Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[lynn cates]

yes

Hello Jon. Precisely.

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

"Peaked cap" is a pretty generic term though. Are we talking about a Sailors peaked cap, a railway workers peaked cap, a casual peaked cap, or a deerstalker peaked cap?
If we knew the exact same style was being referenced then it might mean something, only 'might' because peaked caps were common and cheap.

IMHO it doent matter. We have 3 witnesses describe the same kind of hat-marshall, Schwartz, lawende. we have smith saying deerstalker-a cap with a peak and brown who said he had some kind of hat. throw in church street man and well how many witnesses would you need before the coincidence is overwhelming? I mean throw out smith brown and church man and that's still 3 very good witnesses at two separate murder sites. come on now-what are the chances?

if the situation was today and 3 or more witnesses describe a suspect with a type of baseball cap I think one could assume fairly accurately that the killer wore a baseball cap. And I am pretty sure baseball caps today are way more common than sailors caps were back then.

[Jeff Leahy]

I've always said that either Stride was a Ripper victim, or Schwartz's testimony is legitimate, but not both. This is a good summation of why I hold that view.

Of course, I choose to discount Schwartz rather than discount Stride as a Ripper victim. But if one day Schwartz's account is backed up by something, I will immediately join the Stride-by-another-hand club.

Hi Marte

I read your post with amusement. As its almost the exact oposite of the argument I regularly had with Paul Begg.

I'll leave everyone else to figure it out.

Yours Jeff

[Dr. John Watson]

There is a slight problem matching the clothing description given for BS man and the description of the fellow seen with Eddowes: Schwartz said his man had "dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak." Lawende described his man as wearing "pepper and salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck."

Admittedly, poor lighting might affect how well one perceives colors, but black and grey shouldn't be confused that easily, and Schwartz said nothing about a red kerchief. Photographs of East End crowds taken during that time period show many males of all ages wearing peaked caps, so it's certainly possible that Schwartz and Lawende are describing two different men.

John

[GUT]

G'day Abby

if the situation was today and 3 or more witnesses describe a suspect with a type of baseball cap I think one could assume fairly accurately that the killer wore a baseball cap. And I am pretty sure baseball caps today are way more common than sailors caps were back then.

Certainly, but would it prove it was the same man in the Baseball cap each of the three times?

[Damaso Marte]

I do not believe that anyone could behave as BS Man did, and also successfully commit the murders of Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes (and Tabram too, for that matter). The hallmark of the other crimes for me are the stealth of the killer. He killed under people's bedrooms, he killed near watchmen, he killed on routes regularly patrolled by police. In at least one case, he may have come within seconds of being seen by an oncoming witness.

I do not believe a rowdy brawler like BS Man could have done that. No matter what kind of hat he is wearing.

[Wickerman]

I do not believe that anyone could behave as BS Man did, and also successfully commit the murders of Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes (and Tabram too, for that matter). The hallmark of the other crimes for me are the stealth of the killer. He killed under people's bedrooms, he killed near watchmen, he killed on routes regularly patrolled by police. In at least one case, he may have come within seconds of being seen by an oncoming witness.

I do not believe a rowdy brawler like BS Man could have done that. No matter what kind of hat he is wearing.

Which has formed the solid basis for the objection that Stride's killer was Jack the Ripper.

In Berner St. a staggering drunk assaults Stride, yet 40 minutes later a stealthy killer slaughtered Eddowes?

[Damaso Marte]

Which has formed the solid basis for the objection that Stride's killer was Jack the Ripper.

In Berner St. a staggering drunk assaults Stride, yet 40 minutes later a stealthy killer slaughtered Eddowes?

Which is why I said I would reject Stride as a Ripper victim, if I believed Schwartz. Of course, I don't find Schwartz credible. But despite being a defender of orthodoxy and the traditional C5, I'll defend the idea that Schwartz and Stride-as-Ripper-victim are incompatible.

[lynn cates]

coda

Hello Jon. Your second sentence just about says it all.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

If anyone wants to believe that the B.S. man killed Stride, they have to come up with an explanation for the following:

1. Why he would murder Stride after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man. It would be reasonable for him to assume that Schwartz ran off to find the nearest policeman and the only thing that the B.S. man had done at that point was to throw a woman to the ground. Hardly a hanging offense.

2. The cachous - The cachous (which were just wrapped in paper) would have had to have survived Liz being thrown to the ground in which case you would expect that she put out her hands to break her fall. Neither did they scatter if she pushed herself upright by putting her weight on her hands as she got up. Also, if she were dragged to where she was killed and she attempted to fight off the B.S. man, they survived that as well. To me, that indicates that she took them out later after he had left.

3. Why no one (post Schwartz) heard any argument or cry for help.

4. Why Liz had no marks on her face as if slapped around in an argument.

5. Why her clothes showed no sign that she had struggled with her killer.

6. Why she was not cut anywhere else on her body which would indicate anger and passion in the attack.

To me, everything indicates that Liz was caught off guard when she was killed. I don't see how that would be possible if the B.S. man was her killer.

I have no reason to disbelieve Schwartz but simply accept that he reported what he thought he saw taking into account the added burden of having to use an interpreter. Some posters have stated that the idea of another man (her killer) appearing after the B.S. man left as being way out there. I don't see how that can be so if the police at the time were willing to consider it as a possibility. I think the B.S. man left the scene and Jack came on stage shortly after.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Excellent points, CD, and one in particular triggered some new thoughts. Well, new to me:

2. The cachous - The cachous (which were just wrapped in paper) would have had to have survived Liz being thrown to the ground in which case you would expect that she put out her hands to break her fall. Neither did they scatter if she pushed herself upright by putting her weight on her hands as she got up. Also, if she were dragged to where she was killed and she attempted to fight off the B.S. man, they survived that as well. To me, that indicates that she took them out later after he had left.

... and as (or before) she went to eat one, another man came up to her and cut her throat? Within minutes of Schwartz's sighting, and at practically the same spot?

(I think you may well be right about when she took out the cachous, by the way, and your reasons for coming to that conclusion are sound.)

[c.d.]

Hello Sam,

I think that other man would have been a client and that he was Jack. If she were a street veteran, and the whole B.S. man encounter was just a par for the course harassment, I see no reason for her to move to another spot.

Yes, the timing for another man being her killer is cutting it close (no pun intended) but no matter how much you tweak the time, there is enough time for another killer. Again, the police considered this a possibility.

c.d.

[The Good Michael]

CD,

The problem (a problem?) we encounter with a 2nd man being the killer is that he most probably would have seen/heard what Schwartz had and that maybe there was trouble brewing, so how would he have thought that he would have the time to do a proper job? it could be, as you've said, that this kind of roughing up of a prostitute was par for the course and the killer thought nothing of it, but I would put him at a level of caution just a but higher than that.

Cheers,

Mike

[c.d.]

Your point is a good one. If the B.S. man feared that Schwartz ran off to get a policeman, then anyone watching what took place would have probably had the same thought.

Two possible explanations:

1. Her killer did not see what took place between Stride and the B.S. man.

2. He (Jack) was so aroused by what he saw that he decided to take his chances and went ahead with the murder.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Assuming this unknown 3rd man existed, it could be said he took advantage of the fracas taking place. Any witnesses would naturally blame this drunk (BSman), and the killer's true presence would remain unknown.

Which is precisely what happened.

If this 3rd man had been out in the open, in the street, he could have been mentioned by witnesses. As he wasn't, I see him being in the yard with Stride already, somewhere in the shadows.

The scenario might be that Stride was already with someone in the entryway to Dutfields Yard (why else would she be there?).
As the staggering drunk suddenly appeared on the scene, the killer stepped back into the shadows.
Stride is assaulted, she falls, witnessed by Schwartz walking quickly passed, and when she gains her composure the killer pulls her into the shadows and kills her.
Result, everyone saw BSman assault her, but no-one saw her true killer.