Originally posted by Sam Flynn
View Post
"...a man wearing a tall hat and a black coat, and carrying a black bag,"
And this man described by Kennedy:
"...man about 40 years of age. He was about 6ft. high, and wore a short jacket, over which he had a long top-coat. He had a black moustache, and wore a billycock hat."
Are so similar as to be 'beyond coincidence', with the hi-lited details below?:
"Description age about 34 or 35. height 5ft6 complexion pale, dark eyes and eye lashes slight moustache, curled up each end, and hair dark, very surley looking dress long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astracan. And a dark jacket under. Light waistcoat dark trousers dark felt hat turned down in the middle. Button boots and gaiters with white buttons. Wore a very thick gold chain white linen collar. Black tie with horse shoe pin."
And no black bag, but:
"He also had a kind of a small parcel in his left hand with a kind of strap round it."
I'll grant you that "a moustache" and "a long coat" are the same, but how are those details so singular from any other mature male in Whitechapel, and why would any liar need to use a description found in the papers anyway?
Couldn't he think up one for himself, has he not seen how respectable men dress?
Gareth, are you able to 'respectably dress' an invented man without consulting the papers?
Which then begs the question, that as the Ronay/Kennedy suspect has already been described, wouldn't it make more sense, and be more believable to the police, to invent a man using the EXACT SAME details already published in the press?
Are you sure this constitutes "beyond coincidence"?
Comment