Did jack kill liz stride?

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello Jon.

"She had just pulled the packet out from her pocket, or had been handed the packet by someone, then the attack commenced."

Now you're talking.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

taste

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

The Yank analogue--Sen-sen--are equally disgusting. The flavour seems to be licorice, the only taste on God's green earth I cannot abide.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

biscuits

Hello Tom. "Cookies" are what you accept on your computer; "biscuits" are taken with one's tea. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

The flavour seems to be licorice, the only taste on God's green earth I cannot abide.

Then you will never appreciate how the taste of coffee is changed while eating mint chocolate.

[Tom_Wescott]

Because that's what a biscuit is! ...Since days of Yore!
Which, incidently, predates the colonies

What I want to know is why Americans call scones a biscuit?

No, biscuits are big fluffy things that you pour sausage gravy on. You guys really need to catch up!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bridewell]

In regards to someone telling Swanson that he made a boo boo by reporting old news, I can see that happening and then Schwartz never being talked about again. Sound familiar? Because that's what has happened!

Swanson knew more about the Whitechapel Murders than anyone and, in the absence of Anderson (who was out of the country until the Double Event), remained the de facto head of the enquiry. Who was in a position to tell him that he was in error?

[Wickerman]

No, biscuits are big fluffy things that you pour sausage gravy on. You guys really need to catch up!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I'll take your word for it Tom, I've never poured gravy on a pair of slippers.

[Tom_Wescott]

Swanson knew more about the Whitechapel Murders than anyone and, in the absence of Anderson (who was out of the country until the Double Event), remained the de facto head of the enquiry. Who was in a position to tell him that he was in error?

The people who post on Stride threads.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I'll take your word for it Tom, I've never poured gravy on a pair of slippers.

Do they have sausage gravy in England? And not that godforsaken blood sausage. I mean real sausage that's been cooked. When done right its amazing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

"She had just pulled the packet out from her pocket, or had been handed the packet by someone, then the attack commenced."

Now you're talking.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.
Either way, there seems to be a disconnect from the assault by BS-man.
She likely did not have them in her hand when BS-man pushed her down.

I would like to see an add from a 19th century British newspaper which shows what cachous did look like then.
Not modern images available on Wiki, but contemporary images.

[Bridewell]

If you postulate that Schwartz is lying, you create a scenario in which a man gives himself a bogus justification for having run away from the scene of a murder. Such a scenario would have made Schwartz so suspect that an arrest would be more than justified. Is there anything to suggest that such an arrest was ever made? If not, I hold to the belief that the account given by Schwartz was seen as credible.

The fact that the time he gives (12.45am) doesn't accord with those given by other witnesses is of small consequence to anyone who accepts that all such timings can only be approximate, depending on how the individual witness arrived at the time given. Did he/she own a watch? If so, was it accurate and reliable? If not, how was the time arrived at? Guesswork, approximation, a rough calculation of the time which had elapsed since that witness last saw a clock (or heard it chime); then the accuracy, or otherwise of that clock and of the subsequent calculation. All timings have to be seen as approximate. I realise that this is not liked by those who wish to draw hard and fast conclusions based on an assumption of accuracy in such timings. The fact remains that no such assumption can be justified.

If more evidence is needed of the approximate nature of the times given by various witnesses, we need do no more than note how often the minutes of such times are divisible by five, It's not coincidental.

[Sam Flynn]

still trying to figure out why Brits refer to cookies as 'biscuits'.

Comes from French "bis" (meaning "twice") and "cuit" ("cooked"), referring to the two-stage method originally used to produce them. The first stage was to bake the dough, the second stage was to harden them by drying them in the oven.

[Tom_Wescott]

Comes from French "bis" (meaning "twice") and "cuit" ("cooked"), referring to the two-stage method originally used to produce them. The first stage was to bake the dough, the second stage was to harden them by drying them in the oven.

Well, that sounds more like a cookie than a biscuit. So once again, the British term makes more sense than the American. I happen to also prefer that Brits refer to the first floor of a building as 'first floor' whereas here we say 'ground floor' and call the 2nd floor the 'first floor'. I've discovered that when writing the Tabram murder for a mixed crowd of Brits and Americans it's hard to keep this straight for the reader.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

If you postulate that Schwartz is lying, you create a scenario in which a man gives himself a bogus justification for having run away from the scene of a murder. Such a scenario would have made Schwartz so suspect that an arrest would be more than justified. Is there anything to suggest that such an arrest was ever made? If not, I hold to the belief that the account given by Schwartz was seen as credible.

The fact that the time he gives (12.45am) doesn't accord with those given by other witnesses is of small consequence to anyone who accepts that all such timings can only be approximate, depending on how the individual witness arrived at the time given. Did he/she own a watch? If so, was it accurate and reliable? If not, how was the time arrived at? Guesswork, approximation, a rough calculation of the time which had elapsed since that witness last saw a clock (or heard it chime); then the accuracy, or otherwise of that clock and of the subsequent calculation. All timings have to be seen as approximate. I realise that this is not liked by those who wish to draw hard and fast conclusions based on an assumption of accuracy in such timings. The fact remains that no such assumption can be justified.

Who are you posting this to? As for the clock, one was visible to Schwartz as he turned onto Berner Street from Commercial Road. It's the same clock Diemshitz used to fix his time and probably the same for Smith, who I don't believe carried a watch.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bridewell]

Who are you posting this to?

I'm posting it to those who argued, earlier on this thread, for Schwartz being a liar, especially to the individual poster who used the time discrepancy in support of that argument.

As for the clock, one was visible to Schwartz as he turned onto Berner Street from Commercial Road. It's the same clock Diemshitz used to fix his time and probably the same for Smith, who I don't believe carried a watch.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Diemshitz noted the time by a clock on Commercial Street and thereafter made an estimate based upon that clock which may or may not have been accurate. That is the point I was making. As for Schwartz, the same clock may have been visible to him but there is, so far as I am aware, no evidence that he looked at it, or that he had any reason to do so.