Did Schwartz and Lawende Describe the Same Man?

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Yep, we're definitely churning out the contents of that earlier thread I referenced. Don't you find that a bit tedious?

Not in my wiew, though - to find a respectably clad man in a short cutaway jacket back in the 1880:s would have been quite common, I believe.

Depends on where you were. It wasn't likely to be very common near the docks in St. George-in-the-East. The trouble with the pic you produced is that, while interesting, it actually meshes up pretty well with the description of the Mitre Square man's coat.

The fact that BS man did not BEHAVE respectably does not mean that he could not have been CLAD respectably

True, but the police statement gave no indication that the man was respectably-dressed, and if, as you believe, it was "neutral" on that score, it's a much safer bet that the man in question blended in with his surroundings and didn't dress conspicuously; short jacket and peaked cap - pretty typical for that neck of the woods really.

Agreed. But since there is information in the sources stating that short cutaways were introduced at the time, there is nothing saying that it was NOT a cutaway either.

True, but nothing saying it wasn't a loose-fitting jacket either.

Agreed again. But we do have the combination of the Star quoting Schwartz as saying that he was respectably clad, and the fact that fashion introduced short, tight-fitting cutaway jackets back then. It is a combination that evokes my interest.

Oh, I don't negate the interest factor for one second, but interest alone doesn't entitle us to pin the cutaway on the suspect with no evidence, alas. You're still attaching signficance to the Star's "respectable" claim, with I find incautious considering that "respectable" was not mentioned in the police account.

If my suggestion holds any water, Marshalls and Schwartz´s men may have had all traits mentioned in common, nothing differing them at all, both clothing and stature seems the same, whereas you have salt-and -pepper coloration, a red hanky, a shabby, sailorlike appearance and a loose-fitting jacket to deal with if you want to compare Lawendes man to Schwartz´s.

This regrettably makes little sense. You're saying that if Schwartz's man wore what you're envisaging with no evidence, then he looked like Marshall's man. That's all fine and dandy, but I can just as easily retaliate with "If Schwartz's man wore a loose-fitting pepper and salt jacket and a red neckerchief", he'd be a dead ringer for Lawende's man." You don't get to pin wearing apparell with no evidence any more than I do.

I would point out that a sailor-like, shabby appearance would have been far more common in St. George-in-the-East (in fact, the most common look around) than in the better-heeled City of London, which is why such an appearance stood a greater chance of being noticed in the latter location.

He did not, Ben; the two left together, heading south!

Yes, but then he leaves her outside Dutfield's Yard some time later, heads north, turns round, goes back down Berner Street and kills Stride where he last left her....according to your theory.

And yes, we are repeating ourselves as long as this discussion is held inbetween the two of us.

Yeah, but is that productive though? Especially when we had this identical discussion a few weeks ago.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben!

"Yes, but in order to acheive this, we have to make several leaps of faith and endorse too many of your "if we accept"'s, in my view."

Not in my wiew, though - to find a respectably clad man in a short cutaway jacket back in the 1880:s would have been quite common, I believe. It seems enhanced by the pic I posted some time back from a fashion journal, where it was stated that these kinds of jackets were introduced at that exact time.

"No evidence from the police statement that Schwartz man looked respectable; it suggests the precise opposite."

I don´t read in anything at all saying something about BS man´s general appearance. There is no mentioning of any such thing in that report - it is quite, quite neutral in that sense. The fact that BS man did not BEHAVE respectably does not mean that he could not have been CLAD respectably.

"No evidence anywhere that Schwartz's man wore a "cutaway"."

Agreed. But since there is information in the sources stating that short cutaways were introduced at the time, there is nothing saying that it was NOT a cutaway either. Plus Schwartz would probably never have heard the word cutaway, being hungarian-speaking only as far as we know.

"No evidence anywhere that Schwartz's man wore a tight or close fitting jacket."
Agreed again. But we do have the combination of the Star quoting Schwartz as saying that he was respectably clad, and the fact that fashion introduced short, tight-fitting cutaway jackets back then. It is a combination that evokes my interest.

"Superficially, Schwartz's man has more in common with the man seen by Lawende at Mitre Square, though that isn't a conclusive identification either"
Know where you are coming from here, Ben, but I choose not to agree. If my suggestion holds any water, Marshalls and Schwartz´s men may have had all traits mentioned in common, nothing differing them at all, both clothing and stature seems the same, whereas you have salt-and -pepper coloration, a red hanky, a shabby, sailorlike appearance and a loose-fitting jacket to deal with if you want to compare Lawendes man to Schwartz´s.
To me - nota bene - that means that my two men have far more in common, especially if we allow us to believe that the Star reporter did not add "respectable" just for jolly.

"I'm also decidedly unpersuaded by the notion that the "clerkly" character hovered around buying her flowers, disappeared north leaving Stride where he left her".
He did not, Ben; the two left together, heading south! Here´s the relevant piece, from the inquest:
Coroner: "Did he speak like an educated man?"
Marshall: "I thought so. I did not hear them say anything more. They went away after that. I did not hear the woman say anything, but after the man made that observation she laughed. They went away down the street, towards Ellen-street. They would not then pass No. 40 (the club)."

And yes, we are repeating ourselves as long as this discussion is held inbetween the two of us. But this time over my wiew was offered as an answer in another direction!

All the best!

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

If we accept that the Star correctly quoted Schwartz on the point of BS man being respectably clad, and if we accept that the 1880:s fashion saw the introduction of short, close-fitting tail-less cutaway jackets, we have something that resembles a perfect match on these two

Yes, but in order to acheive this, we have to make several leaps of faith and endorse too many of your "if we accept"'s, in my view.

No evidence from the police statement that Schwartz man looked respectable; it suggests the precise opposite.

No evidence anywhere that Schwartz's man wore a "cutaway".

No evidence anywhere that Schwartz's man wore a tight or close fitting jacket.

Superficially, Schwartz's man has more in common with the man seen by Lawende at Mitre Square, though that isn't a conclusive identification either.

Superfically, Marshall's man has more in common with Smith's man, since both a cutaway and a respectable appearance are mentioned. Neither are mentioned by Israel Schwartz. I'm also decidedly unpersuaded by the notion that the "clerkly" character hovered around buying her flowers, disappeared north leaving Stride where he left her, only to do an abrupt about-turn an hour later, head down Berner Street again and decide to kill her instead.

Incidentally, there's a difference between "standing by" a view and repeating it too much. This is what we're currently guilty of, since all of this was covered in the thread entitled "What's the compelling feature?"

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Natalie Severn writes:
"PC Smith said nothing about the man being on the stout side and having a round face and I believe he would have if his man had been stout and broad-shouldered.He also stated he looked "respectable" which was not the case with Schwartz"s man who appeared to have been a bit drunk."

...and that brings us back to the trenches again! There are two elements involved here that need some clearing up:

1. Schwartz´s man as not respectable is NOT mentioned in the police report (which does not say anything about his general appearance), whereas the Star interwiew has Schwartz stating that BS man was respectably clad in dark clothes. We can choose to lend the paper an ear or not, but if we decide not to do so, we must remember that
2. Schwartz´s man was not drunk in the police report either! He was walking tipsily in the Star interwiew, but only there!

And I will - of course - stand by my wiew that IF any two of the observations described the same man, the ones most likely to have done so, are those of Schwartz and Marshall. If we accept that the Star correctly quoted Schwartz on the point of BS man being respectably clad, and if we accept that the 1880:s fashion saw the introduction of short, close-fitting tail-less cutaway jackets, we have something that resembles a perfect match on these two: Dark clothing, peaked cap, short dark jacket, dark trousers, respectable appearance (clerk-like according to Marshall), stout built, somewhere around 5 ft 5 to 5 ft 6. In my humble opinion, these men could well have been one and the same, and if they were, there is every reason to finally turn the investigation of Strides death into an investigation of a domestic killing.

All the best,

Fisherman

[DVV]

Natalie,

There is no mention anywhere that Lawende's man wore a deerstalker.
Lawende said the man wore a cloth peaked cap, which was used by the large majority of the working class population in whole of Europe. That is what the facts say - I don't think we should turn it into something it isn't in an attempt to make a connection.

All the best

Hi Glenn,
there is one mention of Lawende's man wearing a deerstalker: in Major Smith's memoirs. But I admit that is a confusion (one more) from Smith, and that explains why Norma could be mistaken.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

I'm going to copy and paste because we're repeating old arguments.

- A sailor-like man is more likely to be remarked upon in the City, though, whereas dockers and sailors were commonplace in St. George-in-the-East and therefore less likely to stand out. To my mind, there's nothing to rule out the possibility that Lawende and Schwartz saw the same man, and some reasonable indicators that they did.

- Different witnesses pick up on different features. Schwartz was picking up more on facial features, probably at the expense of a more detailed "clothing" description, whereas Lawende clearly paid more attention to the man's apparel, probably at the expense of facial features. If Schwartz had said that his man defninitely did not wear a red neckerchief, we can say they don't corroborate but they didn't. Otherwise, the age, height and clothing suggest a congruity.

Vundaba.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Natalie,

I do see where you're coming from though - a deerstalker worn by the man seen by PC Smith and the man seen by Mrs Long, and I think it's an interesting point and connection in itself. It's just that I am not sure it solves any business with the Schwartz and Lawende descriptions (as I don't really believe the man seen by Pc Smith was the same as the man seen by Schwartz).
Maybe something for a thread of its own?

All the best

I think you are right there Glenn.PC Smith said nothing about the man being on the stout side and having a round face and I believe he would have if his man had been stout and broad-shouldered.He also stated he looked "respectable" which was not the case with Schwartz"s man who appeared to have been a bit drunk.But James Brown described a man he said he saw at 12.45 wearing a hat on he could not describe and an overcoat down to his heels.This could be Schwartz"s man who 5 minutes later came back to rough Liz up for refusing him -but if it was then he had disposed of his overcoat!
Best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Natalie,

I do see where you're coming from though - a deerstalker worn by the man seen by PC Smith and the man seen by Mrs Long, and I think it's an interesting point and connection in itself. It's just that I am not sure it solves any business with the Schwartz and Lawende descriptions (as I don't really believe the man seen by Pc Smith was the same as the man seen by Schwartz).
Maybe something for a thread of its own?

All the best

[Natalie Severn]

Sure, Natalie, but we are not talking about the man seen by Mrs Long here. I can't see his relevance for this discussion.

All the best

ok Glenn point accepted

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Sure, Natalie, but we are not talking about the man seen by Mrs Long here. I can't see his relevance for this discussion.

All the best

[Natalie Severn]

Natalie,

There is no mention anywhere that Lawende's man wore a deerstalker.
Lawende said the man wore a cloth peaked cap, which was used by the large majority of the working class population in whole of Europe. That is what the facts say - I don't think we should turn it into something it isn't in an attempt to make a connection.

All the best

Glenn,
I said that I wasnt sure about Lawende.However I am sure about what Mrs Long said and that was he wore a "deerstalker"-this was most emphatically not a hat worn by the working class.The chap PCSmith saw was also wearing a "deerstalker"---so its unlikely he was of the working class either-as indicated by PC Smith.
All the Best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Natalie,

There is no mention anywhere that Lawende's man wore a deerstalker.
Lawende said the man wore a cloth peaked cap, which was used by the large majority of the working class population in whole of Europe. That is what the facts say - I don't think we should turn it into something it isn't in an attempt to make a connection.

All the best

[Natalie Severn]

Glenn,
I believe that the man described by Mrs Long and PC Smith and I think its the case with Lawende"s man too,all wore a "Deerstalker" hat .That is one with a peak back and front.I dont believe working class men wore such caps.It was a mark of a middle or upper class man---hence the description "shabby genteel".

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Most likely Schwartz and Lawende did not describe thet same man, and there is abslolutely no reason to even assume that they did.

Both their statements involve elements that are unreliable (meaning elements that usually are very difficult for any witness to estimate): descriptions height etc. They also contain elements like peaked cap, dark clothes and moustache - all elements that would fit hundreds, if not thousands in East End and therefore are totally useless.
Wearing a peaked cap in those days were incredibly commonplace among the male working class, and don't even get me started on the moustache! Just look at ever bloody photograph from the time period.

Now, the only element that are of ANY IMPORTANCE whatsoever - describing an item that stands out from any general description - is the red neckerchief, which only is worn by Lawende's man. Lawende also speaks of a salt-and-pepper jacker which means a jacket that is made out of speckled material and not black. Now, Lawende, wasn't that close to the pair and he only looked at them briefly, but he still managed to specifically determine a salt-and-papper fabric and not black.

Needöess to say, I have no idea why some people insist on why the witness are describing the same man. Debating such things as height etc. is just silly and anyone who has any experience in witness descriptions would know that estimates as these are extremely.

All the best

[Ben]

What I meant was solely that I managed to convince you that a cutaway jacket did not need to have tails in them days

But it wasn't a cutaway in the conventional sense, Fish; the dictionary definition of a cutaway. That's all.