Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Here's an example. There is some small mystery as to where Spooners lady/girl friend went to when Spooner went to the yard. On reading his inquest testimony he states that he was with his girlfriend outside the pub on Fairclough/Christian Street. But he then when describing going to the club with the men he says I and not we as if the girlfiend has gone. Would he have left her when there is a murderer on the lose.

We know that Spooner married a year later (I think) to a girl called Catherine Sullivan. It is possible that this was the girl he was with. Is there a Sullivan family living close by. Was Spooner in fact on his own when he joined the chase.

I dont know whether there is any relevance to solving this but its just an indication of all the research which still remains outstanding. I was amazed when I discovered that the witness Brown actually lived next door to the pub where Spooner said he was standing with his girlfriend! Brown sees a couple near the Board school but doesn't see Spooner and his girlfriend standing a few feet from his front door. Again I am still looking at this but although a few yards separate them are they in fact the same couple.

Spooner is an interesting character. When he gets to the yard, he immediately recognizes a woman's body, whereas other witnesses could only make out a dark shape. He helps a policeman close the gates. He hints that he was allowed to leave immediately afterward, while everyone else remained stuck there for hours. It's not clear what becomes of the lady friend he was with. He went to the yard with Mr Harris, who had heard the mysterious early whistle. The whistling may have been due to a WVC patrolman.

Brown: A policeman was standing at the corner of Christian-street, and I heard a man tell him he was wanted, and he ran along Berner-street.

It's not entirely clear who this policeman was.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I see Swanson exhibiting no doubt. I see Abberline exhibiting no doubt. I see the police acting on Schwartz information. I see no quote from a single police officer anywhere expressing any doubt about Schwartz.

You see Swanson exhibiting no doubt, but that may place you in a minority.

To begin a sentence with "If Schwartz is to be believed...", is like beginning a sentence with "To be honest...". If the speaker's honesty is presumed, the phrase is at best redundant. If the speaker's honesty is not presumed, the phrase will make no difference to the listener(s).

If Schwartz is to be believed ... why mention it?

On the other hand we get this one report (in just one paper?) saying:

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.

So you weigh that favourably against Swanson and Abberline? For all that we know a single reporter spoke to Constable Plod in the pub and bought him a pint or three and Plod told him that ‘ a few of the lads don’t believe that Schwartz bloke. You can’t trust those Jews; they’re always up to something. Don’t put that in your paper though.’ And hey presto the police doubt Schwartz.

Aside from this vague article you have nothing so yes, I’ll go with the opinions of the men that were actually running the investigation.

As I've explained my understanding of Swanson multiple times (and now again), you cannot honestly ask "So you weigh that favourably against Swanson and Abberline?" If you have complete confidence in Schwartz, you do not need to misrepresent myself or anyone else who disagrees with you.

I see you're still pushing this fantasy of a Star reporter buying Constable Plod a few pints at the local, to get information about the police investigation. Is that the only way the press could get information from the police, by bribing them?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I do wonder if this is not a confused or garbled account of the newspaper report stating that a man had been arrested on the basis of Schwartz description and the man's story was not fully accepted.

In that case, why would we read that the police are ceasing investigation of Schwartz's statement, until further facts are obtained? If the story of an arrested man were not fully accepted, wouldn't that be a reason to continue assigning resources to investigating the statement?

Also, if this report did get it wrong, why don't we see a further follow-up report? The Star obviously wasn't shy about admitting their original 'scoop' was questionable, so why not tell us that the investigation is proceeding, including further arrests? Was Constable Plod not available for more trips to the pub?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hello Herlock,

We simply don't know the basis for Leman Street's doubts or how long they questioned Schwartz in order to confirm his story. Certainly any doubts they had would have been passed along to Abberline. Abberline was in charge of the investigation not anybody at Leman Street (thanks Fishy). I fail to see how their doubts (which we know nothing about) somehow trumps the beliefs of Abberline and Swanson.

c.d.

Could you enlighten us as to what the beliefs of Abberline and Swanson were?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If we can allow for The Star account to be imperfect, but based on something that's true, maybe the Leman police doubted some specific aspect of Schwartz' account but believed that on the whole, it was true.

That would be worse than not believing it all. If the police thought Schwartz made the whole thing up, he could be dismissed as an attention seeker. However, if the police thought Schwartz had not told the whole truth, they would naturally ask themselves "What was his purpose in coming forward?" The failure of the second man to come forward would only amplify any doubts.

Hypothetically, if Pipeman had come forward, do you suppose we would get a compatible story, or something at odds with Schwartz? Remember that in early November, Abberline was still unclear on at least two things:

- Who 'Lipski' had been called to (and thus the reason for calling)
- Pipeman's reason for running

Can we assume that Abberline would have supposed that Pipeman would not have contradicted Schwartz, had he ever been found? I don't think so.

[c.d.]

Could you enlighten us as to what the beliefs of Abberline and Swanson were?

I can only go by my interpretation of Swanson's statement in his report. Enlightenment is of course up to you. It is my belief that Abberline concurred with Swanson that Schwartz was telling the truth. Could he (and Swanson) have held that belief with a few grains of salt? Of course. This is an assumption but I have seen nothing to the contrary (in my opinion) which I believe would contradict that assumption.

Could you enlighten us as to what their beliefs were? And please, make it clear whether you are simply stating your opinion or what you say is an established fact. That would help a lot.

Thanks in advance.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Can we assume that Abberline would have supposed that Pipeman would not have contradicted Schwartz, had he ever been found? I don't think so.

I would hope that Abberline was a much better detective than to make assumptions about a witness he had never spoken to.

c.d.

[c.d.]

If Schwartz is to be believed ... why mention it?

I can only guess of course but I believe it is referencing the inherent problems of Schwartz not understanding English and his short time on the scene.

I believe that Schwartz was unique in this regard among witnesses.

c.d.