Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[The Rookie Detective]

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.

Ah, but there is a major contradiction that acts as a rather large elephant in the room.

The third account not only has the man with the black bag walking UP Berner Street, but also the comment that the man might have been COMING FROM the club.

This would indicate that there was a man with a black bag seen walking north up Berner Street from the club and up to the Commercial Road.

This doesn't necessarily have to be Goldstein, but it's likely it's him.

So when Mortimer states 1st hand that she was standing at her door for half an hour or so (paraphrasing) and the only man she saw was a man who walked DOWN Berner Street and past the club to walk around the corner of the Board school; is she a witness who is essentially covering for Goldstein having been seen coming FROM the club instead of walking south past the club?

It isn't necessarily a fact that Goldstein was the killer, but if Stride was murdered by a club member; then a little persuasion and intimidation of a witness goes a long way.

It happened with Packer when Le Grand got involved and so why not Mortimer?


Of course, this account of a man seen with a black bag walking UP Berner St and COMING FROM the DIRECTION of the club, is largely dismissed because it doesn't fit the narrative told by Mortimer and Co.


The same thing happened with the murder of Nichols. There were at least 3 independent witnesses and yet they were all discounted in favour of a narrative that stuck.


Although the report of the man seen with the black bag walking north up Berner Street and crucially AWAY FROM the direction of the murder site, seems a little flippant in its tone; I believe there may be more truth to it than has ever been realised.


IF this account wasn't Mortimer, then we have another witness who saw the man with a black bag walking in the OPPOSITE direction to the man seen by Mortimer.


This should not be overlooked or discarded because it's inconvenient.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If I exit my house and turn left I say that I’m walking ‘down’ the road. Whereas I know at least two people who would say that I was walking ‘up’ the road. The fact that we only have Fanny Mortimer mentioning seeing one man I tend to think that this was just an error of reporting.

[New Waterloo]

Although we have seen it before the picture posted by DJA of the Beer House (Nelson) at the corner of Berner Street is excellent. Very clear and large.

It also shows very clearly number 44 Berner street, the home of Mathew Packer. Interesting in that his house adjoins the pub/Beer House. The photo really brings to life how close all of these premises were to each other and of course how close people were to each other. I mean apart from walls people were all within a few feet of each other. For example I think there were 4 people living in Packers house, him and his wife, his mother in law and a lodger. It does really beggar belief that nothing is heard or seen. They cant have all gone to bed and were fast asleep. It is the strangest thing really. I do wonder whether we are not really imagining the street as it was in truth. When witnesses say it was quiet I suppose they mean quiet for Berner Street. Perhaps they mean no significant activity but people around that they just dont mention. I always have this view in my mind of just a couple of people walking about here and there and the street being relatively empty. Perhaps we have to adjust our thinking a bit.

Another thing I think we have overlooked. Members from the club could have been leaving all of the time. No record was kept of when people left. We have the witnesses to events but whos to say a couple of people slipped out without anybody taking any notice. We will never know of course but quite feasible.

As I have mentioned before I think to have the volume of witnesses that we do around the time of the murder is remarkably high really. Its not like a murder when nobody was about. plenty of people were around in that 20 minute period. Its just making sense of it all. (sorry I am stating the bl..dy obvious really)

NW

[DJA]

It's relative NW.
I went from a Whitsunday island with no vehicles,except a tray truck, to The Annandale Hotel on Parramatta Road,Sydney.
My hearing is as good,if not better than,an audiologist's testing equipment.

[DJA]

If I exit my house and turn left I say that I’m walking ‘down’ the road. Whereas I know at least two people who would say that I was walking ‘up’ the road. The fact that we only have Fanny Mortimer mentioning seeing one man I tend to think that this was just an error of reporting.

Petula Clark - Downtown ( The Dean Martin Show Episode 50 Jan 26 1967 ) - YouTube

[The Rookie Detective]

If I exit my house and turn left I say that I’m walking ‘down’ the road. Whereas I know at least two people who would say that I was walking ‘up’ the road. The fact that we only have Fanny Mortimer mentioning seeing one man I tend to think that this was just an error of reporting.

Although if someone says they saw someone who might have been coming from the club; it would mean that the person seen would be located between the observing witness and the geographical location of the club.

In other words, you can't be coming from somewhere and be heading towards it at the same time.

If the statement just mentioned an "up" or "down" then I'd agree that it's likely a reporting error.

However, when you add the statement of seeing someone who might have been coming from the club into the same article as going "up" the street, it's a double whammy and hard to doctor so as to fit into an accepted narrative.

If we dismiss the report that says a witness saw someone going up the street and who might have been coming from the club, then we result in a cherry picking technique that seeks to eradicate those awkward reports.

The same applies to witnesses at the Nichol's murder and to the Kelly murder also.

If we accept all the reports as viable, then we have a man with a black bag who walks in BOTH directions, down and up Berner Street.

We know that Goldstein did at least one of those physical movements.

It doesn't make him the killer of course.

I have always considered that Schwartz was there to put back the timing of the murder and to get Parcelman off the hook, but perhaps it was the other way around; the murder took place just minutes before 1am, but Schwartz's statement helps to bring the murder forward by around 10 minutes; perhaps to put Goldsstein in the clear.

[Jon Guy]

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.

NBFN

You missed a bit: "If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt about it ..."

[Herlock Sholmes]

NBFN

You missed a bit: "If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt about it ..."

Not exactly an unimportant omission is it John?

[Jon Guy]

Not exactly an unimportant omission is it John?

We have to have balance, Michael !!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Although if someone says they saw someone who might have been coming from the club; it would mean that the person seen would be located between the observing witness and the geographical location of the club.

In other words, you can't be coming from somewhere and be heading towards it at the same time.

If the statement just mentioned an "up" or "down" then I'd agree that it's likely a reporting error.

However, when you add the statement of seeing someone who might have been coming from the club into the same article as going "up" the street, it's a double whammy and hard to doctor so as to fit into an accepted narrative.

If we dismiss the report that says a witness saw someone going up the street and who might have been coming from the club, then we result in a cherry picking technique that seeks to eradicate those awkward reports.

The same applies to witnesses at the Nichol's murder and to the Kelly murder also.

If we accept all the reports as viable, then we have a man with a black bag who walks in BOTH directions, down and up Berner Street.

We know that Goldstein did at least one of those physical movements.

It doesn't make him the killer of course.

I have always considered that Schwartz was there to put back the timing of the murder and to get Parcelman off the hook, but perhaps it was the other way around; the murder took place just minutes before 1am, but Schwartz's statement helps to bring the murder forward by around 10 minutes; perhaps to put Goldsstein in the clear.

As you know RD I genuinely don’t see anything suspicious going on. I see things as fairly straightforward even though there are unknowns of course and always will be. I’ll throw a ‘what if’ out there on the point about the club…

What if the woman (who I believe was FM) had said “I saw a man will a black bag pass and he looked toward the club. He could have been a member?” Then perhaps, from notes, it got misreported?

The problem is that the police interviewed the neighbours (including FM of course) and they also interviewed Goldstein. Surely they would have noticed if someone had said that they had seen Goldstein going the other way?

ps. Can you remind me where the quote from that woman (wife of an artisan if I recall correctly) originates please. I used to have it in my notes but I can’t find it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We have to have balance, Michael !!