Why No Stride Mutilations ?

[GBinOz]

I realise that this post was to a post by George but….

I really don’t see why we should use any more caution when speculating on timing errors than we should apply to accepting timings? Any time mentioned could have been wrong to some extent. We should have a high level of confidence in Blackwell of course, as you say, but even for him a watch can be a minute or two out.

Another suggestion….. could Pipeman and Parcelman have been one and the same? We all know about how inaccurate witness identification can be. Schwartz mentioned no parcel of course but the man was in a doorway in the dark and how sure can we be that he didn’t simply put the parcel under his arm while he was lighting his pipe and Schwartz just didn’t notice?

So scenario mk2…… the Schwartz incident occurs at 12.30 - Schwartz and BS man leave the scene - Stride crosses over to near the corner of Fairclough Street and Pipeman goes over to ‘check that she’s ok’ - Smith passes and sees them talking - they move around the corner where Brown sees them - they return to the gates (perhaps just intending to pass them on the way to somewhere else?) but Pipeman pulls her into the yard and kills her?

Hi Herlock,

I've a couple of 'wait a minutes" on your revised theory. There is a considerable height difference in the description of Parcelman by Smith and the description of Pipeman by Schwartz. Brown describes the man as wearing a full length, down to the ground overcoat, and doesn't see a flower on Stride, which doesn't match the other descriptions, and there was a report that a young couple occupied that spot, and Brown doesn't mention two couples. But your theory doesn't rely on that, so skip that part, and you have a possibility, albeit complete conjecture.

If the Schwartz incident occurred before the Smith sighting it could provide a reason why he may not have been called to the inquest. It would also explain why Mortimer missed the whole incident.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

So i guesss if ''Time'' is to used one way or the other for any senario of these murders, then Everyone could be correct ,or incorrect including brown,lamb kozebrodski . Ill stand by the one ive mention as the most likely of them all.

Fishy,

I live in eastern Australia and as I write this my clock is telling me it is 8:12 in the evening. Depending on where you live, your clock is telling you a different time. Are you right, or am I? It was the same, to a lesser extent of course, in London in 1888. The most likely times in 1888 were police times.

Cheer, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Of course the same could be said for today. However the similar descriptions given of two men seen with victims one hour apart, within at most 10-15 minutes of their deaths- as I say there is nothing that one could point to in order to dismiss this. It is too easy to dismiss it as something generic that could describe anyone. You have to consider the context in which those descriptions were given. You also need to compare them to other descriptions of men that night. Not very similar to those or even other descriptions from other murders. You just like to dismiss things to try and be innovative. Nothing wrong with that but it can leave you chasing your tail......

I am not sugesting that the descriptions be dismmised I am simply trying to explain that caution is needed when identification issues are concerned.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Never mind sunny there is a Schwartz statement, we all know that . So id just ignore such attempts to suggest otherwise.

and where is that statement ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Fishy,

I live in eastern Australia and as I write this my clock is telling me it is 8:12 in the evening. Depending on where you live, your clock is telling you a different time. Are you right, or am I? It was the same, to a lesser extent of course, in London in 1888. The most likely times in 1888 were police times.

Cheer, George

George, I also live on the East Coast of Australia , so i guess were both right . Point is Schwartz, Eagle Demiz and Blackwell could also have been just as ''right'' or wrong as you suggested, which is more probabale tho . ?

[FISHY1118]

and where is that statement ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You know where .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I've a couple of 'wait a minutes" on your revised theory. There is a considerable height difference in the description of Parcelman by Smith and the description of Pipeman by Schwartz. Brown describes the man as wearing a full length, down to the ground overcoat, and doesn't see a flower on Stride, which doesn't match the other descriptions, and there was a report that a young couple occupied that spot, and Brown doesn't mention two couples. But your theory doesn't rely on that, so skip that part, and you have a possibility, albeit complete conjecture.

If the Schwartz incident occurred before the Smith sighting it could provide a reason why he may not have been called to the inquest. It would also explain why Mortimer missed the whole incident.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

None of it is anything that I’m relying on of course but I was just thinking around 3 possibles. 1) that the incident might have been less serious than we’ve assumed, 2) that estimations of times can be wrong, and 3) that identifications can be mistaken/inaccurate.

I don’t think that I could face a whole thread on the subject though

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

None of it is anything that I’m relying on of course but I was just thinking around 3 possibles. 1) that the incident might have been less serious than we’ve assumed, 2) that estimations of times can be wrong, and 3) that identifications can be mistaken/inaccurate.

I don’t think that I could face a whole thread on the subject though

Those are 3 very good possibilities Herlock.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

''Another suggestion….. could Pipeman and Parcelman have been one and the same'' Yes



However given that Pipeman followed Schwartz who ran as far as the Railway Arch but Pipeman didnt follow as far. [ how far is the arch from where Schwartz started his run . ? How far do we estimate Pipeman got befor he stopped? , what problems now come into play if he had to double back to kill Stride ?. Its just possible also that Pipeman never returned to the spot where Schwartz originally saw him after finished following him .

It’s possible that he didn’t walk far before turning back. When we have a situation where we don’t know exactly what happened pretty much anything with reason couldn’t happen so Pipeman going say 5 or 10 yards past the corner then turning back isn’t much of a stretch of the imagination. Especially if he was thinking of there ding a woman there potentially susceptible to some attention.

[FISHY1118]

It’s possible that he didn’t walk far before turning back. When we have a situation where we don’t know exactly what happened pretty much anything with reason couldn’t happen so Pipeman going say 5 or 10 yards past the corner then turning back isn’t much of a stretch of the imagination. Especially if he was thinking of there ding a woman there potentially susceptible to some attention.

So the unknown makes for any number of different possibilities .?

[Trevor Marriott]

You know where .

There is no written statement from Schwartz and you know it

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

So the unknown makes for any number of different possibilities .?

I just think that errors can be made when estimating ties and we know that visual identifications can be inaccurate.

[Trevor Marriott]

I just think that errors can be made when estimating ties and we know that visual identifications can be inaccurate.

For far too long now researchers have placed too much importance to the descriptions of persons allegedly seen with Stride and also with Catherine Eddowes the next victim. To put these descriptions in the right perspective and to judge if they can be relied upon as being accurate we have to look at the current UK law regarding witness identification. The stated case I will refer to is R v. Turnbull 1976; from this case, certain identification guidelines were then adopted. A mnemonic used to remember the various points is ADVOKATE:

Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include the time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable?

Time-lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

I know these guidelines were adopted for use in connection with the identification of modern-day offenders and suspects however; they can still safely be applied to the various witnesses and the description they give from 1888. Taking all that into account I would reiterate that in any event the various witness descriptions are unsafe and should not be totally relied upon.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Exactly. It is a very good summary of what Schwartz said and ties in well with the press statement. So yeah I won't be going there with Trevor. I think it is something often overlooked the similarities between B.S man and Lawende's suspect. To my mind it's the same person although of course we can never prove it as the killer was never caught.

Bare in mind though, Lawende was unable to identify the body of Eddowes because he said he saw the woman from behind, he did not see her face (Insp. McWilliam). Most women wore dark clothing and it was only to that extent that he could make any identification. The point being, the woman may not have been Eddowes to start with.

At 1:35 am (give or take), when Lawende came out of the club, Eddowes and her killer may well have been in Mitre Sq., she may have been dead already. At 1:40 roughly, PC Harvey stood at the bottom of Church Passage but likely couldn't see the body across the square.
The body being discovered about 1:44 am by Watkins, makes it very unlikely that the murderer escorted Eddowes to that corner, murdered & mutilated her all between 1:40 - 1:44.
Swanson was equally doubtful (re: clothing only 'similar') about whether the woman Lawende saw was Eddowes.

I think modern theorists are more inclined to accept the woman being Eddowes as the path of least resistance, but the actual evidence leaves the question open.

[John Wheat]

For far too long now researchers have placed too much importance to the descriptions of persons allegedly seen with Stride and also with Catherine Eddowes the next victim. To put these descriptions in the right perspective and to judge if they can be relied upon as being accurate we have to look at the current UK law regarding witness identification. The stated case I will refer to is R v. Turnbull 1976; from this case, certain identification guidelines were then adopted. A mnemonic used to remember the various points is ADVOKATE:

Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include the time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable?

Time-lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

I know these guidelines were adopted for use in connection with the identification of modern-day offenders and suspects however; they can still safely be applied to the various witnesses and the description they give from 1888. Taking all that into account I would reiterate that in any event the various witness descriptions are unsafe and should not be totally relied upon.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's also important to note that we don't know if any witnesses actually saw Jack the Ripper.