Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

All this irrelevant, because it does not correspond to the either the police account or press account. In the police account, we have:

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

The man is standing, therefore not moving, and there is no mention of a doorway. In the press account:

...a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off...

The man is moving, not standing.

The whole notion of a man standing in the doorway, sheltering from the wind that frustrates his efforts to light his pipe, is fiction. Someone offered this fiction here long ago, it's sounds reasonable to yourself and others, so you think of it as though it were evidence. It is not evidence, it is invention.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Thanks George.

“Blow a brown dog off a chain.”

Love it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

All this irrelevant, because it does not correspond to the either the police account or press account. In the police account, we have:

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

The man is standing, therefore not moving, and there is no mention of a doorway. In the press account:

...a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off...

The man is moving, not standing.

The whole notion of a man standing in the doorway, sheltering from the wind that frustrates his efforts to light his pipe, is fiction. Someone offered this fiction here long ago, it's sounds reasonable to yourself and others, so you think of it as though it were evidence. It is not evidence, it is invention.

I can’t believe that you keep coming out with this kind of stuff. It’s nothing more than desperate nitpicking simply to try and win a point. Basically you are saying that Schwartz was enough of a buffoon to give two different versions of a very simply story just hours apart from each other.

In the Press account he adds the unimportant detail of the doorway. Why? Perhaps the reporter pressed him on where Pipeman came from but the police simply had no reason to add this entirely trivial detail.

Do you actually believe that every minor discrepancy in any account means that there was dirty work afoot?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

.

To quote John McEnroe: “You cannot be serious!” The distance from Hampshire Court to the doors of The Nelson is close to 3 times the distance from the doors of The Nelson to the gateway.

[DJA]

I can’t believe that you keep coming out with this kind of stuff. It’s nothing more than desperate nitpicking simply to try and win a point. Basically you are saying that Schwartz was enough of a buffoon to give two different versions of a very simply story just hours apart from each other.

In the Press account he adds the unimportant detail of the doorway. Why? Perhaps the reporter pressed him on where Pipeman came from but the police simply had no reason to add this entirely trivial detail.

Do you actually believe that every minor discrepancy in any account means that there was dirty work afoot?

The problem is that you and others keep on feeding this clown.

Remember Pierre?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem is that you and others keep on feeding this clown.

Remember Pierre?

Who could forget Pierre.

[Sunny Delight]

"......(Schwartz) On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road."

You read this from Schwartz perspective because Swanson in the initial sentences refers to Schwartz movements. However I read this section differently. I read it that BS man is shouting in Schwartz and Pipemans direction on the opposite side of the road. For this reason Schwartz was unable to discern who 'Lipski' was directed at. Abberline questioned him closely on it.

For me though what is more significant is that BS man had to have looked directly at Schwartz to decide he was rather Jewish looking. He then yells, 'Lipski'. So if he was looking in Schwartz direction how would Schwartz not immediately be able to tell the shout was directed at him. Pipeman would be further down the street on the opposite side. Schwartz not looking at BS man doesn't fit what Schwartz said. He crossed the street and saw Pipeman before the shout of Lipski. If we add in the Star version Schwartz looked back at the quarrel.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"......(Schwartz) On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road."

You read this from Schwartz perspective because Swanson in the initial sentences refers to Schwartz movements. However I read this section differently. I read it that BS man is shouting in Schwartz and Pipemans direction on the opposite side of the road. For this reason Schwartz was unable to discern who 'Lipski' was directed at. Abberline questioned him closely on it.

But he clearly said that BSMan shouted at the man on the opposite side of the road. How could he have shouted at the man (singular) if there were two of them there and standing so close together that he wasn’t sure which one he was shouting at?

For me though what is more significant is that BS man had to have looked directly at Schwartz to decide he was rather Jewish looking. He then yells, 'Lipski'. So if he was looking in Schwartz direction how would Schwartz not immediately be able to tell the shout was directed at him. Pipeman would be further down the street on the opposite side. Schwartz not looking at BS man doesn't fit what Schwartz said. He crossed the street and saw Pipeman before the shout of Lipski. If we add in the Star version Schwartz looked back at the quarrel.

Even if a person is looking directly at a person it doesn’t follow that the other person must have been looking directly back. BSMan for example whilst manhandling Stride could have looked across and seen Schwartz (looking at the incident) crossing the road. Two seconds later he looks up again and Schwartz has seen Pipeman but is again caught looking the incident. He immediately averts his gaze. BSMan shouts ‘Lipski’ as Schwartz is looking away so can’t be sure who it was aimed at.

I think that one thing that we should remember and acknowledge tough when we talk about the ‘police report’ is that this was a ‘summary’ of events written by Donald Swanson three weeks after the murder. He was ‘rounding up.’ Whereas The Star would have been asking questions of Schwartz. Probably bombarding him via an interpreter of unknown competence.

[Sunny Delight]

I think that one thing that we should remember and acknowledge tough when we talk about the ‘police report’ is that this was a ‘summary’ of events written by Donald Swanson three weeks after the murder. He was ‘rounding up.’ Whereas The Star would have been asking questions of Schwartz. Probably bombarding him via an interpreter of unknown competence.

What is peculiar about Swanson's report is that he states, almost as fact, that BS man had addressed Pipeman when Abberline specifically stated Schwartz could not tell who was addressed. Abberline even went as far too say he had questioned Schwartz very closely on the matter. I have a little extra to write on this and will do so when I get time(not easy with young kids sometimes, ha).

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I can’t believe that you keep coming out with this kind of stuff. It’s nothing more than desperate nitpicking simply to try and win a point. Basically you are saying that Schwartz was enough of a buffoon to give two different versions of a very simply story just hours apart from each other.

In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.

This is not 'coming out' with anything, it is quoting evidence. You may not appreciate this, but that's your problem.

In the Press account he adds the unimportant detail of the doorway. Why? Perhaps the reporter pressed him on where Pipeman came from but the police simply had no reason to add this entirely trivial detail.

The specific detail was that the man came out of the doorway. The Nelson doorway had closed at 11pm. You can all agree with each other that the man came out of the Nelson doorway, but the evidence remains that this would not have been possible. Therefore, the reference to the doorway is either false reporting, or refers to some other doorway or entrance that has been partly mistranslated.

Do you actually believe that every minor discrepancy in any account means that there was dirty work afoot?

No.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.

This is not 'coming out' with anything, it is quoting evidence. You may not appreciate this, but that's your problem.

No, that’s a newspaper report with absolutely nothing to back it up.

The specific detail was that the man came out of the doorway. The Nelson doorway had closed at 11pm. You can all agree with each other that the man came out of the Nelson doorway, but the evidence remains that this would not have been possible. Therefore, the reference to the doorway is either false reporting, or refers to some other doorway or entrance that has been partly mistranslated.

“…a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off.” Firstly, it’s interesting how you appear to favour newspaper reports over official documents and secondly, perhaps you should read this more closely. It doesn’t say that he came ‘out of the pub,’ but ‘out of the doorway.’ So all they were saying is that when Schwartz saw Pipeman he moved from a starting point of the doorway to The Nelson which gives a couple of possibilities, none of which are remotely suspicious to non-conspiracists. a) He’d been standing in front of the doorway smoking his pipe, or b) he’d turned the corner from Fairclough Street and Schwartz first saw him just as he passed the doorway which gave him the impression that he’d come from that doorway.


No.

I disagree.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What is peculiar about Swanson's report is that he states, almost as fact, that BS man had addressed Pipeman when Abberline specifically stated Schwartz could not tell who was addressed. Abberline even went as far too say he had questioned Schwartz very closely on the matter. I have a little extra to write on this and will do so when I get time(not easy with young kids sometimes, ha).

Perhaps Swanson was drawing on Schwartz's initial statement at Leman St, and not just Abberline's report. Perhaps the doubts as to who BS man had addressed were stronger in Abberline's mind than in Schwartz's mind.

Had BS man been addressing a non-Jewish looking Pipeman, what was his purpose in doing so?

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis C,

This is the account, which was one of three that appeared in the Evening News Oct 1:
. A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact.. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.


This is another account from the same newspaper on Oct 1:
Mrs. Mortimer, living at 36, Berner-street, four doors from the scene of the tragedy, says: I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by. I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club-house, and on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the gate with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates. It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went around the corner by the Board School. I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart. He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart. If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him. It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found. The body was lying slightly on one side, with the legs a little drawn up as if in pain, the clothes being slightly disarranged, so that the legs were partly visible. The woman appeared to me to be respectable, judging by her clothes, and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets. A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.


It can be noticed that 36 Berner St was 2 doors from the club, as stated in the first account, not 4 doors as in the second. The first account has a woman hearing footsteps from inside her home at about 12:45, going to the door as a response, and staying at the door for ten minutes. The second account has no mention of the footsteps that bought the woman to the door, but claims that she was at the door for 30 minutes from 12:30 to 1 o'clock.

The third account published in the Evening News Oct 1 was quite different to the above.
INTERVIEW WITH A NEIGHBOUR.
Some three doors from the gateway where the body of the first victim was discovered, I saw a clean, respectable-looking woman chatting with one or two neighbours. She was apparently the wife of a well-to-do artisan, and formed a strong contrast to many of those around her. I got into conversation with her and found that she was one of the first on the spot.
TEN INCHES OF COLD STEEL.
"I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police. I ran to the door, and before I could open it I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.' I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway. Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife.
"Then I see a sight that turned me all sick and cold. There was the murdered woman a-lying on her side, with her throat cut across till her head seemed to be hanging by a bit of skin. Her legs was drawn up under her, and her head and the upper part of her body was soaked in blood. She was dressed in black as if she was in mourning for somebody.
MURDERED WITHIN SOUND OF MUSIC AND DANCING.
"Did you hear no sound of quarrelling, no cry for help?" I asked.
"Nothing of the sort, sir. I should think I must have heard it if the poor creature screamed at all, for I hadn't long come in from the door when I was roused, as I tell you, by that call for the police. But that was from the people as found the body. Mr. Lewis, who travels in cheap drapery things a bit now and again, had just drove into the yard when his horse shied at something that was lying in the corner. He thought 'twas a bundle of some kind till he got down from his cart and struck a light. Then he saw what it was and gave the alarm."
"Was the street quiet at the time?"
"Yes, there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club. There was music and dancing going on there at the very time that that poor creature was being murdered at their very door, as one may say."
A MAN WITH A BLACK BAG!
" I suppose you did not notice a man and woman pass down the street while you were at the door?"
"No, sir. I think I should have noticed them if they had. Particularly if they'd been strangers, at that time o' night. I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand."
"Did you observe him closely, or notice anything in his appearance?"
"No, I didn't pay particular attention to him. He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club., A good many young men goes there, of a Saturday night especially."
That was all that my informant had to tell me. I wonder will the detectives think it worth while to satisfy themselves about that black bag?

I have previously proposed that these interviews were with different women, a proposition which was vigorously opposed. Can Fanny have made three such differing statements on the same day to between one and three reporters?

Cheers, George

Hi George,

In the case of how many doors away it was, I think that one report just made an error. There is certainly one discrepancy between the reports, and it's a major one, and that's about whether Fanny was at her door for 10 minutes or for nearly the whole time from 12:30 to 1:00. Other than that, there are things that are in one report that aren't in another, but I don't see any other straight up contradictions.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No, that’s a newspaper report with absolutely nothing to back it up.

Swanson: If Schwartz is to be believed...

As evidence for the mistrust in Schwartz, Swanson's disclaimer and the Star's downplaying of their own 'scoop', are mutually reinforcing.

“…a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off.” Firstly, it’s interesting how you appear to favour newspaper reports over official documents...

This is either a joke or a lame attempt to deceive. I'm the one saying that Pipeman was on the board school side - with ample evidence in support - and nowhere near the Nelson. You're the one agreeing with the Star.

By the way, have you read #1260? No honest person could read that post and make the claim that I favour newspaper reports over official documents.

...and secondly, perhaps you should read this more closely. It doesn’t say that he came ‘out of the pub,’ but ‘out of the doorway.’

This is hilarious. In #1263 you accused me of nitpicking for bringing up the subject of the doorway, saying it was a trivial detail. Now you want to nitpick this detail yourself!

As for your 'distinction' between coming out of a doorway versus coming out of the pub, if the doorway was the doorway to the pub - and that is what a literal interpretation of the Star report would suggest - with the inside of the pub on one side and the outside world on the other, then 'out of the doorway' does indeed mean 'out of the pub'. The pub was long closed by ~12:45, so we need to keep thinking...

So all they were saying is that when Schwartz saw Pipeman he moved from a starting point of the doorway to The Nelson which gives a couple of possibilities, none of which are remotely suspicious to non-conspiracists. a) He’d been standing in front of the doorway smoking his pipe, or b) he’d turned the corner from Fairclough Street and Schwartz first saw him just as he passed the doorway which gave him the impression that he’d come from that doorway.

No, they are not saying that. To come out of a doorway implies that the starting point is the other side of that doorway.

This notion of Pipeman moving from in front of the doorway, just as Schwartz spots him, is a nice bit of chess pieces choreography. Why didn't the man pivot around to look when Stride screamed, or whatever it was that Abberline should have written in his report? That was before Schwartz sees him. Did he not hear these screams? If not, there must have been sounds louder than not very loud screams, to alert his attention.

By the way, "all they were saying" includes the detail that "the Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand". Is this detail correct? If not, on what basis are you able to intuit what parts of the Star report are legitimate?

I disagree.

That is because you seek to frame every point I bring up, as being part of something sinister and/or a plot. If you find yourself resentful of people discussing the location of a doorway, relating to a series of murders 136 years ago, you might want to consider the possibility that you have a problem.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Swanson: If Schwartz is to be believed...

As evidence for the mistrust in Schwartz, Swanson's disclaimer and the Star's downplaying of their own 'scoop', are mutually reinforcing.

This is either a joke or a lame attempt to deceive. I'm the one saying that Pipeman was on the board school side - with ample evidence in support - and nowhere near the Nelson. You're the one agreeing with the Star.

By the way, have you read #1260? No honest person could read that post and make the claim that I favour newspaper reports over official documents.

This is hilarious. In #1263 you accused me of nitpicking for bringing up the subject of the doorway, saying it was a trivial detail. Now you want to nitpick this detail yourself!

As for your 'distinction' between coming out of a doorway versus coming out of the pub, if the doorway was the doorway to the pub - and that is what a literal interpretation of the Star report would suggest - with the inside of the pub on one side and the outside world on the other, then 'out of the doorway' does indeed mean 'out of the pub'. The pub was long closed by ~12:45, so we need to keep thinking...

No, they are not saying that. To come out of a doorway implies that the starting point is the other side of that doorway.

This notion of Pipeman moving from in front of the doorway, just as Schwartz spots him, is a nice bit of chess pieces choreography. Why didn't the man pivot around to look when Stride screamed, or whatever it was that Abberline should have written in his report? That was before Schwartz sees him. Did he not hear these screams? If not, there must have been sounds louder than not very loud screams, to alert his attention.

By the way, "all they were saying" includes the detail that "the Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand". Is this detail correct? If not, on what basis are you able to intuit what parts of the Star report are legitimate?

That is because you seek to frame every point I bring up, as being part of something sinister and/or a plot. If you find yourself resentful of people discussing the location of a doorway, relating to a series of murders 136 years ago, you might want to consider the possibility that you have a problem.

Have you ever looked at a piece of evidence in the case without deducing that witnesses were lying and that there was something going on beneath the surface? You are now trying to claim that Pipeman was almost a third of the way along the length of road between the junction of Berner Street and Fairclough Street and Commercial Road without a shred of evidence. In fact it flies in the face of every piece of evidence that we have. We know, to within a few feet, where Schwartz and Pipeman were. And now you complain that I accuse you of favouring newspaper reports immediately after you quoted a newspaper report about the Leman Street police, which was obviously what I was talking about.

So on the one hand you make this utterly bizarre and baseless claim about the position of Pipeman (with, I assume, a straight face) and we can now add another thing to ‘Andrew’s List of Perfectly Normal Things Which He Regards as Fantastic and Unbelievable.’ You don’t appear to believe it possible that someone can exit a doorway without them ever being inside that building? So onto the ‘list’ that one goes, alongside - no sound can go unheard, people inside houses never move from one room to another and discrepancies can never have a non-sinister explanation.

There are of course things that we don’t know but you would no doubt stretch the list.

We don’t know how true the report of the knife in The Star was. The fact that this important point wasn’t mentioned to the police points strongly to either an error of interpretation of the influence of the Press to ‘sex up’ the story.

We don’t know who BSMan and Pipeman were.

Nothing of importance remains without some form of answer. Of course many of our answers have to be speculations because we can’t corroborate them but, by using reason and common sense we can fill in the gaps in our knowledge with a reasonable level of confidence. Often we can propose more than one potential answer.


Nothing is mysterious and we have no evidence that any witnesses told deliberate lies.