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.

[DJA]

Look at the corner of the building above the entrance and compare that to the windows.

Consider that BS Man had pulled Stride out of the alley and was standing on the street.

At that angle Hagen/Pipeman would not be visible.

Those twin doors are~1.13 meters wide.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t understand why this is considered problematic in any way. My comments are bracketed in red.

Swanson’s synthesis of the 30th September LSPS interview - written on Oct 19th

“12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [i.e. Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at that hour on turning into Berner St from Commercial Road & had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. (So at this point we have BSMan speaking to the woman at the gateway with Schwartz an unknown distance behind on the same side of the road.) The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. (So Schwartz moves to the opposite (east) side of Berner Street. We can’t distinguish if he saw Pipeman whilst crossing or when he had crossed). The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road (it’s important to note that we get ‘man’ on the opposite side of the road and not ‘men’ which would have been the case if Schwartz and Pipeman were on the same side of the road) ‘Lipski’ & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far. (So Schwartz then crossed back over and disappeared down Fairclough Street toward the arches with Pipeman going in the same direction but either he turned off or he entered a house on the way). Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other. Upon being taken to the Mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man who threw the woman down: – age about 30, height 5 ft. 5 in., complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered; dress, dark jacket & trousers, black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands. Second man, age 35, height 5 ft. 11 in., complexion fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown; dress, dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand.”


Conclusion: Without doubt Schwartz and Pipeman were on opposite sides of the road when ‘Lipski’ was called.



The Star, October 1st.

“Information which may be important was given to the Leman Street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder. This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter. He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch Lane. The reporter’s Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner’s English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man’s story was retold just as he had given it to the police. It is, in fact, to the effect that he saw the whole thing. It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner Street to others in Backchurch Lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner Street to see if his wife had moved. (I’ve heard it suggested that this meant that Schwartz was moving to Berner Street but this isn’t what was being said here. Only that he was walking along Berner Street to his new dwelling which could have been anywhere.) As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. (Again we have BSMan talking to a woman by the gates and Schwartz an undisclosed distance behind on the same side.) The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. (Schwartz crosses to the side of the road opposite the club [the east side]) Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, (in the Swanson synthesis we can’t tell if Schwartz saw Pipeman whilst he was crossing or after he’d arrived at the other side. This version suggests that it was the latter) but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off, (an apparent assumption as the beer house was long closed, I’d suggest that he was using the doorway to enable him to light his pipe with a match) and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder (he rushed forward, from the doorway that Schwartz believed that he’d exited from. The use of the word ‘forward’ clearly indicates that Pipeman was on the same side of the road as BSMan and the woman). The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man’s hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings. (He fled, as stated by Swanson, but there is no mention of Pipeman). He described the man with the woman as about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built, and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat. The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red. Both men seem to belong to the same grade of society. The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man’s statement is not wholly accepted.”


Conclusion: Without doubt Schwartz and Pipeman were on opposite sides of the road when ‘Lipski’ was called.

….

This seems pretty straightforward to me.

[DJA]

Close.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Hi George,

I’ve just got back from a cold and slightly windy 8 days in London where my friend and I spent some time trying to light pipes outside various pubs. I ended up buying a ‘windproof’ lighter which was like a flamethrower that I had to turn down to the lowest setting! I’ll take a guess that these aren’t problems that you have to deal with in Oz.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I’ve just got back from a cold and slightly windy 8 days in London where my friend and I spent some time trying to light pipes outside various pubs. I ended up buying a ‘windproof’ lighter which was like a flamethrower that I had to turn down to the lowest setting! I’ll take a guess that these aren’t problems that you have to deal with in Oz.

Hi Herlock,

In Oz we do have windy days that would blow a brown dog off a chain.

Diemshitz said that he lit a match that the wind immediately extinguished, and Pipeman would have had the same problem. Since he had no access to your flamethrower he would have had to resort to huddling against a wall, or doorway to reduce the wind circulation.

I think your assessment in post #1255 is spot on.

Cheers, George

[DJA]

Except the public house closed at midnight.

Never trust The Star!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

That's fine with me, it's just that at that critical point, the Nelson is not a few doors off. If the Star account is regarded as being important and it is told from the perspective of Schwartz, as we agree, this anomaly will need to be considered.

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.

Disparage away, I encourage it.

Pipeman was seen as Schwartz crossed the road.

On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

That doesn't seem difficult to me - he only need have looked to his left as his crosses.

As for the entrance to the court being nowhere near a public house, there was one at the other end of the court. I wouldn't call that nowhere nearby. However, I have to ask why you think this matters. There is no public house mentioned in Swanson's report, or any police correspondence that survives. A public house may be mentioned in the Star but remember that in #1221 you derided the Star for its sensationalism. If the Star is correct about the public house, was it correct about everything else, including the second man holding a knife? How should we go about determining what elements of the press account are legitimate and what parts are owing to sensationalism? By referencing against the police account, perhaps? Okay, so in that case we can forget about the doorway, and just suppose that Pipeman is on the street, somewhere.

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.

So, Schwartz was correct about this, and Abberline should not have been suggesting alternatives to him.