What's the compelling feature?

[c.d.]

It would seem to be a reasonable assumption that Jack began his mutilations immediately after killing his victim. But we also have to keep in mind that he was a serial killer and I therefore wonder if he had some sort of little ritual with his victim that he followed to the letter. That might explain why Liz was not mutilated...Jack was interrupted in mid ritual.

Just a thought.

c.d.

[Roy Corduroy]

...erasing the Schwartz incident does not solve her murder or clear up how it happened, but without Schwartz we don't have a testimony that's in conflict with others and we don't have a killer who acts in a manner that no doubt would have created more attention than it did...

Thanks Glenn, and sorry my question was so long. So it's a null set, then? No, you are saying there is a sequence of events and witness statements that lead to another conclusion. I understand. And again, sir, thank you for taking to time to acquaint me, a mere enthusiast, with the controversy.

Roy

Also, if anything I said, or if posting the photo of dogman offended so much as one resident of the British Isles, or anyone for that matter, I am sorry. Please accept my apology. You are welcome to poke fun at me. Nothing like laughing at one's own self. Call me Hillbilly Roy. In these parts, a "yard" is not an enclosed space between structures, but rather a good place to keep your autos, running or otherwise. Any less than a ½ dozen autos in the yard, and you are likely to be looked at askance.

Roy

[Jon Guy]

Hi Ben

Thanks for that

I like the neckerchief, I wonder if it's red coloured?

all the best

Observer

Hi Observer

Kidney was also famous for his waist length hair which he would throw over his left shoulder. I think this observation, and an alibi on the night of murder, eliminated him as a suspect.

[drstrange169]

Hello Michael,

I’ve got a doctor in the next room saying you are wrong.
I’ve got a copy of The Handbook for Forensic Medicine and Medical Police 1883
saying you are wrong.
The newspaper reports say you are wrong.
And now you are telling me the people who were actually on scene, Spooner, Lamb and Johnston got it wrong.
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink as they say. You should perhaps try Googling your theory of Victorian doctors being able to precise-time things better than modern day experts. Anyway I’m of to the Schwartz thread thanks for the chat.

[Observer]

Hi Sam

Hi Observer,Ah, now you're invoking the "Jack would have behaved like that" argument - alluded to in your earlier post I appreciate that you're playing the Devil's Advocate here, by the way - and, wearing that particular hat, you raise an interesting point. However, it was one thing to attack a stranger in Hanbury Street with the police on "Black Alert", but quite another to have killed someone in Dutfield's Yard then stayed out for up to an hour with the police on "Red Alert" and aware of the fact that a killer was on the streets that very night.

If Jack murdered Stride, and decided to kill again that night, I'd agree there was more risk of capture than there was during and after the murder of Chapman. I'd also agree that he, the Ripper, would have been aware of this fact. However looking at the audacity of the previous crimes, I'd say that it would not surprise me if after killing Stride the Ripper sought out another victim.


What had he to lose, most people here agree that he would be bloodstain free? He flees the scene of the Stride killing and puts 10 minutes between that particular murder ,and the murder of Eddowes. He arrives in Aldgate, everything seems calm over on the City boundaries, the patrolling officers are still unaware of Stride's murder, he sees Eddowes, remember at any time he can abort his intentions, everything seems fine so he goes ahead and murders her.

Could the double event have been intentional, i.e. he intended to commit two murders in one night? Stride's murder is the earliest of the five, did he decide to get an early start with Stride in order to fit another murder in that morning?


all the best

Observer

Hi Jon

Hi Observer

Kidney was also famous for his waist length hair which he would throw over his left shoulder. I think this observation, and an alibi on the night of murder, eliminated him as a suspect.

Ha, nice one, looks that way in the drawing. Who gave Kidney an alibi?

all the best

Observer

[perrymason]

Hi Dusty,

Hello Michael,

I’ve got a doctor in the next room saying you are wrong.

Please pass on my regards, but I believe the estimates on time to die after the cut, and time to bleed out after the cut are approximately accurate and were used by Blackwell and Phillips. Since you yourself used them I suppose your friend in the other room thinks we are both wrong then.

I’ve got a copy of The Handbook for Forensic Medicine and Medical Police 1883 saying you are wrong.

Congratulations, but again, I didnt create the estimates nor the period indicated. So youre accusing the messenger.

The newspaper reports say you are wrong

Heaven forbid that I should disagree with a press account, but the fact of the matter is I disagree with the press accounts that have been used that are by their nature alone grammatically incorrect. The one I used was not.

And now you are telling me the people who were actually on scene, Spooner, Lamb and Johnston got it wrong.

How many of those three are medically qualified.. making their opinions valid? And actually, if you can point out where I said anything of those three other than Spooner wasnt a medically qualified person, and he made other mistakes in his testimony, ide be obliged

You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink as they say. You should perhaps try Googling your theory of Victorian doctors being able to precise-time things better than modern day experts. Anyway I’m of to the Schwartz thread thanks for the chat.

Actually its more accurate in this case to say you can say anything about someone you want, or accuse them of saying things they hadnt, you can even be rude and obnoxious while doing so. But none of that makes you right.

I had thought you were engaging in legtimate dicussion, and intended to cordially do so, but I can see that that assumption was one that I did make in error.

But for accuracy sake, virtually none of what you accuse me of, other than suggesting Spooner's opinion was not of paramount importance due to the fact that it was dark and he didnt know squat about medicine, is accurate. I used Blackwells times, I used Blackwells and Phillips and other case histories on the death time after the cut and the bleed out time, and I used some common sense.

Cheers...and of course to the friends in your house who know so much about the Ripper cases and Victorian Medical Practitioners, their practices, their abilities and limitations, and all the various press reportings of them....many of which were inaccurate.

regards.

[Roy Corduroy]

Lo and Behold

In this thread, I gave my opinion that Schwartz and Lawende saw the same man. Other forum members, of whom I have the upmost respect for, argued that elements of the descriptions were not compatible, such as:

Excerpts, 1888

From the Star Oct 1 article based on reporter interview with Schwartz:
“He was dressed respectably with dark clothes and felt hat.”

At the Stride inquest, witness Marshall said "appearance of a clerk"

versus

From the Daily Telegraph Oct 12 reporting on Inquest testimony Oct 11 of Lawende:
“Did anything about their movements attract your attention? - No. The man looked rather rough and shabby.”

underlining mine
____________________________________________

In 1891 Frances Coles was murdered. In the Coles chapter of The Ultimate JtR Companion, an Illustrated Encyclopedia, Evans & Skinner, New York 2000, the authors, on page 557 stated this, and excerpted a newpaper article:

There can be no doubt that the police treated Sadler very seriously as a suspect for the Whitechapel Murders. This is apparent not only from the fact that he was personally interviewed by Swanson himself, but that an attempted identification of him for the City Police's Mitre Square murder was carried out. The police evidently thought that they had, at last, arrected "Jack the Ripper." The Daily Telegraph of Tuesday, 18 February 1891 carried the relevant report:

THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
EVIDENCE AT THE INQUEST.
SADLER'S ANTECEDENTS.

It was yesterday proved that the Treasury authorities attach the greatest importance to the arrest of the ship's fireman, Sadler, who is in custody for the murder of Frances Coles, in Swallow-gardens, on Friday morning last. At the resumed inquest Mr. Charles Mathews instructed by Mr. Pollard, was present to examine the witnesses, with the premission of the Coroner, Mr. Wynne Baxter, who whilst assenting to the arrangement, seemed impressed with its unprecedented character. Further, it is certain that the police are not neglecting the facts which came to light in connection with the previous murders. Probably the only trustworthy description of the assassin was that given by a gentleman who, on the night of the Mitre-square murder, noticed in Duke-street, Aldgate, a couple standing under the lamp at the corner of the passage leading into Mitre-square. The woman was identified as one victim of that night, Sept. 30, the other having been killed half an hour previously in Berner-street. The man was described as "aged from thirty to thirty-five; height 5 ft 7 in, with brown hair and big moustache; dressed respectably. Wore pea jacket, muffler, and a cloth cap with a peak of the same material." The witness has confronted Sadler and has failed to identify him. ...

underline mine.

Lo and behold, the very same newspaper which had the report of "rough and shabby" from Lawende later carried the Mitre Square witness description as "dressed respectably".

Thank you,

Roy

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Roy,

I would rely more on the Daily Telegraph's Oct 12 description of 'rough and shabby' for the smiple reason that it was written close in time to the actual sighting and also was a direct quote from Lawende.
Besides that, this is quite common and one of many problems with newspaper sources.

It also should be noted that the discrepancies between the Schwartz man and the Lawende man weren't just restricted to shabby versus respectable, but mainly also the fact that the Eddowes man wore details in his clothing that differed from the Schwartz man or weren't mentioned by Schwartz, like the red neckerchief and the salt-and-pepper jacket (while the Schwartz man only had 'dark clothing').
Besides the dark trousers, moustache and peaked cap (which could fit thousands or hundreds of men among the East End working class and probably ould be some of the most common elements), there is nothing that ties the two descriptions together.

All the best

[Ben]

That's a copy and paste, I'm afraid, if we're repeating old arguments:

Different witnesses pick up on different features. Schwartz was picking up more on facial features, probably at the expense of a more detailed "clothing" description, whereas Lawende clearly paid more attention to the man's apparel, probably at the expense of facial features. If Schwartz had said that his man definitely did not wear a red neckerchief, we can say they don't corroborate but they didn't. Otherwise, the age, height and clothing suggest a congruity, and it ought to be borne in mind also that a shabby appearance (and a sailor-like appearance) would have stood out more in the City than Berner Street near the docks, where sailor-like individuals were commonplace.

Schwartz' police account, as detailed by Donald Swanson, said nothing about the broad-shouldered man having a respectable appearance. That appeared in The Star, which made other claims that were in direct contrast to the statement.