What's the compelling feature?

[Observer]

Hi c.d.

I've always wondered if you go to a sporting event in England, do the vendors yell out "get your room temperature beer here?"

c.d.

Vendors yelling out?

We don't need any prompting when it comes to quaffing beer mate.

all the best

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Ben

Hi Observer - It's not so much the time factor that undermines the "second attacker" proposal, but rather the unrealistic coincidence of her being attacked at the same location by two seperate attackers within minutes of eachother. Unless Schwartz lied, it's more probable than not that the man observed attacking Stride very shortly before her accepted time of death was her killer.


Cheers,
Ben

I'd agree it's unlikely that Stride was attacked twice that night, but not impossible. I'm surprised though that if Schwartz's attacker was her killer, then there was no signs of that type of attack, i.e. cuts and bruises to Strides body, I'd have expected her face to be more marked.

all the best

Observer

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi everyone,

I contend Schwartz and Lawende saw Jack the Ripper, based on their verified statements. Marshall has been introduced to tie his verified use of the word respectable to Schwartz's unverified use of the same word in the Oct 1 Star. I could say hooray in introducing Marshall because he said the word sailor. So did Lawende. But I don't need to.

Likewise, I could more boldly say "bring it on" and quote this unverified report from the Fifth Edition of the Star Oct 1:

"From two different sources we have the story that a man when passing through Church-lane at about half-past one, saw a man sitting on a door-step and wiping his hands. As every one is on the look out for the murderer the man looked at the stranger with a certain amount of suspicion, whereupon he tried to conceal his face. He is described as a man who wore a short jacket and a sailor's hat."

Fix the timing a little on that, and I could say aha, they said sailor, just like Marshall and Lewande But I don't need to. I can sit tight with the verified statements of Schwartz and Lewande. And a cut to the throat.

Roy

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

I'm surprised though that if Schwartz's attacker was her killer, then there was no signs of that type of attack, i.e. cuts and bruises to Strides body, I'd have expected her face to be more marked.

I guess that would be dependent upon the amount of resistence Stride put up. If he overpowered her rather easily, as appears likely, we'd expect fewer indications of a struggle.

Cheers,
Ben

[Jon Guy]

Out of interest, Jon, do you believe that the man is question was also the ripper of just Stride's killer? If you're looking for witness similarity, the suspects seen by Smith and Marshall are very similar, and the same may be said of Lawende and Schwartz's men.

I do believe Lawende and Schwartz were describing the same man, and I think Marshall saw the Ripper trying to "connect" with a possible victim.

I have always felt that Smith`s man was William West, who stated at the inquest that he left the Club to go to the printing office with some literature in his hands, which is what PC Smith noted in his man` s hands.

[Roy Corduroy]

I'd agree it's unlikely that Stride was attacked twice that night, but not impossible. I'm surprised though that if Schwartz's attacker was her killer, then there was no signs of that type of attack, i.e. cuts and bruises to Strides body, I'd have expected her face to be more marked.

Mr. Observer, she did have bruises and an abrasion:

" Over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collarbone and in front of the chest there was a bluish discoloration, which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since."

"there was an abrasion of the skin about one and a half inches in diameter, apparently stained with blood, under her right arm."

Hope this helps,

Roy

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"I will attempt to be exceptionally patient here. I hope to goodness I succeed, but no promises. A cutaway coat is completely different from a jacket regardless of how short or long it is. A cutaway coat is characterized by a long tail at the back (like with white tie and tails) and no Victorian would ever confuse it with a "jacket"."

Thank you for your patience, Ben! I hope it will enable you to take the time to check this out:

This, Ben, is from chapter five of “Madame Bovary” by Flaubert, published in 1857:
According to their different social positions they wore tail-coats, overcoats, shooting jackets, cutaway-coats; fine tail-coats, redolent of family respectability, that only came out of the wardrobe on state occasions; overcoats with long tails flapping in the wind and round capes and pockets like sacks; shooting jackets of coarse cloth, generally worn with a cap with a brass-bound peak; very short cutaway-coats with two small buttons in the back, close together like a pair of eyes, and the tails of which seemed cut out of one piece by a carpenter's hatchet.

And this is from the Ladies Home Journal, June 1895:
“A cutaway jacket is better for a young person than a coat of knee length”

On http://www.costumes.org/history/100p...ersguide9a.htm you can even find, from “The cutters practical guide”, written and published in 1898, a patter showing you how to manufacture a short cutaway coat – pictures, patterns and all.

From “The Musical News”, published in 1915, we have:
“The two brothers who now discharge the functions of Corporation Trumpeters may be said to be the modern representatives of the Waits. They wear short cutaway coats of dark blue plush, knee-breeches to match, a scarlet waistcoat, and buff gaiters, with jaunty jockey caps.”

...and that´s that, Ben. Sometimes the truth is only a short cut away (excuse the pun).

"You're taking the piss out of me, Fisherman. You must be.

You're honestly arguing that Smith and Marshall must have seen different men because one said 5"6' and the other said 5"7. I absolutely cannot believe what I'm reading. You may as well say that Schwartz and Marshall definitely saw different men because one said 5"5' and the other said 5"6'."

The thing is, Ben, Schwartz´s man was recorded as 5 ft 5. Marshalls as 5 ft 6 and Smiths as 5 ft 7 to 5 ft 8.
That means that Smiths man may have been three full inches taller than Schwartz´s, which is a big difference, whereas Marshalls man was within an inch just as long as BS man - easily explainable. And no piss.

“Nonsense. I never insisted that BS was a shabby type”

You described him as a” rough, tough, peaked-cap short-jacket wearing booze-befuddled fella” that would look anything but respectable. And you did it without using the specific term “shabby”. It was all in the police report, you said.

“Show me, for example, where the Star refers to BS wearing a cap with a peak?”

You have had your answer to that one, Ben, and it included the word “stupid”, so my advice is to not go there again.
It would be more interesting if you gave me the source you use for asserting that BS mans jacket was short. “Dark” is the one word I can find in either the Star OR the police report. Are you pushing the point that a jacket can´t be long – just like a cutaway coat just can´t be short…?

Nitpicking, is it, Ben? Good luck on that one!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

and the tails of which seemed cut out of one piece by a carpenter's hatchet

Faboulous effort, Fish, but I'm afraid you misinterpreted the article. Let's just have that quote again:

and the tails of which seemed cut out of one piece by a carpenter's hatchet.

So, the tail was there, you understand, it was just cut out of different piece of material. Or did you just read the article a bit too hastily, notice the word "cut", and thought the tail must have been cut off? A cutaway will certainly be knee-length at the back at least, it just wouldn't come down to the knees at the front.

That means that Smiths man may have been three full inches taller than Schwartz´s, which is a big difference, whereas Marshalls man was within an inch just as long as BS man - easily explainable

But Smith's man was just an inch taller than Marshall's man. Works both ways, I'm afraid.

just like a cutaway coat just can´t be short…?

It can, just not at the back, and that's what distinguishes it from a casual jacket, as your articles bear out.

Keep trying, though. Keep frantically googling to try to force fit the evidence into your conclusions.

[Jon Guy]

I'd agree, Glenn. Lawende reported a man wearing a "cloth cap with a peak" - a very common item of headgear at the time, as may be seen from any almost any photograph of the period, such as this one:
[ATTACH]1888[/ATTACH]

Practically all the males are wearing such caps, and dark jackets don't seem to be too thin on the ground either. I daresay one or two of them would have been of the salt-and-pepper type, if this photo was taken in season

Hello Sam and Glenn

I am not disagreeing with your points, the photo provided does validate what you are saying, although Lawende`s man had the appearance of a sailor, and Marshall`s man also had a cap with a peak like a sailor would wear.

If so ubiquitous, how is it that the only time in Ripper history a peaked cap is mentioned is when relating to that two hour period that Saturday night ?
Lots of billycocks, hawkers,felt hats,deerstalkers, skull caps,wideawake hats etc etc

Of course,George Chapman had a peaked cap too.

So, apart from Lawende, Schwartz, Marshall and Chapman, what have the Romans done for us

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"Faboulous effort, Fish, but I'm afraid you misinterpreted the article."

The article, Ben? It´s articles, plural, four of them, each one pointing to the fact that there were short cutaway coats around. Make no mistake about it. I even supplied the web address to a picture showing you that there were cut-away patterns offered in the 19:th century where it is blatantly obvious that a cutaway need hardly even reach over your bum. If it is cut up the back, it is a cutaway - the name is not derived from any need for long tails, Ben.

For some strange reason, you try to make this look like a lingustic failure on my behalf. So read again, Ben. Look again, Ben, especially on the pattern from the cutting manual, and THEN tell me that I am wrong!

And while you are at it, tell me where Schwartz speaks of a "short" jacket? It is your proposal, so I take it you have substance behind it. Do you?

Moving on, there is one more thing that you seem to have forgotten or at least paid very little attention to: What was that jacket of BS man called from the outset? That has tremendeous bearing on it all, has it not?

It is all very interesting, Ben: You state that a cutaway coat is at the very least knee-long at the back, whereafter I supply you with four different contemporary examples on SHORT cutaway coats, and what happens? You blame me for trying to force fit the evidence into my conclusions!
Do you always function like this? State something that is wrong, be presented with evidence pointing showing just that, and Booooh - you have been attacked by someone force feeding evidence. The only relevance I can see in that phrasing of yours is that it seems not to matter what I produce, you simply won´t swallow it. By principle, not by afterthought and admittance.

In the end, I do not HAVE to force feed any evidence, Ben. All I have to do is to show you that there were short cutaway coats and jackets around in the 19:th century, and your argument goes out the window. And quickly too. In fact, that swooooshing sound you just heard - guess what it was, Ben?

On the lengths of the men involved, it does not work both ways at all. We are trying to find out whether Marshalls man may have been BS man, and you have thrown forward that Smiths man and Marshalls man had more in common than Marshalls and Schwartz´s. But the interesting part here is of course the fact that Marshalls man tallies very well with BS mans length, whereas there is a clear discrepancy in length between Smiths man and BS man. In the end, it goes nicely to point out that Marshalls man and BS man have very, very much in common, undoubtedly much more than Smiths man and Marshalls do.

The best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ben and Fisherman (or vice-versa),

To prevent me from lapsing into a coma, could you two shake hands and agree that you'll never settle your differences?

The Swanson (Abberline)/Star accounts are irreconcilable. They make nonsense of one another. Pipeman morphs into Knifeman. People appear from different sides of the street. Schwartz has reached the gates/is approaching the gates when the attack on Stride takes place. The list of discrepancies goes on.

Let us, instead, address the question of why, if Schwartz was so pivotal to the timing of events in Berner Street [and it was Swanson who made him so], he didn't appear at the inquest. And, please, no bunny rabbit about Schwartz not speaking English. Abberline encountered no problems securing an interpreter for Charles Ludwig at the Thames Police Court on October 3rd.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Right, Ben! I took up on your advice to keep looking on the net for proof, and I found it. It is at:

http://www.uvm.edu/landscape/dating/clothing_and_hair/1880s_clothing_men.php?PHPSESSID=8e2f3b8a01fc53abc04d13c8e4917c76

It is from a piece on clothing in the 1880:s, and the text goes: "A cutaway jacket was introduced during the 80s that allowed the bottom of the vest and the watch chain to be seen. The jacket had three or four buttons that were buttoned to the top. Notice how the men's jackets in the image below are cut up from the bottom."

So, the part that gives the name to a cutaway is, it would seem, the part "cut away" at the lower front. And that would have been all it took to describe a jacket with such a front as a "cutaway", regardless of lenght or tails. Now, I am working on a VERY old computer, and it won´t allow me to load the picture for you. But it won´t be necessary, I believe, since it is perfectly obvious from this picture, just as it is from the cutting pattern I have already posted, that the short cutaway coat or jacket - presented in the 1880:s, mind you - only just reached down over the bum.

Simon, I´m sorry, but there is no way I am going to accept being accused of force-fitting evidence to fit my own bill when I have the means to show that it is as faulty as it is insulting. So prepare for whatever more coma Ben feels fit to feed you!

The best, Ben, Simon!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"Hi Ben and Fisherman (or vice-versa)"

Just love that one, Simon...! Easy does it!

The best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

My apologies. We obviously have a misunderstanding.

I haven't accused you of anything. On the contrary, I merely pointed out that there are so many discrepancies between the Swanson (Abberline) version of events and those of The Star that the whole subject is not worth arguing about.

I'm out of here before I upset you further.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

You are not upsetting me, Simon. And we have no misunderstanding.

The only one who has accused me of forcefeeding evidence to suit my purposes is Ben, not you. And that is why I wrote that you may have to live with a prolonged coma, since such things have a tendency to make me slightly vindictive.

Still I feel that the matter of the cutaway coat is soon settled, since I have shown Ben a number of examples of me being correct on the issue. I will move on to clothes collections and museums if it is not enough to make him see sense.
So please hang around, should you feel like it - any exchanges with you will be kept in as mild as civil a tone, I assure you!

The best,
Fisherman