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.

[JeffHamm]

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.

Personally, looking at the entire point Swanson is making, I read that opening as serving a very different purpose than calling Schwartz into question. Swanson's main point that he's making is, in the end, that Schwartz's man is more likely to be the murderer than PC Smith's man, barring the possibility they are of course the same individual. Because he's writing a report to H.O., he has to be professional in his presentation, and before he can argue the point that B.S. is the preferred suspect over Parcelman, he has to first make the point that Schwartz's statement is reliable. The "If his is to be believed..." is presented as one setting up a series of logical connections. So he first establishes Schwartz is a reliable witness by, in effect, directing the reader of the report to first consider if Schwartz is to be believed, and he then indicates how the reader should answer that by indicating that the report does not indicate any doubt on that point. Having now indicated to the reader what the police view is, he goes on to then point out which of the men seen with Stride is the most likely of the two to be connected with the murder, which he further emphasises by closing with the timing of Schwartz's sighting and the discovery of the body.

I think if he were seriously indicating that there was concern with regards to Schwartz's truthfulness, then he would not proceed to introduce the selection of a preferred suspect. That question/issue would be beyond what the police believed was sufficiently established, and so his report would indicate that further information was being gathered to determine the reliability of what may be an important witness due to the timeing. However, as he goes on to indicate that if B.S. and Parcelman are different ment, then B.S. is to be preferred, he is indicating there is police confidence in Schwartz's statement regarding what he saw. While we know Abberline believes Schwartz's interpretation of things is a bit off, that is different from believing Schwartz didn't witness the events he describes. Swanson, notably, does not bring that issue up, as the H.O. will be interested in what the police have established, not what they are still considering as alternative possibilities. I think that also points to the likelihood that Swanson is indicating confidence in Schwartz in this document.

Others, of course, may view things differently.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

Again you’re misusing the language. If I say “if x is correct when he says y, and I believe that he is, then……” That’s the difference between your ‘expression of doubt’ and my ‘acceptance that no one can be 100% certain so we accept that if contradictory evidence should surface…”

Why didn’t Swanson just say something clearer like…”Schwartz evidence is problematic..” or “we can’t be sure that Schwartz is telling the truth or not..”

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’m weighing nothing. I’m saying that I absolutely favour Abberline and Swanson over a sourceless newspaper snippet.

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?

I’m pushing nothing. If you can prove that something like this couldn’t have occurred then please provide your evidence and I’ll assess it. Do you really think that police Constable’s didn’t chat to reporters? Do you really think that money never changed hands. I’m not pushing this as an idea because I don’t know that it occurred but I’m suggesting that the ‘doubt’ mentioned in the report might simply have come from Constable’s chat. Or Sunny might be right in his suggestion of a confusion with the story about an arrested man and the fact that the police didn’t fully accept his story.

[New Waterloo]

I have had a quick look at Findmypast to see if there was a Sullivan family living nearby. My thoughts are that if the girl with Spooner the night of Strides murder was Catherine Sullivan (and considering her got married I think about a year later its a reasonable chance) she may have gone home straight away if her home was close. This would have satisfied her and Spooner that was safe to walk home. I cant really believe that if she lived some distance away he would have left her to walk home on her own.

There is a Sullivan family including a Catherine with a date of birth of 1867 in the 1871 census living at Backchurch Lane, interestingly in the 1881 Census it looks as i the family are still in Backchurch Lane in a small court off it called Blacksmiths Arms Place.

I am not sure where they are in 1888 of course and I think by 1891 she is married to Spooner (I think)

So if this is the Catherine Sullivan that married Spooner and if she was the girl with him on the night then this could explain why they thought it safe for her to quickly go home although I think many would have gone to the scene not sure about that bit

Lots of ifs

All of this needs checking by more capable people I think but getting there

NW

[Lewis C]

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.

If the police doubted some specific aspect of Schwartz' story, that doesn't mean that they thought he was lying. They may have thought that he made an honest mistake or two.

[Wickerman]

If the police doubted some specific aspect of Schwartz' story, that doesn't mean that they thought he was lying. They may have thought that he made an honest mistake or two.

Yes, the police don't necessarily have to believe the story from a witness, but they are required to check the story to what ever extent is possible. They can't send a witness to an enquiry to answer questions if some part of their story is not verified in case the coroner pursues that line of questioning.
When any witness puts their statement in writing, the police know what points are necessary to verify from a legal point of view.

Take Maxwell, she swore she saw Kelly after the medical evidence suggests she was murdered. The police knew of other witnesses who confirmed Maxwell's story - they did their duty, regardless of whether both witnesses were mistaken, or lying. They had investigated Maxwell's story to the extent that they could, even though it turned out to be wrong (though some will disagree).
It did not matter if the police believed Maxwell or not, they have a duty to investigate, to verify her claims as best they can.

This would have been the same with Schwartz, there's no need for theorists here to get all tied up in knots debating whether the police believed Schwartz or not. Their duty was to investigate, which they were doing, and until they investigate all his claims, the witness can't go to the inquest.

[JeffHamm]

...
This would have been the same with Schwartz, there's no need for theorists here to get all tied up in knots debating whether the police believed Schwartz or not. Their duty was to investigate, which they were doing, and until they investigate all his claims, the witness can't go to the inquest.

Indeed, we see this with Schwartz. We know, for example, that Abberline did not think Lipski was shouted to Pipeman, but instead that it was probably aimed at Schwartz himself. However, despite that, the police were looking up all the Lipski families in the area. Their doubt as to Schwartz's interpretations doesn't mean they didn't investigate and in fact, it shows good practice.

- Jeff