Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

For the Nichols murder, Robert Paul had to be tracked down by the police. PC Thain saw a couple men "down Brady-Street shortly before I was called by Neale." Mulshaw was told of the murder by an unknown man. Mrs Lilley heard two people in Bucks Row around 3:30am. An unknown man passed by shortly after the body was found.

None of them came forward and talked to the police.

Paul left the scene with the intention of alerting a policeman. The other obvious difference was that his tracking down was successful. Paul attended the inquest. After adjourning the Stride inquest for many days, we see no sign of Pipeman. Another ghost.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

ID him as what? An arm puller?

How many things do the "the police believed him and so we should too" types think Schwartz got wrong?

He had not really reached the gateway when he witnessed the man stop and speak to the woman (he crossed the road prior).

The man did not really assault the woman (he merely pulled her arm).

The woman did not really scream (that must be the wrong word).

The man did not really shout 'Lipski' at Pipeman (it was at Schwartz).

Pipeman did not really run in the direction of Schwartz (Schwartz just imagined it).

Why does so much of his brief story need to be changed, to make sense of it?

[Fiver]

Paul left the scene with the intention of alerting a policeman. The other obvious difference was that his tracking down was successful. Paul attended the inquest. After adjourning the Stride inquest for many days, we see no sign of Pipeman. Another ghost.

Even if we discount Paul, that still leaves 6 "ghosts" in the Nichols case.

PC Thain saw a couple men "down Brady-Street shortly before I was called by Neale." Mulshaw was told of the murder by an unknown man. Mrs Lilley heard two people in Bucks Row around 3:30am. An unknown man passed by shortly after the body was found.

None of them came forward and talked to the police.

[Abby Normal]

How does that work given that Schwartz said he followed the man down Berner St? Did he leave her and come back? Why would she be conveniently at the gateway when he comes back? If she wanted nothing to do with him, she would get the hell out of the area. You said she was likely not soliciting, so she has no purpose in hanging around.

I think the whole "woman standing in the gateway" thing is a convenient fiction.

yes he left her in frustration at some point near the gateway, and returned in anger and killed her. when he was returning is when schwartz saw him.

[JeffHamm]

How many things do the "the police believed him and so we should too" types think Schwartz got wrong?

He had not really reached the gateway when he witnessed the man stop and speak to the woman (he crossed the road prior).

The man did not really assault the woman (he merely pulled her arm).

The woman did not really scream (that must be the wrong word).

The man did not really shout 'Lipski' at Pipeman (it was at Schwartz).

Pipeman did not really run in the direction of Schwartz (Schwartz just imagined it).

Why does so much of his brief story need to be changed, to make sense of it?

There are two aspects being conflated with regards to witness statements, and this is something that applies to any witness statement, not just Schwartz. One has to be very careful to separate statements abound "objective" observations, and statements about "subjective interpretations".

Certain aspects of Schwartz's statement refer to directly observable things, for example, he sees B.S. and Stride in an altercation in which Stride ends up on the ground. That refers to "objective" components. The other aspects of Schwartz's statement are his subjective impressions - things like "B.S. threw her to the ground", that's subjective interpretation because it is about internationalities, that B.S. intended to make Stride go to the ground. What some are questioning is not the objective side of things, that Schwartz didn't see Stride go to the ground, only his interpretation that B.S. intended Stride to go to the ground. If, as some have offered, B.S. grabbed her arm and in her effort to pull it away she lost her balance and fell to the ground, the objective details don't change, it's only questioning Schwartz's interpretation of the intentionality involved - questioning his interpretation of the objective observations.

I don't agree that screamed is necessarily a wrong word myself. I have no problem with someone describing a sound as a scream that was not very loud, because to be honest, whether Stride fell or was put to the ground, the type of sound one might make in that case isn't one I can readily think of a word to use and so might try to describe it as a sort of scream but not very loud. The adding of the qualifying "not very loud" can be seen as an indication that scream is not quite right, but no better word seems available. It seems a far bigger change to insist that scream means loud and to change his statement by dropping the qualifying "not very loud" bit. It is in doing so that the "problem" of nobody inside hearing those "now loud screams" gets introduced, but that's a problem of one's own making, it's not a problem with what Schwartz actually says, which is basically that Stride didn't make loud sounds.

Again, Abberline likewise questioned Schwartz's "interpretation" of who the intended recipient of "Lipski" was. He didn't question that "Lipski" was actually shouted out by B.S. (he didn't think the observation didn't happen, only the interpretation of the non-observable side of the statement). However, and this points to good police work, even though Abberline thought Lipski was probably shouted at Schwartz himself, and that Schwartz may very well have misinterpreted who it was shouted at, the police still did invest a lot of time and effort tracking down the Lipski families in the area (as indicated in a letter to the Home Office). He didn't presume he got it right, and he also followed the lead based upon the chance Schwartz got the interpretation correct in the first place.

And while Schwartz provides the details that he 1) sees Pipeman coming towards him and 2) Pipeman was not following him when Schwartz got to the railway arches, at no point does Schwartz tell us when he became aware of when Pipeman was no longer following him. So if Pipeman simply headed in the same direction, but wasn't intending to follow Schwartz (again, a misinterpretation of non-observable aspects, what was Pipeman's intention when he moved in Schwartz's direction initially? To "chase" Schwartz? or was it he was simply leaving the area in that direction, and Schwartz made the interpretation error of being "chased"?).

All of the interpretation errors reflect the fact that by his own admission, Schwartz was a bit frightened by what he saw. And that fear and discomfort will lead us to interpret things consistent with those emotions. It is therefore entirely reasonable, and in fact it is to overlook very important aspects of how to deal with witness statements, to question and examine the interpretations of events a witness describes separately from the observable events that the witness describes. Particularly when a witness has admitted to being in an emotional state that could very easily influence their interpretations.


What people are doing is stripping down the statement to the observable details (a sort of "Just the facts, ma'am" type thing), and by stripping away Schwartz's interpretations, then considering what other interpretations could very well be valid.

By trying to re-frame the sounds he hears Stride as making to be "loud" despite his statement making it very clear they were "not very loud", is modifying the observable statements.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying one should never question the observable, as eye-witnesses do often make mistakes on such things. They get ages wrong, heights wrong, hair and skin colour wrong, clothing wrong, etc. But when what they describe doesn't create any real problem (not very loud sounds may very well go unnoticed by people inside - Pipeman's emergence indicates he may have heard them though) and changing them does, then that points strongly to the change being the problem - that is where the error lies.

- Jeff

[Lewis C]

The reason I see Elizabeth Stride as a victim of the Ripper is the throat cutting. Cutting someone's throat- literally to the spine, is such a ferocious thing to do, it is almost unique in the types of murders that occured in Whitechapel at that time. A copycat may try to cut the throat in an ineffective way. An 'ordinary' murder would likely mean stabbing or beating.

I think there is little doubt Stride was a Ripper victim and although some doubt may be ascribed to BS man as the Ripper or even Stride's killer, I think he was both. The Police were convinced she was a victim and they had access to much more information than we do. I trust their judgement on that.

Hi Sunny,

I think Stride was probably a Ripper victim too. Partly for the reasons you gave, and also because Stride was a similar kind of victim to Ripper victim, and because a near certain Ripper victim was killed 45 minutes later within easy walking distance. If 2 throat cutting murders of women occurred within easy walking distance of each other 45 minutes apart, and they were unrelated to each other, that would seem to be a remarkable coincidence.

[JeffHamm]

Ooops!

In the above, where I say "It is therefore entirely reasonable, and in fact it is to overlook very important aspects of how to deal with witness statements, to question and examine the interpretations of events a witness describes separately from the observable events that the witness describes.",

That really should read "It is therefore entirely reasonable to question and examine the interpretations of events a witness describes separately from the observable events that the witness describes. In fact it is to overlook very important aspects of how to deal with witness statements to not do so."

My thoughts got ahead of my fingers it seems, and as usual, made a mish mash of things.

One has to really think about statements, as phrases like "thrown to the ground" hide subjective interpretations within them, and that will influence our idea of what the objective details are. We picture someone "thrown to the ground" very differently from someone "falling to the ground". But if the witness misinterpreted the event in the first place, they will likewise misremember the event as being more "thrown like" than "fall like".

And that sort of "memory altering" can even occur in response to how questions are asked of witnesses. If a witness is asked to recall how fast a car was going when it crashed into the other compared to how fast a car was going when it hit the other, they will recall a faster speed in response to the first question than the second! And in doing so, their memory for the event will alter in accordance. Elizabeth Loftus has conducted a large number of studies on how our recollection of events can alter and be modified by all sorts of "post-event" information. Police questioning of witnesses has, as a result, attempts to minimize this where possible, but it takes a lot of training, and is tricky to get right. It's one of the reasons why eye-witness testimony is considered pretty unreliable. Juries, however, being generally unaware of this tend to put eye-witness testimony very high up on the list of things to base a conviction on.

Given most of the information we are dealing with is eye-witness testimony, to expect it to be a completely accurate account of the events is perhaps asking a bit much. But in the end, we have little else to work with.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

There are two aspects being conflated with regards to witness statements, and this is something that applies to any witness statement, not just Schwartz. One has to be very careful to separate statements abound "objective" observations, and statements about "subjective interpretations".

Certain aspects of Schwartz's statement refer to directly observable things, for example, he sees B.S. and Stride in an altercation in which Stride ends up on the ground. That refers to "objective" components. The other aspects of Schwartz's statement are his subjective impressions - things like "B.S. threw her to the ground", that's subjective interpretation because it is about internationalities, that B.S. intended to make Stride go to the ground. What some are questioning is not the objective side of things, that Schwartz didn't see Stride go to the ground, only his interpretation that B.S. intended Stride to go to the ground. If, as some have offered, B.S. grabbed her arm and in her effort to pull it away she lost her balance and fell to the ground, the objective details don't change, it's only questioning Schwartz's interpretation of the intentionality involved - questioning his interpretation of the objective observations.

I don't agree that screamed is necessarily a wrong word myself. I have no problem with someone describing a sound as a scream that was not very loud, because to be honest, whether Stride fell or was put to the ground, the type of sound one might make in that case isn't one I can readily think of a word to use and so might try to describe it as a sort of scream but not very loud. The adding of the qualifying "not very loud" can be seen as an indication that scream is not quite right, but no better word seems available. It seems a far bigger change to insist that scream means loud and to change his statement by dropping the qualifying "not very loud" bit. It is in doing so that the "problem" of nobody inside hearing those "now loud screams" gets introduced, but that's a problem of one's own making, it's not a problem with what Schwartz actually says, which is basically that Stride didn't make loud sounds.

Again, Abberline likewise questioned Schwartz's "interpretation" of who the intended recipient of "Lipski" was. He didn't question that "Lipski" was actually shouted out by B.S. (he didn't think the observation didn't happen, only the interpretation of the non-observable side of the statement). However, and this points to good police work, even though Abberline thought Lipski was probably shouted at Schwartz himself, and that Schwartz may very well have misinterpreted who it was shouted at, the police still did invest a lot of time and effort tracking down the Lipski families in the area (as indicated in a letter to the Home Office). He didn't presume he got it right, and he also followed the lead based upon the chance Schwartz got the interpretation correct in the first place.

And while Schwartz provides the details that he 1) sees Pipeman coming towards him and 2) Pipeman was not following him when Schwartz got to the railway arches, at no point does Schwartz tell us when he became aware of when Pipeman was no longer following him. So if Pipeman simply headed in the same direction, but wasn't intending to follow Schwartz (again, a misinterpretation of non-observable aspects, what was Pipeman's intention when he moved in Schwartz's direction initially? To "chase" Schwartz? or was it he was simply leaving the area in that direction, and Schwartz made the interpretation error of being "chased"?).

All of the interpretation errors reflect the fact that by his own admission, Schwartz was a bit frightened by what he saw. And that fear and discomfort will lead us to interpret things consistent with those emotions. It is therefore entirely reasonable, and in fact it is to overlook very important aspects of how to deal with witness statements, to question and examine the interpretations of events a witness describes separately from the observable events that the witness describes. Particularly when a witness has admitted to being in an emotional state that could very easily influence their interpretations.


What people are doing is stripping down the statement to the observable details (a sort of "Just the facts, ma'am" type thing), and by stripping away Schwartz's interpretations, then considering what other interpretations could very well be valid.

By trying to re-frame the sounds he hears Stride as making to be "loud" despite his statement making it very clear they were "not very loud", is modifying the observable statements.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying one should never question the observable, as eye-witnesses do often make mistakes on such things. They get ages wrong, heights wrong, hair and skin colour wrong, clothing wrong, etc. But when what they describe doesn't create any real problem (not very loud sounds may very well go unnoticed by people inside - Pipeman's emergence indicates he may have heard them though) and changing them does, then that points strongly to the change being the problem - that is where the error lies.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Excellent post, as always. Contrary to our usual pattern, I can only agree with all your points while requesting your indulgence on some further, hopefully supportive, comments.

If BSman was holding Stride's right arm with his left hand, and Stride decided to attempt to break free by spinning in an anti-clockwise direction and pulling her arm away, and when she had achieved about a 135 degree rotation BSman loosened his grip and Stride overbalanced and fell, it would appear to Schwartz that he "spun her around and threw her to the ground". Protestations that are "not very loud" would indicate that Stride wanted to keep their dispute between the two of them rather than express fears for her safety. After Schwartz crossed the road and reached the Fairclough intersection there must have been an elevation in the volume of the dispute which attracted the attention on both Schwartz and Pipeman. Schwartz was unsure at whom the shout of Lipski by BSman was directed, but in his interview with the Star he indicated that it was Pipeman who shouted a warning to (or at?) BSman. There was no mention of "Lipski" in that interview. It would appear that Schwartz was even less sure of what happened than he indicated to Abberline.

Schwartz said he saw Pipeman make a move towards the intruder. Was he referring to himself as the intruder, or to BSman. Either way, he ran away and was in a position only to know that Pipeman had not pursued him to the arches. He was not in a position to know whether or not Pipeman even left the intersection.

The police said the witnesses to the incident thought it was a dispute between husband and wife. Schwartz expressed this point of view, so if he was one witness, who was the other (or others)? Pipeman, BSman, Parcelman, or someone else? Whoever, the police decided that, unless there were further evidence to the contrary, they would not be pursuing the Schwartz evidence as relating to the actual murder.

Best regards,
George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Excellent post, as always. Contrary to our usual pattern, I can only agree with all your points while requesting your indulgence on some further, hopefully supportive, comments.

If BSman was holding Stride's right arm with his left hand, and Stride decided to attempt to break free by spinning in an anti-clockwise direction and pulling her arm away, and when she had achieved about a 135 degree rotation BSman loosened his grip and Stride overbalanced and fell, it would appear to Schwartz that he "spun her around and threw her to the ground". Protestations that are "not very loud" would indicate that Stride wanted to keep their dispute between the two of them rather than express fears for her safety. After Schwartz crossed the road and reached the Fairclough intersection there must have been an elevation in the volume of the dispute which attracted the attention on both Schwartz and Pipeman. Schwartz was unsure at whom the shout of Lipski by BSman was directed, but in his interview with the Star he indicated that it was Pipeman who shouted a warning to (or at?) BSman. There was no mention of "Lipski" in that interview. It would appear that Schwartz was even less sure of what happened than he indicated to Abberline.

Schwartz said he saw Pipeman make a move towards the intruder. Was he referring to himself as the intruder, or to BSman. Either way, he ran away and was in a position only to know that Pipeman had not pursued him to the arches. He was not in a position to know whether or not Pipeman even left the intersection.

The police said the witnesses to the incident thought it was a dispute between husband and wife. Schwartz expressed this point of view, so if he was one witness, who was the other (or others)? Pipeman, BSman, Parcelman, or someone else? Whoever, the police decided that, unless there were further evidence to the contrary, they would not be pursuing the Schwartz evidence as relating to the actual murder.

Best regards,
George

Hi George,

We often find points of agreement, and often where we differ, it tends to reflect our personal biases about certain key points, so I don't see this as particularly divergent from the norm (hmmm, I'm disagreeing with your agreement assessment it seems - ha ha).

Anyway, I think what you propose above would be a perfectly sound interpretation of the events described, and moreover, what you describe could easily be misinterpreted in the "subjective aspects" to produce Schwartz's interpretations as he describes them. I would tend to see the differences in Schwartz's press accounts and the police descriptions as arising from the fact that the police would spend more time probing Schwartz to ensure they got the details correct, while a reporter would be more interested in obtaining "news worthy" statements. And so given the translation problem, there's more opportunity for things to get a bit muddled with the press.

That aside, I can see nothing really wrong with what you suggest.

- Jeff