Suspect Witnesses?

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, the above sounds like you are talking about a different pair of press reports to what I mean.

This is the interview with the female who was on the corner with her manfriend.

When the alarm of murder was raised a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty-minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

Mortimer refers to her (and her manfriend)

A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

The above two accounts refer to the same couple, my Couple #2.


The earlier couple is mentioned in this next report, my Couple #1.

It is established almost beyond doubt that the poor creature met her death some time between twelve and one o'clock. And yet no one seems to have heard a struggle, or a groan, or the slightest indication of what was going on. From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart.

"We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."




Yes, I know the flower could have been obscured, but that is conjecture. The fact remains Brown said he did not see a flower in her jacket.



Nice of you to say so, I wonder which 'very old' threads they are.
Now I'm looking at the number of posts, almost 15,000 good grief, I've probably written a book and don't realize it.


A sign of a miss-spent retirement, as well as a miss-spent youth.

Anyway, I'm hoping this exchange over the 'sweetheart' couples has just been a bit of a misunderstanding.

All one couple, Wick. There was only the one young sweetheart couple. But the woman Brown saw was the not so young Stride.
As to the threads I've read recently, they've been all over the place in terms of content, but some that stand out had to do with Dorset Street - Hutchinson, Lewis, Prater, etc. That's one area of the case I've never spent a lot of in depth time in until now and I've really enjoyed perusing old comments from an era when the contributors actually contributed. Of course, I was taking notes and your name ended up in my notes quite a bit. I look forward to reading through the notes again at a near date now that I've separated the wheat from the chaff.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Like it or not Tom, there is plenty of elbow room with the stated times.
"About 12:45"
"three or four minutes"
"about quarter of an hour".

What is your definition of 'about'?

Most members have been around long enough know how inexact stated times can be, especially when most people didn't have a watch, and the common means of time-keeping was the local quarter-hour chimes from the nearest church bell.

Brown did say he had not looked at a clock in the chandlers shop (Telegraph). He also said he first came home at 10 minutes past 12, which seems sufficiently precise to suggest he may have had a clock at home, but that is of no help with sighting this couple.

Given the circumstances above, "about 12:45" could be 12:40-12:50, plus "3 or 4 minutes", could offer a time when passing this sweetheart couple at a minimum of 12:43 or a maximum of 12:54.
And we are in no position to determine what the exact time was when Brown saw the couple.

To me its irrelevant, as the woman was not Stride in my view.

I'm no less cogent of the elbow room in the timings given by virtually all witnesses, including constables. I always take that into consideration. However, as I mentioned before, James Brown must have been corroborated to some extent by the chandler. And, having a clock in his home, he's likely to be accurate as to the time he left the house. My guess (and it's only that) is that the chandler chop closed at 1a.m. and he was anxious to get there before it did. He likely got a discount on perishables.

Perhaps I haven't made the source of my frustrations clear. What frustrates me is that since the dawn of Ripper books - or at least the influential ones from 1987 on - James Brown has been automatically discounted by authors on the grounds that he saw his couple at 12:45 and his evidence isn't as compelling as Schwartz, who was on the street at the same time. He's further disregarded because of some phantom 'young couple' standing at the corner of Fairclough Street and Berner Street. As I demonstrated in Ripper Confidential using a variety of sources - including the Times report that is consistently edited by authors to misrepresent Brown's words - he left his house at 'about 12:45' and did not witness his couple until several minutes later. And, of course, there was no young couple by the board school at this time. I see no reason to doubt that Brown was the last person to have seen Stride as this is the conclusion reached from the best evidence and is not (to my knowledge) contradicted by anything else. But what irks me is when all this information is ignored for some outdated and error-riddled Martin Fido version that is demonstrably untrue. To the best of my knowledge, authors who have published since my book came out in 2018 have uniformly repeated the lie - either through ignorance or dishonesty (I'm not sure which is worse). I'm not asking for everyone (or anyone) to agree with me, but only to present all the evidence honestly and then make your counter argument for why BS Man and not Overcoat Man is the more likely suspect. Because he may very well be! Please note this rant is not directed at you (Wick) at all. It's more towards authors publishing books or articles who feel their theory needs to prop BS Man as Stride's killer. Please do so honestly by presenting both sides of the argument and explaining why you're propping for one over the other.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

It's because the young couple, as the woman herself stated, was long indoors before anything happened. As far as the historical record goes (which we can all agree is incomplete), Brown was the last person to see Stride alive other than her killer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom.

You can't let personal bias influence your thinking.
Regardless of your preferences, both Packer and PC Smith saw Stride with the same man about 12:30.
Your belief that Brown saw Stride is not a fact, but merely one interpretation.

At least Mortimer saw the body in the yard, and spoke to the female who had been standing on the corner. So Mortimer would know they were different women.

What you prefer to believe presents an awkward scenario where Stride is already placed beside the club, then she crossed the road to stand opposite, then walk back over to the yard to stand in front of the club.
But now you have her walking back down the street to the corner at 12:45, yet we have her being assaulted in the entrance to Dutfields Yard also at 12:45.

There's no benefit in placing her at the corner, away from the scene, at the same time as she is assaulted at the entrance to the yard.
It is an unnecessary diversion, with no justification.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom.

You can't let personal bias influence your thinking.
Regardless of your preferences, both Packer and PC Smith saw Stride with the same man about 12:30.
Your belief that Brown saw Stride is not a fact, but merely one interpretation.

At least Mortimer saw the body in the yard, and spoke to the female who had been standing on the corner. So Mortimer would know they were different women.

What you prefer to believe presents an awkward scenario where Stride is already placed beside the club, then she crossed the road to stand opposite, then walk back over to the yard to stand in front of the club.
But now you have her walking back down the street to the corner at 12:45, yet we have her being assaulted in the entrance to Dutfields Yard also at 12:45.

There's no benefit in placing her at the corner, away from the scene, at the same time as she is assaulted at the entrance to the yard.
It is an unnecessary diversion, with no justification.

This is circular reasoning. Of course Mortimer spoke to a young woman who was not Stride...a young woman who was very clear where and when she was with her young man. And a young woman Mortimer did not herself see near the board school after 12:30a.m. This is because the young woman was at the other end of Berner Street and had gone in by that time. This is simple stuff, Wick. It really is. Packer also stated he saw no one at that time. These are phantoms, my friend. Phantoms. Call me a purist, if you will, but I see no reason for all this fantasizing in the face of sworn testimony. Which is what James Brown offered.

And that Brown saw Stride was his sworn statement...not my interpretation. He was taken to the mortuary and identified her. Under Baxter's questioning he said, "I am almost certain she is the woman I saw," which is to his credit, given the short glimpse he had and all that had transpired since that night. But when he saw her face in the mortuary, he was certain.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I know what you getting at, but Krantz didn't see the men leave, he only learned about that when he came out of the print office.
Diemschutz could certainly have told Wess the next day, and Eagle did say he knew Diemschutz went with another member to find a policeman.
This only reinforces the likelyhood the 'chase' concerned Diemschutz and Kozebrodski.


Don't forget, the journalist is reporting a story by Wess, who was told by someone else.
For the reader, this is a third-hand story. We don't know where the "12:45" came from.

Jon, you're asking me to believe that Wess spoke to these men about what occurred as of 1pm and came away thinking the murderer had been chased from the scene at 12:45, and then Arbeter Fraint just happened to agree with this timing. It's not going to happen. Wess even claimed to have been told the name of the man that did the chasing and know that he was not a member of the club. Diemschitz and Kozebrodski were club members. The "Wess got confused theory" stumbles at the first hurdle. It stumbles again when you suppose that Eagle (or was it Koz?) was the man who 'escaped' to the top of Berner St. How did the "members of the public" manage to see this from Fairclough St? How did these phantoms decide that one man was chasing another, when they ran together? What did they suppose was going on when the men briefly stopped for Spooner? So many problems. What problem are you trying to solve in pushing this theory?

One thing I never do, is call witnesses liars.
If we can't deal with the evidence as is given, then we are creating our own fiction.

That's what I think about your "Schwartz got the street wrong theory". Wess wanted to protect the club. Others can debate if his lie was 'noble' or not.

What I was referring to was, only one man who set out actually returned to the yard, that was Diemschutz.
Spooner came with him yes, but he was not one who set out. This is the man "who was not a member", in the story.
Kozebrodski, though he set out, did not come back to the yard, he ran up to Commercial Rd. to find Eagle.

I see, so Spooner went into the yard with Diemschitz, while Kozebrodski continued on, and this was interpreted as Kozebrodski escaping Spooner! This misinterpretation was forwarded to Wess, who took it on board, including getting the time wrong, regardless of what senior club mem told him about the events of the night.

IK: I went in the direction of Grove street, and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial road, and there along with Eagle I found two officers.

There is no reason to suppose that Koz seamlessly transitioned from running back to the club, to continuing up to Commerical Rd. Furthermore, it seems when he did continue on it was with Eagle.

It's clear whomever first told the story had not spoken to those involved in the chase. Which suggests, the story did not originate by members of the Club.
There was another person seen by Brown, who tells us when he looked out his window, looking for whoever was shouting "police" and "murder", there was a man opposite who called for the policeman who had just appeared at the end of Christian St.
This man told the policeman he was wanted, in Berner St.
Maybe he saw the 'chase', but was not aware of the circumstances.

Wess makes it clear that he doesn't believe the story himself when he refers to the murderer "or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer". If he doesn't believe this story, why would any of us?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Schwartz?, do you mean Mortimer?
You can't make a strawman argument, they were not key witnesses.

No, I mean Schwartz. The young woman's about 20 minutes has them at their location no later than 12:45. Yet when Brown leaves home and walks to the shop he does not see them. Perhaps the 20 minutes was really 10, or Brown got to the shop shortly after 12:40. In the latter case, the couple are in a position to hear 3 not very loud screams, a call of 'Lipski', and see a pursuit along Fairclough St. They heard nothing unusual.

It isn't crucial at all, the couple was not in a good position to see anything.
They did not see the murderer, or the victim, or anything that led up to both coming together.
Also, we cannot say the police never found them. Witness statements taken by police have not survived.

In your next post you say ...

Now you are trying to dismiss them by pretending Brown was being geometrically, exactly, precise in placing the couple. I'll just assume you are joking.
All Brown said was the couple were "on the corner", and "by the wall".

This is in regard to Mortimer having line-of-sight to the couple from her doorstep. So, you simultaneously want Fanny to be able to see a couple at the board school corner, from her doorstep, but the couple must not be able to see anything going on at the gateway. Both cannot be true.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Not really, it depends when Mortimer spoke to them.
Mortimer would not have walked over to the corner, she became too preoccupied with the body in the yard.

More likely, once the commotion transpired, that second 'sweetheart' couple came over to the yard and spoke with Mortimer.

If you recall, Mortimer said she eventually came out after 1:00am, and Diemschutz said he passed the Tobacconists clock at the top of the street at 1:00 am.
So it was a minute or two after 1:00 when he pulled into the yard. He had to go in the club and raise the alarm, then the commotion began.
Mortimer heard the cart arrive, she heard the commotion, so it must have been near 1:05 by the time she came out.

If you want to be precise about the "20 min" estimate, then 12:45 to 1:05 is 20 minutes.
The sweetheart couple could have just arrived as James Brown entered the Chandlers shop. He only saw them on leaving the shop.

There is no problem in that scenario.

Where is Elizabeth Stride in this scenario? Eagle is making his away along the gloom of the passageway at 12:40. She is not at the gateway. Neither the couple nor Brown must hear anything as described by Schwartz.

What happens if the Tobacconist's clock is a few minutes 'ahead of time'?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I think that's one possibility, that the murder occurred shortly after Fanny closed her door. It would mean that Goldstein passed prior to 12:55, but I see no problem with that.

How can you not see a problem with that? Had the murder occurred after Fanny locked up for the night, the amount of blood loss would push Goldstein back to about 12:50. That means Fanny is at her doorstep shortly after 12:40, just after Eagle makes his way up the passage, which was just after Stride was seen by a PC, across the street talking to a man with a parcel.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Right now it does seem more likely to me that the Brown sighting happened after the Schwartz incident, but suppose Brown passes the couple at 12:50. What Brown heard suggests that they might be just about to part, so maybe they did that just after Brown passed. That would leave almost 10 minutes for the Schwartz incident and the murder, which I think is enough time.

You don't seem to understand the problem. In those 10 minutes, Stride must make her way to the gateway, wait for BS Man, be killed, and her blood trickle down to the side door of club, and Fanny must be at her doorstep to see a man walk down the street carrying a black bag, but see no one enter the gates.

[Wickerman]

. . I think Wick is saying that Schwartz did his best to give accurate testimony, but may have been mistaken about what street he was on. In that case, BS man wouldn't be Stride's killer because the woman he assaulted wouldn't have been Stride.

I see you are paying attention to remember which posters follow which theory.

Just to be clear, my suggestion about Schwartz is only that, a suggestion, to resolve the never ending question of why his evidence appears to conflict with the statements of other witnesses, it isn't my 'theory'.
In fact my 'theory' does not include Schwartz at all.

Right now it does seem more likely to me that the Brown sighting happened after the Schwartz incident, but suppose Brown passes the couple at 12:50. What Brown heard suggests that they might be just about to part, so maybe they did that just after Brown passed. That would leave almost 10 minutes for the Schwartz incident and the murder, which I think is enough time.

The first issue I have with Schwartz is, the story does not indicate where he ran. If he headed towards the Railway Arch, he can't clearly do that by running directly south because Berner Street dead ends at Ellen Street.
He must turn left or right on Fairclough, and if Pipeman came out of the doorway of the Nelson Beer House then it is unlikely Schwartz would run towards him westward on Fairclough.

Therefore, Schwartz must have run east on Fairclough, but why would the police report say he ran "as far as the Railway Arch"?
There is no railway arch in that direction.
The report does not say 'in the direction of the Railways Arches' - which may only mean he ran south, but to the Railway Arch.
We've looked on period maps, Insurance maps, and Ordnance Survey Maps, just to see if there was a solitary railway arch somewhere that may have been taken down at some point, but nothing has been found.

The only Railway Arches are several streets south and south west of Berner St., which makes it difficult to understand if, Schwartz actually passed down Berner St. Which then raises the question, did he get the name of the street wrong?

The Green circle is Dutfields Yard, the Blue circle is 22 Ellen Street, and the Red circles and boxes are where railway arches cross roads.




Part of the problem is also not being sure which of the two addresses we have are his lodgings - 22 Ellen Street, or an address in Backchurch Lane, and which was his old address and which the new one.

So, all things considered, if we remove Schwartz statement, does that leave a hole in the sequence of events that lead up to the murder?
And I think the answer is, no.

I think it is far simpler to just accept that Packer saw Stride with a man who bought a parcel of grapes, who then stood out in Berner St. and were both seen by PC Smith at about 12:30-35 am. standing opposite the club. They crossed back over to the club side, and that is the last we saw of Stride.
Parcel-man was most likely her killer.

[The Rookie Detective]

This is the interview with the female who was on the corner with her manfriend.

When the alarm of murder was raised a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty-minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

Mortimer refers to her (and her manfriend)

A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

The above two accounts refer to the same couple, my Couple #2.


The earlier couple is mentioned in this next report, my Couple #1.

It is established almost beyond doubt that the poor creature met her death some time between twelve and one o'clock. And yet no one seems to have heard a struggle, or a groan, or the slightest indication of what was going on. From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart.

"We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."

This very much sounds like the same couple.

[GBinOz]

I see you are paying attention to remember which posters follow which theory.

Just to be clear, my suggestion about Schwartz is only that, a suggestion, to resolve the never ending question of why his evidence appears to conflict with the statements of other witnesses, it isn't my 'theory'.
In fact my 'theory' does not include Schwartz at all.



The first issue I have with Schwartz is, the story does not indicate where he ran. If he headed towards the Railway Arch, he can't clearly do that by running directly south because Berner Street dead ends at Ellen Street.
He must turn left or right on Fairclough, and if Pipeman came out of the doorway of the Nelson Beer House then it is unlikely Schwartz would run towards him westward on Fairclough.

Therefore, Schwartz must have run east on Fairclough, but why would the police report say he ran "as far as the Railway Arch"?
There is no railway arch in that direction.
The report does not say 'in the direction of the Railways Arches' - which may only mean he ran south, but to the Railway Arch.
We've looked on period maps, Insurance maps, and Ordnance Survey Maps, just to see if there was a solitary railway arch somewhere that may have been taken down at some point, but nothing has been found.

The only Railway Arches are several streets south and south west of Berner St., which makes it difficult to understand if, Schwartz actually passed down Berner St. Which then raises the question, did he get the name of the street wrong?

The Green circle is Dutfields Yard, the Blue circle is 22 Ellen Street, and the Red circles and boxes are where railway arches cross roads.




Part of the problem is also not being sure which of the two addresses we have are his lodgings - 22 Ellen Street, or an address in Backchurch Lane, and which was his old address and which the new one.

So, all things considered, if we remove Schwartz statement, does that leave a hole in the sequence of events that lead up to the murder?
And I think the answer is, no.

I think it is far simpler to just accept that Packer saw Stride with a man who bought a parcel of grapes, who then stood out in Berner St. and were both seen by PC Smith at about 12:30-35 am. standing opposite the club. They crossed back over to the club side, and that is the last we saw of Stride.
Parcel-man was most likely her killer.

Hi Jon,

I have thought since you proposed your alternative that there is much to commend your hypothesis of a different street. This effectively eliminates BSMan, Pipeman and Schwartz's observation of the altercation in the gateway. So who of the named players are left for consideration?

My question all along has been...where is Parcelman. I would concur with your suggestion that he may be the prime suspect in your scenario, but I would also put forward some other possibilities of those known to be present at the time. Eagle, Lave and Goldstein.

I have previously posted evidence that those actually looking at clocks could be mistaken by +/- 15 minutes, and those who are estimating times from a base of said unsynchronised clocks are going to be more uncertain as to accuracy. Eagle and Lave are guessing with their times. Then there is Goldstein.

Cheers, George

[The Rookie Detective]

When the alarm of murder was raised a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty-minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.


It is established almost beyond doubt that the poor creature met her death some time between twelve and one o'clock. And yet no one seems to have heard a struggle, or a groan, or the slightest indication of what was going on. From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart.

"We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."




The final paragraph is the key.

The young girl lived somewhere in Berner St, but SOUTH of the murder site, because she walked past the gateway as she headed UP Berner Street just before midnight.

She walks ALONE northwards up to the junction with Commercial Road, where she then meets her boyfriend at the top of the street circa midnight.

They then walk together along Commercial Road and then back again to the junction with Commercial Road and together they then walk down Berner Street to stand on the corner, where they then remain for about 20 minutes.

The couple then say "Goodnight." and the boyfriend then goes to head back up Berner Street, but just before they part ways (they are facing north) they see a man walk from East to West across the top of Commercial Road heading towards Aldgate.

She then goes into her house in Berner Street and the boyfriend then walks up Berner Street to the Commercial Road.

Of course, IF the young girl lives between the murder site and Commercial Road, then she may have been Miss Letchford who lived at number 30.


But seeing as she walked past the yard alone as she headed up to meet her boyfriend at the junction with Commercial Road, then she must have lived South of the murder site.

There is another scenario whereby the couple had stood for 20 minutes at the junction with Commercial Road and Berner St, and just as they said goodnight, a man walks past them heading towards Aldgate as they are standing on the corner of Commercial Road.

The couple then walk down Berner Street as he takes the girl home to her house in Berner St.

So, did they stand for twenty minutes at the junction of Berner and Fairclough? Or at the junction with Berner and Commercial Road?


Regardless, it seems the couple believed the time Stride was murdered was around 12.30am, or certainly not as late as 1am.

Which rather oddly ties into Spooner's timings

if the couple left the corner around 12.30am, then Brown saw Stride later.

If the couple left the corner after the murder, then Schwartz lied and Brown saw the sweetheart couple and not Stride.

Not complicated at all then.

[Darryl Kenyon]

If we polled the entire forum, it might be true that most of those who believe Schwartz' story think that BS man was Stride's killer, but I think there are at least 4 in this discussion that that's not true of. Herlock, Tom, and Wick can correct me if I get their position wrong, but I think Herlock agrees with my position, which is maythat the Schwartz incident happened, but BS man may or may not be Stride's killer. I think Tom's position is that the Schwartz incident happened, but BS isn't Stride's killer. I think Wick is saying that Schwartz did his best to give accurate testimony, but may have been mistaken about what street he was on. In that case, BS man wouldn't be Stride's killer because the woman he assaulted wouldn't have been Stride.

Right now it does seem more likely to me that the Brown sighting happened after the Schwartz incident, but suppose Brown passes the couple at 12:50. What Brown heard suggests that they might be just about to part, so maybe they did that just after Brown passed. That would leave almost 10 minutes for the Schwartz incident and the murder, which I think is enough time.

Hi Lewis I posted this on another thread but feel it is relevant here -

If BSM killed Liz then there are certain points of conflict [ in my humble opinion ], within this theory.

1 - Schwartz saw a man stop and speak to Liz in the gateway of the club. He then attempted to pull her into the street . First red flag, would BSM actually do that if he intended on murdering Liz ? Why not push her into the darkened passage and attack her there. And if Liz did get in the club before he managed to subdue her, he still could have got away. Yes the same could be said of attacking Liz in the street but there, he is running the risk of someone like Mrs Mortimer seeing him or someone looking through the window from the upper floors of the club for instance.

2- Schwartz says he got as far as the gateway when he saw the altercation happen . Now he must have been more or less mere feet, if that, away from broad shoulders when he witnessed the assault. Again would the perpetrator then go on to deliberately murder Liz when he knows someone was very close to him at the start of the attack and probably got a decent look at him.

3- Schwartz crossed the street and saw pipeman . There seems to be little doubt that BSM saw pipeman as well, since Schwartz first thought the calling out of the word Lipski was aimed at the man with the pipe. Even if Lipski was aimed at Schwartz and not pipeman, again there can be little uncertainty that pipeman was not hid in any shadows etc, and viewable otherwise Schwartz would not think this. So in effect two witnesses.

4- Broad shoulders draws attention to himself by the cry of Lipski. Now are we really to believe he would do this if his main intention was to kill and mutilate poor Liz ?

The only scenario I can think of if BSM was Liz's killer is it was more manslaughter than premeditated murder IE The argument possibly escalated [ or Liz fought back ], and he struck out.
Trouble with this is there is little evidence for it . Liz was probably strangled, possibly by her scarf and then her throat cut swiftly and silently with no one hearing a sound, and yes those damned cachous in her hand plus no defence wounds .
If broad shoulders did kill Liz I would expect more of a full frontal assault with defence wounds , stabs by the knife, perhaps bruising on the face etc

BSM was not Jack, the whole scenario for the two to be one is wrong . Jack did not act the way BSM did [ pre murder ]. Yet if BSM was Liz's killer how come the killing was so similar to JTR. Again , strangulation, sudden and quick strike in the shadows , throat cut .

The answer is someone else murdered Liz that night other than BSM and the prime candidate is JTR.

Regards Darryl

[c.d.]

Hi Darryl,

All good points and I agree. The signs point to Jack but the problem is that the BS man seems very un-Jack like and has a lot of red flags if he was in fact her killer. The time line is close but I think Jack killed her after B.S. man left the scene.

c.d.