Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[c.d.]

Hi CD. My apologies this was a crass generalisation and I am actually mistaken because I thought Michael and Notblamedfornothing were American. It just felt a bit like seeing a bunch of Eastern European commies and immediately coming to the conclusion there was a conspiracy. I withdraw the comment and on seconds thoughts it should not have been written.

Ok. No problem. We're cool.

c.d.

[Duran duren]

Yeah, I would like to know which Americans are supposedly touting a conspiracy theory.

c.d.

Well I know of another that ain't CD, so thats two of us.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Conspiracy theory accusations is a mental tool some people use to avoid dealing with inconvenient evidence and difficult questions.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It is conjecture, not fact, that the word screams was used in error. If you have complete confidence in Schwartz, then leave the police account as it is. No 'editing'.

There is no ‘police account’ it’s a Press account which isn’t corroborated. We don’t even know where it might have come from. Basically it’s little more than tittle-tattle.

As your claims have not been questioned by anyone else so far, I may be misreading you. However, you seem to be saying that the word 'screams' does not appear in the police account. Taken literally, you're actually saying that there is no police account. Perhaps you're a little emotional at the moment and aren't expressing yourself well.

Again you are clinging to random newspaper articles. We have no evidence that Schwartz lied but you are using this to try a bolster your own theory. Nothing mysterious happened in Berner Street. The subject is plagued by people trying to twist things to suit their own theories.

We have evidence that the Leman St police came to doubt the truth of Schwartz's story, within 48 hours of making his initial police statement. Calling me or anyone else a conspiracy theorist, does not make that evidence go away, but it does indicate you're having a hard time dealing with it.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

For anyone actually interested in the Star's source for the information concerning "the Hungarian", I'd suggest it was the name (and subheading) that appears in the Star directly after the report of doubts arsing at Leman St station concerning the Hungarian's story.

SUPERINTENDENT FORSTER

Edit: Seems unlikely it was Superintendent Forster, as he was of the City Police force.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is conjecture, not fact, that the word screams was used in error. If you have complete confidence in Schwartz, then leave the police account as it is. No 'editing'.



As your claims have not been questioned by anyone else so far, I may be misreading you. However, you seem to be saying that the word 'screams' does not appear in the police account. Taken literally, you're actually saying that there is no police account. Perhaps you're a little emotional at the moment and aren't expressing yourself well.



We have evidence that the Leman St police came to doubt the truth of Schwartz's story, within 48 hours of making his initial police statement. Calling me or anyone else a conspiracy theorist, does not make that evidence go away, but it does indicate you're having a hard time dealing with it.

I’m expressing myself perfectly clearly so I’m struggling to understand why you’re having difficult. I'll recap.

When I was talking about a newspaper report I was referring to the one that mentioned doubt from Leman Street and not in connection with the use of the word ‘screamed.’

On the use of the word ‘screamed’ I have suggested (as have others) that as the evidence tells us that no one heard the incident, and the evidence tells us that some sounds were made, and the evidence tells us that those sounds weren’t very loud that these things are therefore self-explanatory. No heard because the incident wasn’t very loud. I also suggest (as do others) that the word ‘screamed’ does seem a strange or inappropriate choice of word as dictionary definitions tells us that screams are always loud.

It has also been pointed out by myself (and others) that ‘screamed but not very loudly’ is not really a phrase that a natural English speaker would use. But, as we know, Schwartz could speak no English and was using an interpreter (not only an interpreter but one whose competence we can’t judge - for all that we know he may have had just a smattering of Hungarian - or as the phrase goes ‘enough to get by.) So a very plausible, indeed likely, explanation is that the poor use of this word comes from a poor use of English.

The Leman Street suggestion of there being doubts about Schwartz story are about as weak and tenuous as possible. Who did the journalist speak to (possibly some Constable earning a few pennies as backhander?) How much did that person actually know about the investigation? Were beat Constable’s party to the current thinking by those leading the investigation? Were they talking about Schwartz evidence or were they talking about having doubts about it leading to an arrest? The most important thing is that Abberline and those actually conducting the investigation continued to treat Schwartz as an important witness.

And of course, as this report was 48 hours after the murder it’s entirely possible that there could have been initial doubts which disappeared after they were looked into.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Conspiracy theory accusations is a mental tool some people use to avoid dealing with inconvenient evidence and difficult questions.

It’s the same as the tool used by people like yourself and Trevor. Trevor’s phrase is to do with people desperate to “defend the old, established theories.” You and he appear to think that some have a kind of ‘sentimental attachment to a version of events which we are unwilling to veer from and you use this as an explanation for why you are disagreed with. By ‘conspiracist’ thinking I mean deliberately looking for ‘mysteries’ to invent simply for the sake of being able to say ‘I can see these but you ‘conventional thinkers’ can’t.’ We should get carried away is what I think.

[Fiver]

The whole conspiracy around the club was started by Michael Richards and he came up with it because he thought that Isenschmidt was a good candidate for Nichols and Chapman but he was under lock and key for Stride and Eddowes. Therefore he needed to ‘prove’ Stride wasn’t a victim. And viola - the plot. Made to measure.

The best way to argue that Stride was not a Ripper victim is to wholeheartedly support Schwartz' statement. The Ripper had a track record of acting undetected, getting victims to willingly be alone with them, and overpowering them without any significant struggle. Broadshouldered Man was rather bad at all of those. If he killed Stride, she was almost certainly not a Ripper victim.

But instead of this simple, plausible explanation, Michael Richards spins a nonsensical theory that requires two dozen anarchists to agree within a couple minutes to engage in a criminal conspiracy that will destroy them if it unravels and gains them nothing if it succeeds.

And there's still the problem of the Eddowes murder, where he lacks any Jewish anarchists to blame.

[The Rookie Detective]

The best way to argue that Stride was not a Ripper victim is to wholeheartedly support Schwartz' statement. The Ripper had a track record of acting undetected, getting victims to willingly be alone with them, and overpowering them without any significant struggle. Broadshouldered Man was rather bad at all of those. If he killed Stride, she was almost certainly not a Ripper victim.

The best paragraph in this entire thread.

I agree completely with your assessment here.

[JeffHamm]

The best way to argue that Stride was not a Ripper victim is to wholeheartedly support Schwartz' statement. The Ripper had a track record of acting undetected, getting victims to willingly be alone with them, and overpowering them without any significant struggle. Broadshouldered Man was rather bad at all of those. If he killed Stride, she was almost certainly not a Ripper victim.

But instead of this simple, plausible explanation, Michael Richards spins a nonsensical theory that requires two dozen anarchists to agree within a couple minutes to engage in a criminal conspiracy that will destroy them if it unravels and gains them nothing if it succeeds.

And there's still the problem of the Eddowes murder, where he lacks any Jewish anarchists to blame.

Hi Fiver,

I hope this doesn't come across as if I'm suggesting the following must be true, but consider the following ideas. B.S. is described as coming across Stride, and the assumption is that Stride and B.S. hadn't met prior to that. One possibility is that B.S. is the same man that Stride was seen with at the Bricklayers Arms pub earlier in the evening (I think that's the name of the pub) - the kissing fellow. If so, then something results in them separating for some amount of time, and he's now returning. I've even gone so far as to suggest that "Kissing man/parcel man/B.S." are all the same man, with the differences in the descriptions arising because witness descriptions are notoriously inaccurate in the details, particularly with regards to sightings like these. If so, then B.S. has spent considerable amount of time with Stride, and whatever it is that sets him off hadn't occurred until around the time of the attack.

The other thing that we might want to consider involves the Nichols', and perhaps even the Eddowes', case. At no point is Nichols seen with a man, all we have is her body in the street, similar to how Stride was found. Without Schwartz's account, we would have the same lack of information pertaining to the the attack on Stride as we do with Nichols. For all we know, Nichols may have been suddenly attacked exactly like Schwartz describes the attack on Stride.

With Eddowes, I think it depends upon the interpretation of the Church Passage Couple. If one thinks Lawende and co's sighting is not of Eddowes, or one decides that after Lawende and co move on, Eddowes and "sailor man" separate, then in either case Eddowes enters Mitre Square alone and therefore could be suddenly attacked in a similar way.

The Chapman and Kelly cases, due to their locations, I think do require JtR to be in their company. But we have no information about Nichols and while on the whole the information we have for Eddowes suggests JtR probably posed as a client, there are sideline possibilities that could lead to other interpretations.

Also, there is the possibility that B.S. and Stride had indeed spent a fair bit of time together, and the snippet of their evening that Schwartz reports on is only that, a portion of rather than the whole of their time together.

It is very common for serial killers of prostitutes to engage their services. As such, if "kissing man/parcel man/B.S." are the same fellow (it's only a suggestion, I'm not pushing it strongly here), then that may be what we're seeing here. And his sudden attack upon her reflects something triggering his rage, perhaps related to why they separated prior to Schwartz spotting him returning, or something she says to him upon his return. It may be the difference in the attack on Stride, therefore, reflects JtR not being in "murder mode" until something between him and Stride doesn't go his way, or she says something that sets him off. As such, he's not fully "ramped up" when he kills her, hence the lack of mutilations, but after fleeing whatever rage he's in now works him up and he goes full JtR mode, resulting in the increased fury we see at the Eddowes crime scene.

Anyway, I'm not really arguing "and that is how it was", rather, I'm just not so sure that what Schwartz describes can be viewed as eliminating B.S. as JtR. It certainly doesn't fit with the most common assumptions about how JtR operates, but in the end, our assumption that JtR and Nichols spent any time at all together is just that - an assumption based upon the location of the murder. And even though that assumption may seem valid for Nichols, without the Schwartz account, it would be the same assumption we would make for Stride - so why should we be so sure when make it for Nichols given we have less information?

In the end, I agree that B.S. does seem "out of character" for JtR, but I'm not so sure that is a strong argument against B.S. being JtR. It's a point of possible difference that needs to be acknowledged, but given how little we know (particularly with Nichols), how sure can we be it even is a point of difference? JtR may have "suddenly attacked" twice, and used a "ruse" three times. And if McKenzie is a ripper victim, that could be either as well.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

I agree that the clumsy actions of the B.S. man seem very un-Jack like although it can't be ruled out. I think the B.S. man makes a very poor suspect be he Jack or otherwise. Too many red flags for me. Yet, Stride seems to me to be killed in very Ripper like manner: a lone woman out at night who apparently had ties to prostitution, a cut throat and no other apparent motive. Lack of mutilation can be explained by some sort of interruption.

So how do we solve this apparent conundrum? I think the best solution is that Jack came onto the scene after B.S. man and Schwartz had left the scene. I don't know why some posters are so reluctant to even consider the suggestion. It does answer a lot of questions.

c.d.

[FISHY1118]

Not sure about that. If B.S and Schwartz had left the scene just after 12.45, that still leaves 10 mins for the kill and mutilation before big D discovers her body. Look what Jack did to Eddowes in the same time gap .

[JeffHamm]

I agree that the clumsy actions of the B.S. man seem very un-Jack like although it can't be ruled out. I think the B.S. man makes a very poor suspect be he Jack or otherwise. Too many red flags for me. Yet, Stride seems to me to be killed in very Ripper like manner: a lone woman out at night who apparently had ties to prostitution, a cut throat and no other apparent motive. Lack of mutilation can be explained by some sort of interruption.

So how do we solve this apparent conundrum? I think the best solution is that Jack came onto the scene after B.S. man and Schwartz had left the scene. I don't know why some posters are so reluctant to even consider the suggestion. It does answer a lot of questions.

c.d.

Hi c.d.

That certainly can't be ruled out. One of things I found in the simulation construction was that what I suggested meant there was more than enough time for the Schwartz event, and while I don't think I went into it, there would also have been more than enough time for someone else to come along. So as far as I'm concerned, the time required was probably available. Now, being available and being used are two different things, so having the time isn't proof someone else did come along, but having the time does mean we can't exclude that idea either.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

Not sure about that. If B.S and Schwartz had left the scene just after 12.45, that still leaves 10 mins for the kill and mutilation before big D discovers her body. Look what Jack did to Eddowes in the same time gap .

Hello Fishy,

You are assuming that D. could only have been the source of interruption and that Jack was on the scene the entire time until he arrived. But there could have been numerous physical sources of interruption before D. arrived and we can't discount mind generated paranoia from Jack himself at any time.

c.d.

[FISHY1118]

Fair point C.D, However when we look at Chapmans murder, a certain Albert Cadosch didnt seem to hold any concerned for Jack while he was killing and mutilating her .

[ Thats if she was killed at 5.30 am and not earlier as some evidence shows]

Any real interrutpion , the type your suggesting surely would have a witness that would then require some sort of statement or testimony to the police ,as we dont have that then my albert cadoash senario comes into play. imo.