting it's a poor word choice, is somehow trying to "save Schwartz" is invalid. It is clear that going the "Schwartz is saying the sounds were both loud and not loud in the very same utterance" is heading down the wrong path - it's claiming that Schwartz is speaking gibberish, and that is nonsense. So either one feels words, even screamed, can be modified in speech by qualifying the concept explicitly (which I do), or one feels that screamed is not the best word to convey what Schwartz is trying to convey. In other words, suggesting alternative words isn't trying to "save Schwartz", but to simply properly understand what Schwartz is clearly trying to convey. Once we agree what he is trying to convey, then we can examine that information in the wider context of the events to then see if what he says creates conflict. And so far, it doesn't.

- Jeff

[Sunny Delight]

Isolating the word scream to try and discredit Schwartz is quite frankly the most ridiculous thing I have come across. Then to label the club members as conspirators in the cover up of a murder- it defies all logic. An unknown attacker from the club with an unknown motive helped cover up his deeds by an unknown number of club members and an unknown number of 'witnesses' Used to misdirect Police. It isn't worth engaging with.

I have the most simple view of the Stride case. BS man was the Ripper and Schwartz saw him.