Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[The Rookie Detective]

I was under the impression that Lave was staying at the club?

Lave was staying at the club.

I assumed that there was a room that he occupied within the club building itself, but there's a chance that he may have been staying in one of the cottages in Dutfield's yard.
I don't believe he was staying in number 42.

Diemschitz and his family however, were certainly living either in the club itself or one of the cottages in the yard.

So we have 2 individuals in Lave and Diemschitz who were both residing either at the club or a dwelling in the yard, which is interesting considering that only 3 individuals are confirmed to have gone through the gateway and into the side door within the maximum 30 minute kill time period...

Diemschitz
Lave
Eagle

[DJA]

Prolly confusing him with Goldstein.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was under the impression that Lave was staying at the club?

[DJA]

Tiger Bay era.

[The Rookie Detective]

Here's number 42 in 1856...



Interesting indeed

[DJA]

The residents of Dutfields Yard.

Israel Goldstein and family being notable,as he was IWMC's caretaker.

Oops.Joseph Lave resided at 42,not Goldstein.

[DJA]

There is a theory that Schwartz was moving from 42 Dutfields Yard.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The residents of Dutfields Yard.

Israel Goldstein and family being notable,as he was IWMC's caretaker.

Thanks for that Dave.

[DJA]

General question - who lived at number 42, between the club and Packer?

The residents of Dutfields Yard.

Israel Goldstein and family being notable,as he was IWMC's caretaker.

[Herlock Sholmes]

General question - who lived at number 42, between the club and Packer?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.