Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[JeffHamm]

The critical much avoided question - where is Parcelman?

Hi George,

I don't know if it really is avoided, although no definitive answer can be given since none of the men seen with Stride have ever been identified. However, some of the suggestions about the where abouts of Parcelman after he was sighted by PC Smith have included that, after PC Smith passes by, Parcelman leaves (perhaps if he's a punter, the spotting of the police has put him off type thing), or if Brown's sighting on Fairclough is of Stride, that his man is also Parcelman (with the differences in descriptions reflecting the unreliability of eye-witness's with regards to such details), or that Parcelman hasn't actually left, but when B.S. comes along he's in the ally to the club and goes unnoticed by Schwartz (perhaps due to the known darkness of the ally combined with his attention being focused on the altercation between Stride and B.S. for example), or even that B.S. and Parcelman are one in the same (and for some reason he briefly left her company to go back towards Commercial, Stride waits for his return, and Schwartz shows up as he returns - again, the differences in descriptions reflecting the vagaries associated with eye-witness descriptions).

While none of those can be said to be "the solution" to Parcelman's whereabouts, I think the variety of suggestions that have been offered do indicate that the question has not been avoided. Given the solutions are, by everyone's admission, simply speculative ideas to consider, it is hardly surprising that none of them are widely accepted.

But again, a lack of acceptance of the various suggested "answers" does not mean the question itself has been avoided.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You appear to believe that because no one heard the incident it didn’t occur. Is that logical? Is that reasonable? I’d say that it’s not even in the same town as logical or reasonable. The problem is that one side of this debate accepts that normal things happen - things occur without being seen, things occur that no one hears, witnesses generally tell the truth as they see it, some people avoid contact with the police at all costs, some people disappear and aren’t found. Yet on the other we have those that think that all of the above equate to something sinister. We keep arguing over a bog standard murder. A man cut a woman’s throat. We just don’t know who it was. There were no false witnesses. No one was pretending to be someone else. We should leave aside all fanciful movie script nonsense once and for all. Why anyone finds Berner Street mysterious is beyond me. It’s simple stuff except that, for obvious reasons, we can’t produce a definitive second by second account.

You want to reduce all the problems with Schwartz's account to the noise problem. So, can we say that Schwartz was not called to the inquest because the noise problem led the coroner to disbelieve the witness? The coroner must have considered the noise problem in relation to witness statements he had studied. He had access to far more relevant information than we do and decided not to call him.

[GBinOz]

The non-identification of Pipeman means that he was never identified. We should assume no more. He was never identified…so what?

Hi Herlock,

The police stated that there was an arrest made on the basis of the Schwartz descriptions, and a second arrest as a follow up. The only descriptions proffered by Schwartz were of BSman and of Pipeman. The police also stated that witnesses to the incident thought it was a quarrel between man and wife, and didn't intervene. The only witnesses that we know of were Schwartz and Pipeman. The police subsequently announced that they would not pursue this line of enquiry unless further evidence came to light.

I don't know that I am engaging in excessive speculation in concluding that the police may have identified Pipeman, or BSman, or both, and concluded from their statements that the incident was, as Schwartz thought, a domestic.

Of course they may have arrested two people who had no involvement, but then, to whom were they referring as "witnesses"?

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

imho parcelman was probably peaked cap man.

Considering these posts together, I'm wondering what the point in time was that he left her near the gateway. As Schwartz claimed to have followed PC/BS Man down the street, presumably it was after being witnessed at close range by Smith. At that point Stride and the man were across and up the street a few yards or so from the gateway. So, Stride must move from that location to the gateway, and as you believe she was not soliciting, for no apparent reason.

Then PC/BS Man turns back into the street from Commerical Rd, having come back for another try, to find Stride conveniently alone at the entrance of a dark passageway. A couple of interesting questions would include when did Morris Eagle return to the club - before or after PC/BS leaves the first time? If after, Stride is on the street, alone. If before, he becomes another witness to the killer standing with the victim. Another question concerns the parcel. Schwartz said the man had nothing in his hands. What happened to the parcel?

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I don't know if it really is avoided, although no definitive answer can be given since none of the men seen with Stride have ever been identified. However, some of the suggestions about the where abouts of Parcelman after he was sighted by PC Smith have included that, after PC Smith passes by, Parcelman leaves (perhaps if he's a punter, the spotting of the police has put him off type thing), or if Brown's sighting on Fairclough is of Stride, that his man is also Parcelman (with the differences in descriptions reflecting the unreliability of eye-witness's with regards to such details), or that Parcelman hasn't actually left, but when B.S. comes along he's in the ally to the club and goes unnoticed by Schwartz (perhaps due to the known darkness of the ally combined with his attention being focused on the altercation between Stride and B.S. for example), or even that B.S. and Parcelman are one in the same (and for some reason he briefly left her company to go back towards Commercial, Stride waits for his return, and Schwartz shows up as he returns - again, the differences in descriptions reflecting the vagaries associated with eye-witness descriptions).

While none of those can be said to be "the solution" to Parcelman's whereabouts, I think the variety of suggestions that have been offered do indicate that the question has not been avoided. Given the solutions are, by everyone's admission, simply speculative ideas to consider, it is hardly surprising that none of them are widely accepted.

But again, a lack of acceptance of the various suggested "answers" does not mean the question itself has been avoided.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I think that all your speculations as to his whereabouts are possibilities.

My preferred speculation is that he went into the printing office to drop off his parcel and returned to discover Stride in the process of having her throat cut. He then becomes Wess's man that gives chase to the killer, but doesn't want to be named because he is married or engaged to be married.

My other speculation is that BSman was Eagle, and after being spotted by Smith he walked to his home at 4 New Road to drop off his parcel and returned just ahead of Schwartz. It's about a twelve minute return walk.

I think it has to be considered as to why Stride was standing in the gateway:
1. She was soliciting
2. She was waiting for someone, possibly Parcelman, to return from his trip home, the loo in the yard, the club or the printing office.
3. She had a job cleaning the club after the meeting and was waiting for the last attendees to leave.

Perhaps the word "avoided" was not the best choice. It just seems that Parcelman is often overlooked with the focus on BSman. Still all pure speculation, of course.

Best regards, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don't know that I am engaging in excessive speculation in concluding that the police may have identified Pipeman, or BSman, or both, and concluded from their statements that the incident was, as Schwartz thought, a domestic.

George,
if one or both men made statements that agreed with Schwartz, we would not read that the Leman St police have reason to doubt the truth of story. Instead, we would read words to the opposite effect. If the statement(s) disagreed on matters of detail, the police would not have reason to doubt the truth of story, as eyewitness accounts are never going to match perfectly. If the statement(s) disagreed fundamentally, then both/all statement makers would become of greater interest to the police, not less.

That the police are not going to continue investigating without additional facts, suggests to me that we are missing a crucial piece of the puzzle. Who is supposed to supply these additional facts? Did Schwartz make a subsequent statement? Robert Anderson referred to "the alleged accomplice". Yet Swanson's report says, "Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other." When did this alleging occur?

[GBinOz]

George,
if one or both men made statements that agreed with Schwartz, we would not read that the Leman St police have reason to doubt the truth of story.
The police also referred to "witnesses" that observed the incident thought it was a quarrel between man and wife. It seems to me that these statements indicate that the police were not suggesting that Schwartz fabricated the story, but that the incident was not actually an "assault" that led to a murder. JMO.
Instead, we would read words to the opposite effect. If the statement(s) disagreed on matters of detail, the police would not have reason to doubt the truth of story, as eyewitness accounts are never going to match perfectly. If the statement(s) disagreed fundamentally, then both/all statement makers would become of greater interest to the police, not less.

That the police are not going to continue investigating without additional facts, suggests to me that we are missing a crucial piece of the puzzle. Who is supposed to supply these additional facts? Did Schwartz make a subsequent statement? Robert Anderson referred to "the alleged accomplice". Yet Swanson's report says, "Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other." When did this alleging occur?

Hi Andrew

I don't think the police expected that there would be anyone else stepping forward to supply additional facts, and that the statements they already had could not proceed to an arrest for murder.

Cheers, George