What's the compelling feature?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

One factor which I believe is often overlooked is that, between 1886 and sometime in 1888 (possibly as late as September of that year), Stride and Kidney had lived together at 35 Devonshire Street (now Watney Market), which was barely a third of a mile away from Berner Street (Henriques Street). The two locations are indicated by the red and blue crosses on the map below:

[ATTACH]1964[/ATTACH]

In other words, it appears that Liz was killed in what until quite recently had been hers - and Kidney's - stomping ground. They would both have been familiar with the area, its pubs, and many of the people who frequented them. Stride and Kidney may well have still frequented the same pubs themselves.

A very interesting observation, Sam. I certainly had overlooked that one. Intriguing.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Mitch writes:

"Schwartz could have been lying"

Absolutely, Mitch. And so could Long. And so could Cadoche. And so could Gardner. And so could Barnett. And so could Hutch. And so could Best.

Come to think of it, so could Abberline.

Thing is, long as you cannot prove it, you had better to prepare for living with that. And if you have taken part of the discussion on this thread, it should be patently obvious to you that the man mentioned by Schwartz looked very much like a man testified about by a completely different witness.

The best,
Fisherman

No Fisherman,

You're missing the point here.
There are indeed valid reasons for questioning Schwartz's statement; as has been said before, Mr Letchford's sister and Mrs Mortimer both were outside their houses on Berner Street at the time of the Schwartz incident, and none of them saw or heard a thing (except for Mortimer who saw Goldstein, a sighting that ws later confirmed).
Arguing that 'the others could just as well have been lying if he could' is not valid, because these inconsistencies are not displayed in connection with the ones you compare with. The often debated issue with Cadosch, Long etc. is not really a big thing, since those time discrepancies is something that has to expected in connection with the time estimations of witnesses. Besides, Long were a witness oustide on Hanbury Street and and Cadosch in the back yard, so it's not really the same thing.

Schwartz's ststement is more problematic since it contradicts other statements by witnesses present on approximately the same spot on same street on the same time where two other witnesses didn't see anything (and they most likely would have) plus that other witnesses and factors on that place don't leave much room for fiddling around with the timing since the time frames and empty spots are very limited.

I am not saying that Schwartz was lying (I admit I do have a problem with finding a motive for him to lie, although people do this for many odd reasons), only that the short time frames with a lot of busy people coming and going on the scene - added with the fact that his statement is unsupported by other witnesses who also were there at approximately the same time - must leave room for the possibility.

In short, in Schwartz's case we are not just simply talking about timing discrepancies but also about a sighting that is not supported by others who were there at the same time. This makes the issue much more complex than in Cadosch's or Long's case.

All the best

One factor which I believe is often overlooked is that, between 1886 and sometime in 1888 (possibly as late as September of that year), Stride and Kidney had lived together at 35 Devonshire Street (now Watney Market), which was barely a third of a mile away from Berner Street (Henriques Street). The two locations are indicated by the red and blue crosses on the map below:

[ATTACH]1964[/ATTACH]

In other words, it appears that Liz was killed in what until quite recently had been hers - and Kidney's - stomping ground. They would both have been familiar with the area, its pubs, and many of the people who frequented them. Stride and Kidney may well have still frequented the same pubs themselves.

Interesting observation Sam, and I think it might fit into my supposition that BSM had seen Liz soliciting before, and might not take kindly to being turned away.

Liz's case does have some odd things as side notes,.. Batty Street being a stones throw from Berner and Dutfields Yard, the site of Lipski, the Jewish killer the year before, and the "Lodger" who caused some concern to his landlord, and police, during the killings. Liz also lived in Poplar at one time, and living not more than 2 or 3 blocks away from that location a young man who may have known her and has been "disturbed" all that Fall kills himself, by cutting his own throat, on the day Mary Kelly is buried. She was also said to have dated a policeman, the brother or cousin of the people she kept house for at one time.

Not necessarily relevant at all, but she and her family drowning story and all the other tidbits make for interesting reading.

Best regards.

[Fisherman]

One thing that has not yet surfaced is this:

Let´s assume that Marshall´s man and BS man actually were one and the same. What does that mean in Kidney´s case? Well, it pretty much puts him in the clear, since he was recalled to the hearings on day four of the proceedings - the very same day that Marshall was there, offering his evidence!
Of course, Marshall never got a good look at the face of his man, so maybe not anyhow ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Interesting stuff, Sam! Thanks!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Michael!

You write:
"Im not interested in debating this coat issue with my friends Ben and Fisherman, but was'nt Schwartz's clothing called in at least one instance "theatrical looking"

Yes, Schwartz has been described thus. It has even been thrown forward that he could have been a less reliable witness due to his profession, something I think is a slightly clumsy remark.

Whichever, we are not debating Schwartz´s clothes, Mike - we are scrutinizing the garments worn by three other men, BS man, the man seen with Liz by Marshall at 11.45 PM, and the man seen with her by PC Smith at about 00.30 AM.

So Schwartz´s own clothing is unmined territory - feel free!

The best, Michael!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Another compelling feature?

One factor which I believe is often overlooked is that, between 1886 and sometime in 1888 (possibly as late as September of that year), Stride and Kidney had lived together at 35 Devonshire Street (now Watney Market), which was barely a third of a mile away from Berner Street (Henriques Street). The two locations are indicated by the red and blue crosses on the map below:



In other words, it appears that Liz was killed in what until quite recently had been hers - and Kidney's - stomping ground. They would both have been familiar with the area, its pubs, and many of the people who frequented them. Stride and Kidney may well have still frequented the same pubs themselves.

[Fisherman]

Phew, Ben!

First and foremost, I will happily smoke that peace-pipe with you. I am glad that you do not think it impossible.

Moving on to the subject, when you say "Nope, it wasn't a cutaway as the term defines on account of it lacking a tail" I despair to some extent, Ben. Surely, when I can produce a picture of a cutaway coat with no tails - and it is very clearly named a cutaway coat in the context - you must admit that there was cutaways around with no tails? I fail to see how you could not do so, I must say. What if I come up with an expert´s assertion that the normal cutaway coat in the 1880s East end would have been a short jacket with no tails? Will that still see you replying "No, that can´t be right, since a cutaway has to have tails"? Surely you will bow to expertise, Ben?

Having gone through lots of material on the net, and having tried to make an unbiased assessment of it all, my guess is actually that the garment that was refered to as a cutaway by Marshall, was in no way an uncommon one among clerks and such. As you know, I believe that it was a shortish jacket with no tails at the back and nothing more to tell it from an ordinary jacket by than the obliquely cutaway pieces at the lower front. My guess is that it was a very, very common jacket on the streets. But we will know more as/if we get some answers from the institutions I have contacted!

I am confused by this:

My words:
"It is about the question whether Marshalls mans jacket, described as a cutaway, could have been a shortish jacket, much resembling the ordinary jacket of them days, with no tails. And that it could"

Your words:
"Indeed it could.
Trouble is, it could equally have been a loose-fitting jacket of the order described by Joseph Lawende."

...since it here seems that you agree that Marshalls man´s jacket could have lacked tails. Surely that is a mistake on your behalf?
Anyways, I do not understand what "trouble" would be connected with the possibility that all three men, BS man, Marshalls man and Lawendes ditto, could have worn short, tailless cutaways? My guess is that Lawendes man and BS man were not one and the same, but I have nothing invested in this belief of mine - if the short, tailless cutaway was an ordinary thing, then it stands to reason that it has bearing om Lawendes man too, and that´s about it.
Like I said before, though, the clerklike man Marshall describes would probably not have had a loose-fitting jacket, but a tight-fitting one, since that was prescribed by fashion in the 1880s (the jacket on the picture I sent was an earlier model by some decades).
This would mean that Lawendes man was not only a shabby, rough man, but also probably rather unfashionable, adding to the description of a man at the lower end of the respectability scale.

All in all, Ben, the wise thing to do as we await the hopefully soon arriving statements of the expertise on the museums I have contacted, may be to let this lie where it lies for the moment being. I will gladly do so, just as I will respond to whatever questions you may want my opinion on, on the issue!

All the best,
Fisherman

Im not interested in debating this coat issue with my friends Ben and Fisherman, but was'nt Schwartz's clothing called in at least one instance "theatrical looking"? Maybe by the reporter who "ran him down" after the news of his account was known?

Just wondering about "theatre" as relates to the entrances and exits and surroundings in and around Dutfields that night. Everyone seems to come and go at just the right time to see no-one else, even when they say they were in the same place at the same time...Eagle and Lave for example. Also very much like Mitre, with Harvey and Jack, or Jack and Watkins...or Watkins and Harvey.
Cheers.

Jon and Ben, you make a good point that she could have had the cashous in her hand as she waited by the gates, and when BS meets up with her, based on my idea that she was loitering for some reason, but perhaps not soliciting.

I picture her getting up from the altercation with BSM and brushing down her ankle length skirt a bit though, adjusting her clothing a bit, and that would be awkward if she had something in her hand. Why I suggested after that first "assault" is that the act of freshening her mouth seems to me to complete her "restoration" if you will, to pre-BSM man encounter Liz. One with a flower on her jacket, a long clean black skirt, and perhaps with a bit of anticipation of something she is looking forward to......perhaps the answer has to do with where she would sleep that night.

It would seem Liz Stride enjoyed men in her personal life. She has ended a relationship that same week, and yet is out on a Saturday night looking perhaps a little dressy for her "street" work, and without spending the money she earned that day cleaning to secure a bed. She may have bought cashous instead, thinking that bed wasnt going to cost her anything that night perhaps. That and a flower for her jacket.

Best regards.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I find it deplorable that you resort to antics like these, and I will refrain from lowering myself to anything like it. I will, however, go on relentlessly to prove you wrong on the issue.

Fish, with all due respect, if you think debate is all about trying to wear the other opponent out by pretending you have the loudest voice, I'm afraid I won't be part-taking from the peace pipe any time soon, chiefly because you've chosen entirely the wrong debating opponent. It won't be a long-term sustainable strategy for you, not against me. In fact, that sort of strategy will result in me basically out-living you or, ever so slightly more likely, the moderators close the discussion.

For that was a cutaway coat with no tails, was it not?

Nope, it wasn't a cutaway as the term defines on account of it lacking a tail. If my auntie had bollocks, she'd be my uncle, and if that coat had tails, it would be a cutaway as accepted convention defines. Some might refer to it as such - of that I've no doubt - but not those observing it in Victorian darkness from a distance.

It is about the question whether Marshalls mans jacket, described as a cutaway, could have been a shortish jacket, much resembling the ordinary jacket of them days, with no tails. And that it could

Indeed it could.

Trouble is, it could equally have been a loose-fitting jacket of the order described by Joseph Lawende.

Since the one thing that gives a cutaway away (nice construction for a subhuman, wouldn´t you say...) is the fact that pieces of the ordinary jacket are cut away from the front, anybody - including the Victorian man - could and would refer to a cutaway as a cutaway after having seen it from the front.

Trouble is, the "cutaway front" in the examples you've provided in an attempt to invalidate my position haven't been obvious at all, rendering it nigh on impossible to distinguish it from a normal jacket, and yet Marshall and Smith both specified "cutaway". For Marshall to have specified cutaway in those conditions, it must have been rather conspicuously...a cutaway.

Now, why would a Victorian, or anybody else, have to see that jacket FROM BEHIND to conclude that it was a cutaway?

Because if it didn't have a tail, it wouldn't be a proper cutaway.

That was easy.

so Schwartz´s mans respectable...

Errrr....what?

Schwartz's what?

There was no mention of Schwartz having a respectable appearance in the police report which, to me, lends great credence to Schwartz not having a respectable appearance (or else it would have been remarked upon in the police report.

And around and around and around we go.

If, however, we can show that a cutaway jacket in them days could be a shortish jacket with no tails, much looking like the jackets on the two men in my earlier post, then it would be perfectly obvious that such a cutaway could easily be described as a normal, dark jacket by Schwartz

Trouble is, it wouldn't have been a proper cutaway without tails. Trouble is, Schwartz's jacket could also have been a loose-fitting one, just like Lawende's susepct's, and I'm grateful that you've acknowledged this.

You have the picture of a cutaway with no tails by now

Not really a cutaway, though, Fish. The definition of a cutaway is a garment that is cut away at the front and tailed at the back.

We do not have to travel many posts back to see you asserting that all cutaways have tails, and I have shown that this is wrong

Fish...I so desperately want a puff from that peace-pipe, but these sentences have me reaching for the alcohol instead.

In this case, however, I genuinely believe that you are wrong, and long as all I find goes to reinforce that belief, I will see it through.

I don't know really what you mean by this, and what you hope it will acheive though, that's the problem. Isn't it fairly obvious that I don't believe I've seen any compelling reason to believe I'm wrong, or that the actual definition of a cutaway should be revised? Surely it's better to call it a disagreement and leave it there? If people haven't died of boredom reading this debate, I'm sure they've made up their own minds by now.

I apologize for my earlier aggression, and acknowledge that I too will happily and respectfully lend and ear to your ripper-related thoughts, but there has to be a bit of a stalemate awareness here.

Cheers,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Jon!

You write:

"doesn`t it make more sense that Liz is leaning by the gateway holding the cashous in her left hand. eating with her right, as you do, when BS Man approaches her and grabs her,she makes a fist ..."

I think not, Jon. That would mean that she had the cachous in her hand from the beginning, held on to them as he grabbed her and dragged her towards the streeet, did not let go of them when she was thrown to the pavement, kept clenching them as she entered the yard, and held on to them as she had her throat cut.

No, Jon, I think that is a poor bid.

But I do agree with Ben, that she would not have seen trouble coming when she took them out! And to me, she must have taken them out when inside the yard. Meaning that she did not use them to attract a punter that was already hooked, if a punter it was.
On the other hand, if it was NOT a punter, but an aquaintance of hers, perhaps a lover - and we have already seen that it seems there is a possibility that BS man was identical to the man Marshall saw kissing her an hour earlier - then that could well explain why she agreed to step into the yard with him in spite of his manhandling her before. A domestic row is more often than not handled in privacy, and the only immediate privacy offered was that of the yard. And since she felt comfortable enough with that man to step into the yard with him to tell him off (yes, that is guesswork, but it is functioning such)- although not at ease after his earlier behaviour - that would explain why she took her cachous out.

The best, Jon!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"Don't you dare threaten me, you hateful subhuman sickening disgrace"

New levels of grace, Ben! I find it deplorable that you resort to antics like these, and I will refrain from lowering myself to anything like it. I will, however, go on relentlessly to prove you wrong on the issue. That is no threat, unless you choose to see it that way - it is a way to establish the truth in this errand, and searching for that truth is what these boards ought to be about.
In fact, I have already proven you wrong, something you ommitted to admit. For that was a cutaway coat with no tails, was it not?

"You are not pinning a "cutaway" on Schwartz's man with no evidence. Even if an expert turned up and told me that a panda costume counts as a cutaway, you still don't get to place a cutaway on the suspect because the evidence is 100% not there. Bad luck for you. Rotton beastly luck."

I would not even try to pin anything but a dark jacket on BS man, Ben. The argument we are having is not on that point as you well know. It is about the question whether Marshalls mans jacket, described as a cutaway, could have been a shortish jacket, much resembling the ordinary jacket of them days, with no tails. And that it could - and would.

"If a cutaway doesn't have tails, then a Victorian man observing it at a distance in darkended conditions will not refer to it as a cutaway"

Since the one thing that gives a cutaway away (nice construction for a subhuman, wouldn´t you say...) is the fact that pieces of the ordinary jacket are cut away from the front, anybody - including the Victorian man - could and would refer to a cutaway as a cutaway after having seen it from the front. One more time, Ben; the jacket I sent a picture to you of, has got NO TAILS, right? Now, why would a Victorian, or anybody else, have to see that jacket FROM BEHIND to conclude that it was a cutaway? In fact, looking at it from behind would have made it impossible to state that it was a cutaway!

"If you're claiming that the "cutaway" in the photograph looked anything like the jacket worn by Schwartz's man, then you're on to an even sillier losing wicket, since it resembled the loose-fitting jacket worn by Lawende's man!"

Absolutely, Ben! Absolutely! But then again, I never said a word about that particular jacket looking like the jacket worn by BS. The only thing I used it to was to substantiate my claim that a cutaway jacket from them days need not have any tails. It is a jacket from a decade or three before 1888, and fashion dictated that an 1880s jacket should be tight-fitting, so Schwartz´s mans respectable look would have included a close-fitting jacket if my guess is correct.

But as for what BS mans jacket looked like, I of course don´t really know. If it had had significant things like two differing colours or an elephant sewn onto the back, it stands to reason that we would have known. Nothing such was recorded, so it was probably a more discreet dark jacket.

What I DO know, is that if we were to establish that all cutaways had tails reaching as far as the knee or longer, then Marshalls mans jacket would seem incomparable to a normal jacket. And like I said, as long as we have no closer description of BS mans jacket, we must settle for a normal type being the most probable one.
If, however, we can show that a cutaway jacket in them days could be a shortish jacket with no tails, much looking like the jackets on the two men in my earlier post, then it would be perfectly obvious that such a cutaway could easily be described as a normal, dark jacket by Schwartz.

And if we can establish a type of cutaway as a normal, untailed jacket, then yes, of course a cutaway could have been worn by Lawendes man too. No question about that. I fail to see however, why that should affect my reasoning on the types of jacket...?

"Again, we can either accept the actual definition or some nonsense you cooked up from nowhere"

No, Ben. No, no, no. You have the picture of a cutaway with no tails by now. That does not equal me cooking up something from nowhere. It equals me proving that I was right from the outset. We do not have to travel many posts back to see you asserting that all cutaways have tails, and I have shown that this is wrong. I have also found numerous other examples on tail-lacking cutaways, but since they are newer I have refrained from posting them. It seems though, that in the 40:s and 50:s, short cutaway jackets were popular among fashionconcerned women. These jackets look something like a bolero vest with sleeves, and no tails whatsoever. They are all called cutaway jackets due to their tailoring at the front. But like I say, since they are not contemporary, I will not post the threads.

May I finally take the liberty to advance a proposal of a shared smoke of a peace-pipe, Ben? If we both try our hardest not to call one another foul names, it will be easier for those who share in the debate to pick up on the useful stuff. Calling you derogatory names would be an easy thing to do, but it would swear against the truth; you are one of the posters here to whom I happily and respectfully lend an ear in all matters concerning the Ripper murders.

In this case, however, I genuinely believe that you are wrong, and long as all I find goes to reinforce that belief, I will see it through. I cannot see you making any other decision, had you been in my clothes.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

I think on Ben's point about the cashous, I agree with him....the fact they are in her hand when attacked likely indicates she did not see serious trouble coming. And when added to the fact that she likely didnt have them in her hand when Schwartz sees her "assualted", is an even more compelling reason to surmise that. She took them out after the "assault", something completely out of place if she feared for her life at that moment.
Cheers

Hi Mike - doesn`t it make more sense that Liz is leaning by the gateway holding the cashous in her left hand. eating with her right, as you do, when BS Man approaches her and grabs her,she makes a fist ...

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

What if she was waiting for Jack?

c.d.