Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[GBinOz]

Previously, you said...

Was he in the doorway, but visible to BS, or did he step out of the doorway to make the theory work?

Swanson: ...he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

Did he light his pipe in the supposed shelter of the doorway, or did he step into the breeze, but kept trying?

Hi Andrew,

I am a pipe smoker, and so is Herlock. You don't try to light a pipe with matches in a breeze.

Cheers, George

[DJA]

William Smith, 452 H Division: On Saturday last I went on duty at ten p.m. My beat was past Berner- street, and would take me twenty-five minutes or half an hour to go round. I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock. I was not called. I saw a crowd outside the gates of No. 40, Berner-street. I heard no cries of "Police." When I came to the spot two constables had already arrived. The gates at the side of the club were not then closed. I do not remember that I passed any person on my way down. I saw that the woman was dead, and I went to the police-station for the ambulance, leaving the other constables in charge of the body. Dr. Blackwell's assistant arrived just as I was going away.


That leaves a thin margin of time for Sutton/JtR to slip out the front door and into the dark alley once Stride was in position.
He had obviously been observing or already knew Smith's beat.
Similar in that respect to the next murder.

[GBinOz]

If P/K man moves in Schwartz's direction starting from the Nelson corner, and Schwartz is still a few doors from Fairclough, what happens? Schwartz is followed straight back up the street, toward Commercial Rd. There is nothing in either account to suggest this occurred. The alternative is to suppose that P/K man moves toward Schwartz when Schwartz is stepping onto Fairclough. That is, just as is depicted in the Star. Once again, we are back to the issue of the Nelson not being a few doors off, rather it's a few yards across the road. Another issue would be that this particular scenario could easily result in Schwartz being followed east along Fairclough, yet seemingly Ed Spooner must remain oblivious.

In my scenario, Pipeman is near Hampshire Court when first spotted by Schwartz. This results in Schwartz being followed south, to either Ellen St or one of the nearby rail arches. This is compatible with the evidence we have, and it unifies the witnessed location of Pipeman and Parcelman.

Hi Andrew,

When I originally read the accounts of Schwartz's statements I was puzzled at the apparent suggestion that Pipeman was on the school corner and Schwartz was running away towards the perceived threat of Pipeman. When I reconsidered Schwartz's statements from his perspective I realised that Pipeman was on the opposite corner, outside the Nelson. The critical information is "just as he stepped from the kerb". At this stage Schwartz has crossed the road and is headed south. The only kerb available for "stepping from" is the kerb on the north eastern side of the Fairclough intersection. From there, IMO, Schwartz made his exit south on Berner rather than east on Fairclough.

Without disparaging your theory, if Pipeman were near Hampshire Court then when Schwartz had crossed the road and was proceeding south, Pipeman was behind him and would not have been seen until Schwartz turned around in response to the sound of the argument. Furthermore, Pipeman would have been nowhere near a public house. When Schwartz heard the quarrel that prompted the cry of Lipski he was at the Fairclough intersection, and there could have been no doubt as to whom the cry was directed if Pipeman was near Hampshire Court.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

The answers are easy. The questions aren't because they are phrased from the wrong perspective.

The statement was made by Schwartz, not the man calling out, so the locations are from the perspective of the man making the statement - Schwartz. So the answers to your questions are both B), which is consistent with both the original police statement and The Star interview also made from the perspective of Schwartz.

Cheers, George

George,

the fallacy of your argument is that while the statement comes from Schwartz, and is of his perspective, what we are reading in the Home Office extract is not the signed words of Israel Schwartz, rather it how his statement has been understood by the Home Office. No one would be expected to interpret that 'Lipski' being called out to man across the road, was being called to a man on the same side of the road.

I entered the Home Office extract into ChatGPT, and asked the following question:

Where was the man being called to, relative to the man calling 'Lipski'?

This was the response:

In the statement provided, the man calling out "Lipski" is described as being on one side of the road, and the individual he is addressing is on the opposite side. This indicates that the person being called to, named Lipski, was across the road from the person shouting the name.

Therefore, the man calling out "Lipski" was positioned on one side of the road, and Lipski (whether a person or just a shouted name) was on the other side of the road.

[GBinOz]

George,

the fallacy of your argument is that while the statement comes from Schwartz, and is of his perspective, what we are reading in the Home Office extract is not the signed words of Israel Schwartz, rather it how his statement has been understood by the Home Office. [/I]

Hi Andrew,

WADR, I do not see this as a Home Office interpretation, but as a relating of Schwartz's statement and therefore from Schwartz's perspective.

Cheers, George

[DJA]

OpenAI acknowledges that ChatGPT "sometimes writes plausible-sounding but incorrect or nonsensical answers".

[JeffHamm]

OpenAI acknowledges that ChatGPT "sometimes writes plausible-sounding but incorrect or nonsensical answers".

Having graded student papers where they've "consulted" ChatGPT, I certainly can find no fault in that assessment.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Previously, you said...

Was he in the doorway, but visible to BS, or did he step out of the doorway to make the theory work?

Swanson: ...he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

Did he light his pipe in the supposed shelter of the doorway, or did he step into the breeze, but kept trying?

I’m not trying to make any theory work. You only have to look at the photograph that Dave recently posted to see that a man couldn’t conceal himself in the nearby doorways but there is probably enough of a gap to stop the wind blowing out a match. Lighting a pipe takes a little longer than lighting a cigarette. Most pipe smokers will light their pipes, tamp down the tobacco and then light again. But once Pipeman had got his pipe to ‘take’ he could have stepped away from the doorway still with his match to his pipe.

No one knows for certain exactly what happened but this is a reasonable explanation. If Pipeman was seen moving away from a doorway it would have been understandable that an onlooker might think that he’d just exited from that doorway.