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

[Abby Normal]

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.

what is she supposed to stay rooted like a tree to the spot he left her?


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?

in his pocket?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem is thinking of these people as chess pieces.

If the two leave the area together, they must have left with a purpose. What purpose has Stride returning in 5 minutes? Remember, no money is found on her person. Along with their purpose in leaving is where did the two go? Commercial Rd to buy a flower? She already has one. There are no known witnesses to Parcelman, except by Smith.

The next problem is why Strides returns to stand in the gateway. What for? She can't be waiting for someone, if she has left the area less than 10 minutes ago with someone else. So, what's her purpose in standing at the gateway? How long does she stand in the gateway, unseen? Is this 'activity' something she had done previously or was this the first time she ever done so?

What on earth could she have said or done to cause a man to deeply cut her throat? Turned down paid sex in an area swarming with prostitutes?

All these questions require imagining some scenario for which we have zero evidence.

No, the problem is having a thought-process which goes along the lines of - if we don’t have an explanation for some action then that action couldn’t have happened. We will never know the answers to most, if not all of these questions.

Firstly, why do you say 5 minutes? Smith said that he saw them at some point between 12.30 and 12.35. So that could have been 12.31with Stride and Parcelman gone by 12.32. That has the incident occurring 13 minutes later. You can do a lot in 13 minutes.

Secondly, why do we appear to treat Smith as an absolutely unchallengeable witness? Policemen have been wrong before. Whilst I accept that it’s very likely that he did see Stride it can’t be impossible that at 12.30 at night in a poorly lit street with Smith thinking that his wife was at home in their warm bed and he was trudging around the backstreets that he saw a woman of similar build and dress. He then saw the body and convinced himself that it was the same woman. Who knows?

Thirdly, can we be sure that Stride was standing in the gateway? Busman was between Schwartz and Stride so he may have assumed that she was standing there because that’s where BSMan halted. Sp perhaps Stride wasn’t standing there; perhaps she was walking north on Berner Street? I made a suggestion that she may have been avoiding BSMan after being seen with him by Marshall so she ducked into the gateway hoping that he hadn’t seen her. But he had. Hence the pulling.


Someone leaving the scene and returning a little later isn’t mysterious or unlikely. It’s normal, everyday behaviour.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

And the fact that after all of the research that’s been posted and all of what we know about inquests you still keep harping on about Schwartz non-appearance. It’s simply nonsense. We know that he wasn’t ‘omitted’ because he wasn’t trusted. I’m not going to keep responding on those points about the inquest. I don’t think that we should do stuff just to promote our own viewpoint and anyone who keeps bringing this up is doing just that.

After The Star report has anyone found any outcry in the papers as to why Schwartz wasn’t called? No.

Why wasn’t Fanny Mortimer called? Wasn’t she trusted? They called Maxwell to the Kelly inquest and she contradicted the medical evidence.

[JeffHamm]

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

Hi George,

To be clear, the speculations I listed aren't all my own, just ideas that have been suggested by various different people. My own adventures into this was to suggest that the "kissing man" seen with Stride at the Bricklayer's arms, is also Parcelman, and he left Stride at the gates while he returned to the pub, perhaps hoping to get one more drink to take with him, perhaps at Stride's insistence. He returns now as B.S., angry because of course the pub is closed (and perhaps he had been saying so type thing), which is the dispute they have that Schwartz sees. Now, either it escalates after Schwartz and Pipeman leave and he kills her (seems the most parsimonious), or he leaves and JtR shows up. Given I would not be at all surprised if JtR frequented the services of prostitutes, Kissing man/Parcelman/B.S could be JtR. But this evening he was out not on a hunt, but as Stride angers him, and he's killed her, that is why he goes so much more fierce on Eddowes - his rage has exploded sudden and unexpectedly. However, it is also possible that what I've described could be seen to point away from Stride being a victim of JtR. I'm on the fence with Stride, and always have been, so I have no preference for either of those.

I also don't strongly believe that Kissingman, Parcelman, and Broad Shoulders are one in the same. It's just one of those ideas that occurred to me and I couldn't find a way to really dismiss it. Witness descriptions are often very unreliable, so the differences in the details seem "not entirely unexpected." Also, Stride is seen twice, maybe 30 minutes apart, with a "kissing man", so she does seem to have spent quite a bit of time with that fellow. As such, it got me to thinking maybe she continued to stay with him the whole time? And perhaps she even intended to meet him (the flower, her dressing with care, etc), which would mean that Stride's killer may be someone she actually knew. I suspect, though, she didn't know him well and this may have been a first date. And she didn't tell anyone for fear word would get to Kidney.

Again, I'm way out on thin limbs here, and really just sort of pondering possibilities, not suggesting solutions, or even anything that anybody else has to think is even worth thinking about. Most of our speculations are, in the end, likely only to be of interest to ourselves given none of us can back any of it up.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Hi George,

That’s a very fair point. I don’t think the men that the police arrested get enough of a mention and we almost assume that Pipeman was never found but perhaps he was and he might have indicated that he felt that it was a drunken, domestic-type incident. If they’d spoken to BSMan though and let him go this would have given them a headache as it introduces a non-BSMan killer who arrived to commit murder in a short space of time. Here’s an interesting bit of speculation George - if they found BSMan what evidence could he have given that would have convinced the police that he wasn’t the killer. After all, he would have been a bit like the little kid with chocolate all over his face standing next to the mangled chocolate cake saying “it wasn’t me!”

Maybe another ‘candidate’ might have been Lechford who didn’t see the couple. So the police might have suspected that he’d walked along Berner Street after Smith and so 12.35ish? Then again, he wouldn’t have been arrested.

Another possible might be that they took in two men who they felt could both have been Pipeman? Maybe someone in the street said “Mr X often stands there smoking his pipe.” But the same as above, Mr X wouldn’t have been arrested.

[Jon Guy]

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.

Hi George

Doesn`t Swanson`s summary report (19th Oct?) make it clear that they had not identified Pipeman or BSMan ?
There were snippets in The Star saying that people had been arrested etc etc but that is surely made up newspaper rubbish, or fed to them by the desk Sgt at Leman Street?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

It may have been 'witnesses' plural in the Star. Not so in the Echo or the People.

It's interesting that these reports refer to both a throw down and quarrelling. Sort of a merge of what we see in the police and press accounts. Was she pushed, pulled, thrown down, or verbally abused? Apparently, it was all of the above. Strange that the women in the kitchen did not hear this quarrelling through the half open door. I guess they must have been quarrelling, but not very loudly.

I don't quite understand what you mean by 'not actually an "assault"'. If a woman being thrown to the ground is not an assault, what is it?

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

Hi George.

Would that be because they had reason to doubt the truth of the story?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

what is she supposed to stay rooted like a tree to the spot he left her?

If she is to avoid being at the gateway when Eagle returns, for a while, yes. Yet that would imply she was hanging around on the street, alone. Why would she do that?

Are you not even willing to speculate on Stride's purpose in standing in the gateway?

in his pocket?

Do you know how large the parcel was said to be?