Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[GBinOz]

Excellent post George, I agree with your views and assessment on this.

Thanks RD,

I do need to correct an error - I stated that Mrs Artisan did not mention standing at her doorway. This is clearly incorrect as she mentions it in the latter part of her interview.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apologies for another lengthy one. My comments in brackets in blue.


Evening News, Oct 1st


INTERVIEW WITH A NEIGHBOUR.


Some three doors from the gateway where the body of the first victim was discovered, (I realise that in many reports it says that Fanny lived four doors from the club but that’s not the case - there was the gateway the gateway then number 40, then number 38 THEN number 36, Fanny’s house, three doors from the club, so this interviewer is describing a woman that came from Fanny’s house) I saw a clean, respectable-looking woman chatting with one or two neighbours. She was apparently the wife of a well-to-do artisan, ( George correctly points out that Mr. Mortimer was a Carman but the interviewer does use the word ‘apparently’ which could mean that he was just giving an opinion that the woman appeared to be the wife of a better class of person. After all, ‘artisan isn’t a specific job but the reporter is suggesting some kind of craftsman rather than, say, a casual labourer) 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. (Due to her location and situation Fanny must have been one of the very first on the spot too.)


TEN INCHES OF COLD STEEL.


"I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police. (Fanny had just gone inside for what she believed at the time was for the final time - so she too was preparing to go to bed and said just that in some versions) 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. (This part certainly differs from Fanny’s versions - 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 - isn’t it possible that she heard the ‘cold steel’ part at the yard but the interviewer recorded it as being the commotion that she heard when she opened her door, a person who told her what had happened?)

"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. (This version is certainly more dramatic in its language so it could be a slightly sexed up version of Fanny’s story - and on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the gates with her throat cut from ear to ear.) 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. (Fanny also expressed the opinion that she couldn’t have failed to have heard any significant noise due to her being on her doorstep) 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." (Fanny also mentions Diemschitz - I was told that the manager or steward of the Club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart.)

"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." (In The Daily News Fanny said - The quiet and deserted character of the street)


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. (Fanny doesn’t mention strangers but she does say - (and did not notice anything unusual.) 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?" (Fanny mentions seeing Goldstein of course but Mrs A uses the word ‘up’. )

"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." (This certainly suggests that the guy was walking north and is curious but, as I think that this story is too similar to be anything other than Fanny Mortimer’s given by a more dramatic reporter, I tend to think that there must be an explanation. Maybe because Goldstein was Jewish Fanny suspected that he might have been a club member, especially as he glanced toward the club as he passed. Being a club member,bet might have meant that she used the phrase ‘from the club’ and perhaps this, or something like it, was at the root of the confusion as to which direction he was going?)

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?

As this is so similar to Fanny’s story in so many ways, added to the fact that the police appeared to find nothing suspicious about Goldstein (as they might have done if it had been discovered that he’d passed the scene of the murder twice instead of once as first stated) I have to say that I feel strongly that this is a different version of Fanny’s story. I know that George and I disagree on this particular point. If I recall from previous conversations opinion was divided but I can’t recall if there was a slant toward one or the other?

[GBinOz]

As this is so similar to Fanny’s story in so many ways, added to the fact that the police appeared to find nothing suspicious about Goldstein (as they might have done if it had been discovered that he’d passed the scene of the murder twice instead of once as first stated) I have to say that I feel strongly that this is a different version of Fanny’s story. I know that George and I disagree on this particular point. If I recall from previous conversations opinion was divided but I can’t recall if there was a slant toward one or the other?

Hi Herlock,

As I recall, in the previous discussions the slant was entirely in the direction of your opinion, and away from my solid minority opinion of one. Your argument seems to be that the differences can be explained by misquotations and interpretations in the interviews, and that may be, as such differences should, as you state, have been sorted out by police when they interviewed everyone in the street.

With regard to the mention of the "10 inches of cold steel", the shout was on the night, minutes after the murder. The Coram knife was found a day afterwards and had a 10" blade. Coincidence?

Without discounting your conclusion, shall we look at the statements strictly as written.

Mrs Mortimer:
"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".

This is very specific and doesn't leave much room for interpretation.

Mrs Artisan:
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.

Since Berner St slopes down from Commercial to Fairclough, it does appear than the man was headed north. The suggestion that he might have been coming from the Socialist Club means that, whether or not he looked jewish, he was coming from the direction of the club. So if it is to be suggested the "up" and "down" the street descriptions are interchangeable, then for Mrs Artisan to be seeing the man headed south she must have been living at 42, 44 (Packer) or 46 (The Nelson). I have difficulty accepting that this is the case. The other thing to be noticed is that the interviewer asked Mrs Artisan if she had seen a couple walking down the street, and she replied No, but that she did see a man walking up the street.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

NBFN

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

Jon, the second half of the sentence conveys the same sentiment, in my view. Swanson just omitted the second "if", which we all do from time to time.
Swanson is saying the police report has not been completed, but when it is, and if it casts no doubt on Schwartz's story.....etc.

As an example, if I say:

"If I go to the ball game tomorrow, and if Toronto wins, I'll be partying all night."

or I could say:

"if I go to the ball game tomorrow, and Toronto wins, I'll be partying all night."

I omitted the second "if", but the meaning does not change.

So what Swanson meant was:
"If Schwartz is to be believed, and (if) the police report of his statement casts no doubt about it...."
Swanson just omitted the second "if".

Indicating the police are still investigating Schwartz's story, they will see if the conclusion of the police report confirms his story, which is made after the investigation is complete.
The reason Schwartz was not called to the inquest, is in my view, because the police were still investigating his story.

[GBinOz]

The reason Schwartz was not called to the inquest, is in my view, because the police were still investigating his story.

Hi Jon,

How do you interpret the draft letter from Anderson to the Home Office dated 5/11/88 referring to " the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride's case", and Warren's report to the Home office dated 7 Nov 1888 with the same reference ?

Cheers, George

[Jon Guy]

Jon, the second half of the sentence conveys the same sentiment, in my view. Swanson just omitted the second "if", which we all do from time to time.
Swanson is saying the police report has not been completed, but when it is, and if it casts no doubt on Schwartz's story.....etc.

As an example, if I say:

"If I go to the ball game tomorrow, and if Toronto wins, I'll be partying all night."

or I could say:

"if I go to the ball game tomorrow, and Toronto wins, I'll be partying all night."

I omitted the second "if", but the meaning does not change.

So what Swanson meant was:
"If Schwartz is to be believed, and (if) the police report of his statement casts no doubt about it...."
Swanson just omitted the second "if".

Indicating the police are still investigating Schwartz's story, they will see if the conclusion of the police report confirms his story, which is made after the investigation is complete.
The reason Schwartz was not called to the inquest, is in my view, because the police were still investigating his story.

I see what you`re saying, Jon, but I don`t agree. I believe they had all the info they needed bar locating Pipeman and BS Man.
You could be right re: the inquest.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jon,

How do you interpret the draft letter from Anderson to the Home Office dated 5/11/88 referring to " the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride's case", and Warren's report to the Home office dated 7 Nov 1888 with the same reference ?

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I know you asked this of Wickerman, and his view may very well differ from my suggestion, but part of me wonders if the police are using "inquest" in a wider sense than just the coroner's inquest itself. By which I mean, their taking of statements from witnesses forms part of their "inquiry" into the Stride case and so perhaps here the term "inquest" is being used to encompass that as well. Otherwise, it makes no sense to me given we know Schwartz did not give evidence at the coroner's inquest itself. At times, the idea has been raised that maybe Schwartz give his statement to just the coroner and the jury, with the press not present (he can't just give it to the coroner, as that's pointless given it is the jury who returns the verdict). But I can't believe that. The press would have had a field day reporting on being "locked out of a public proceeding", etc, even if they were barred from mentioning the "secret witness" and so forth. Even in the Chapman case, when the doctors requested not presenting the full details of her injuries, Baxter was not partial to information being withheld. And in that case, although he did have woman and children removed, the press were allowed to stay and it was left to them to decide if they would report the details. As we know, most papers chose not too, and simply reported the injuries were too horrible to describe. But even if, by some miracle, the press did not raise a fuss about being barred from the room, and didn't mention that "information was presented which we are forbidden to report", etc if Schwartz presented in private to just the coroner and jury, there is absolutely nothing in the coroner's summing up that reminds the jury of "the information to which only you are privileged" etc.

And, we can be certain the police know which witnesses actually presented (they had an officer there after all), so they are aware Schwartz did not testify.

This is why the only thing that makes sense to me is that they must be using "inquest" in a broader sense than the "coroner's inquest" and it refers to their investigation.

Obviously, I could be wrong on that, but those letters and memos have puzzled me ever since I first read them. Still, regardless of what they are referring to, it is clear from them that at the time of writing at least, the police had not dismissed Schwartz, which negates that being the reason for why he didn't testify at the coroner's inquest. But it is still a bit of a mystery.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

NBFN

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

Jon,
I think it might be yourself who is missing something. If the police report of his statement was all there was to indicate his reliability as a witness, there would be no need for the disclaimer. What Swanson is saying is that there may be opinions that differ on the matter, including his own, but the police report (which I take to mean Abberline's report of his interviewing of Schwartz), does not indicate doubts.

Swanson's report was intended to place the investigation in the best possible light. Even considering that, Swanson was kind enough to leave history an important clue. We do not see a similar disclaimer for any other witness. That is surely significant.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I know you asked this of Wickerman, and his view may very well differ from my suggestion, but part of me wonders if the police are using "inquest" in a wider sense than just the coroner's inquest itself. By which I mean, their taking of statements from witnesses forms part of their "inquiry" into the Stride case and so perhaps here the term "inquest" is being used to encompass that as well. Otherwise, it makes no sense to me given we know Schwartz did not give evidence at the coroner's inquest itself. At times, the idea has been raised that maybe Schwartz give his statement to just the coroner and the jury, with the press not present (he can't just give it to the coroner, as that's pointless given it is the jury who returns the verdict). But I can't believe that. The press would have had a field day reporting on being "locked out of a public proceeding", etc, even if they were barred from mentioning the "secret witness" and so forth. Even in the Chapman case, when the doctors requested not presenting the full details of her injuries, Baxter was not partial to information being withheld. And in that case, although he did have woman and children removed, the press were allowed to stay and it was left to them to decide if they would report the details. As we know, most papers chose not too, and simply reported the injuries were too horrible to describe. But even if, by some miracle, the press did not raise a fuss about being barred from the room, and didn't mention that "information was presented which we are forbidden to report", etc if Schwartz presented in private to just the coroner and jury, there is absolutely nothing in the coroner's summing up that reminds the jury of "the information to which only you are privileged" etc.

And, we can be certain the police know which witnesses actually presented (they had an officer there after all), so they are aware Schwartz did not testify.

This is why the only thing that makes sense to me is that they must be using "inquest" in a broader sense than the "coroner's inquest" and it refers to their investigation.

Obviously, I could be wrong on that, but those letters and memos have puzzled me ever since I first read them. Still, regardless of what they are referring to, it is clear from them that at the time of writing at least, the police had not dismissed Schwartz, which negates that being the reason for why he didn't testify at the coroner's inquest. But it is still a bit of a mystery.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I look with some suspicion at the fact that the inquest was held on Oct 1,2 3 and 5, with the summary on the 23rd. I wonder about why Oct 4 was apparently skipped, unless of course this was a day that was used to conduct an in camera testimony from Schwartz. But this amounts to nothing more than suspicion.

Since we don't have any official record of the inquest, and are forced to rely on contradictory press reports, I have some reluctance to discard the few official reports in our possession. I take your point that "inquest" could have been used for "inquiry" but for the fact that Schwartz and his evidence was not being even mentioned at the inquest does present a mystery. However, why Marshall, Brown and Letchford were called while Bass, Gardner and Mortimer were not is another mystery. With regards to an outcry from the press, could not an abbreviated form of inquest have been held at an undisclosed location without notification, or would that have been illegal?

So, I can accept your alternative explanation as viable, with being entirely convinced of its validity.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

Oops, last line of my previous post should have read:
So, I can accept your alternative explanation as viable, without being entirely convinced of its validity.

[Jon Guy]

Jon,
I think it might be yourself who is missing something. If the police report of his statement was all there was to indicate his reliability as a witness, there would be no need for the disclaimer. What Swanson is saying is that there may be opinions that differ on the matter, including his own, but the police report (which I take to mean Abberline's report of his interviewing of Schwartz), does not indicate doubts.

Swanson's report was intended to place the investigation in the best possible light. Even considering that, Swanson was kind enough to leave history an important clue. We do not see a similar disclaimer for any other witness. That is surely significant.

Andrew, very possibly, but "if Schwartz is to be believed .." is not a disclaimer, it follows a couple of pages of details surrounding PC Smith`s man and Schwartz`s man.

Wasn`t Swanson`s report for Charles Warren, not history? I don`t think Chief Inspectors left "clues" in their reports.

But, I ask you, what clue do you refer to ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

As I recall, in the previous discussions the slant was entirely in the direction of your opinion, and away from my solid minority opinion of one. Your argument seems to be that the differences can be explained by misquotations and interpretations in the interviews, and that may be, as such differences should, as you state, have been sorted out by police when they interviewed everyone in the street.

With regard to the mention of the "10 inches of cold steel", the shout was on the night, minutes after the murder. The Coram knife was found a day afterwards and had a 10" blade. Coincidence?

Without discounting your conclusion, shall we look at the statements strictly as written.

Mrs Mortimer:
"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".

This is very specific and doesn't leave much room for interpretation.

Mrs Artisan:
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.

Since Berner St slopes down from Commercial to Fairclough, it does appear than the man was headed north. The suggestion that he might have been coming from the Socialist Club means that, whether or not he looked jewish, he was coming from the direction of the club. So if it is to be suggested the "up" and "down" the street descriptions are interchangeable, then for Mrs Artisan to be seeing the man headed south she must have been living at 42, 44 (Packer) or 46 (The Nelson). I have difficulty accepting that this is the case. The other thing to be noticed is that the interviewer asked Mrs Artisan if she had seen a couple walking down the street, and she replied No, but that she did see a man walking up the street.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

You make fair points of course.

Mrs Artisan said she hadn’t long been inside when she heard the commotion and that she’d seen Goldstein: “…just before I turned in.”

So using approximations - commotion 1.02, say she’d gone inside 12.55, saw Goldstein approx 12.50.

Fanny said that she went outside after the commotion just after 1.00 and he’d seen Goldstein before that. So if he’d gone inside just before 1.00 he could only have seen Goldstein in the few minutes that he was on the doorstep.

It just seems strange to have Goldstein walking 2 ways at around the same time.

This is another one of those points that we just have no way of getting entirely to the bottom of. The frustrations of this case.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

How do you interpret the draft letter from Anderson to the Home Office dated 5/11/88 referring to " the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride's case", and Warren's report to the Home office dated 7 Nov 1888 with the same reference ?

Cheers, George

Hi George.

I think it speaks for itself, it just goes to show even officials made mistakes.
The interesting thing here is, if we didn't have press coverage of the Stride inquest, we would automatically take those two examples as fact.
This is one of those rare situations where modern theorists are quite prepared to accept press accounts, showing the absence of Schwartz, over official memo's that suggest he was present.

[Sunny Delight]

Jon, the second half of the sentence conveys the same sentiment, in my view. Swanson just omitted the second "if", which we all do from time to time.
Swanson is saying the police report has not been completed, but when it is, and if it casts no doubt on Schwartz's story.....etc.

As an example, if I say:

"If I go to the ball game tomorrow, and if Toronto wins, I'll be partying all night."

or I could say:

"if I go to the ball game tomorrow, and Toronto wins, I'll be partying all night."

I omitted the second "if", but the meaning does not change.

So what Swanson meant was:
"If Schwartz is to be believed, and (if) the police report of his statement casts no doubt about it...."
Swanson just omitted the second "if".

Indicating the police are still investigating Schwartz's story, they will see if the conclusion of the police report confirms his story, which is made after the investigation is complete.
The reason Schwartz was not called to the inquest, i my view, because the police were still investigating his story.

That is not what Swanson wrote and adding an 'if' actually gives it a completely different narrative. Swanson is merely saying that his subordinates place no doubt upon Schwartz story but Swanson himself hasn't interviewed him face to face. He can only go on the report sent to him.

[JeffHamm]

That is not what Swanson wrote and adding an 'if' actually gives it a completely different narrative. Swanson is merely saying that his subordinates place no doubt upon Schwartz story but Swanson himself hasn't interviewed him face to face. He can only go on the report sent to him.

Hi Sunny,

I think what Wickerman is pointing out is the the 2nd if is not necessary to convey the same meaning as a sentence that contains it. In other words, he's saying adding the 2nd if does not necessarily change the intended meaning. I use necessarily there because, of course, the interpretation that he's pointing out the report already does not cast doubt is also viable. So the statement, as written, is ambiguous as to which of those interpretations he was trying to convey. He can't mean both, but he could have meant either. And for us, being unable to ask him for clarification, we need to consider both possibilities as his intended meaning even though at the same time we know only one of them is the right one - we just can't say for sure which it is. Remember, no matter how much one of those meanings "feels" right to us, the fact remains that the way in which it is phrased is ambiguous. And as in his ball game example, the alternative Wickerman is suggesting (dropping the 2nd if) is a common language structure, so it's not like one alternative requires arguing for a very unusual sentence structure that can be made to be ambiguous, but rather, it's a common way to say what Wickerman suggests but it is also a common way to point out "it depends upon Schwartz's reliability" and then to immediately set aside any of those doubts. So both interpretations are based upon normal language use, which is why we can't be confident we know which the two alternative intentions was, well, intended.

- Jeff