What's the compelling feature?

[Ben]

Taking things strictly at face value, the absence/presence of the red neckerchief would seem to indicate that the witnesses saw two different men

True, Gareth, although we don't know that a red neckerchief was "absent" in Schwartz's case so much as "unnoticed" owing to the fact that such accessories blended into the Berner Street environs better than the City.

Best,

Ben

[perrymason]

I think my English is fairly respectable, and to me, saying "not more than 20 minutes"...then adding "or perhaps a half an hour" is an obviously contradictory statement in and of itself. Its either less than 20, 20, or more than 20...and by adding "a half hour" it seems infinitely obvious to me that his range was not actually less than 20 at all, or 20 minutes, it was perhaps "more than"....despite what contradictory press coverage says.

If he meant less than 20 minutes literally, there would be no " or a half hour" added.

What he is doing ....quite obviously again, is tempering his original 20 minutes remark or estimate by the inclusion of an ADDITIONAL 10 minutes to the time of the cut, because he could see easily that she was cut before 1am....as per his initial remark, but it could have been as much as 10 minutes EARLIER than that with the degree of accuracy he could muster.

I wont be commenting on his remarks again, so you can either use your common sense and knowledge of English, or you can disagree permanently with what is clearly a cut time range that was before 1am and yet after 12:46am.

And now Im off for fresh air....which I decided on not more than 5 minutes ago,..or perhaps as much as 10 minutes ago.

If its 12:30pm here....to what times am I meaning to refer...12:25 to 12:30pm, or 12:20 to 12:25pm, or 12:20 to 12:30pm?

Best regards.

[Supe]

Michael,

This thread id a perfect example of why even the most tolerant and patient piosters on Casebook become totally frustrated by your arguments and posturing. Lord knows I'm a fool for even bothering again, but then i have a few minutes to waste before tackling some important writing.

Contary to what you may believe about your powers of reading scomprehension, it seems perfectly clear what Mr. Blackwell (as a surgeon, he would Mister not Doctor) was saying in four of the six statements Chris cited--that Liz Stride had been dead NOT MORE than 20 minutes. The other two statements,. which you like to embrace, are more ambiguos, but considering the other four newspaper reports it certainly seems likely the qualifying "not more" was simply lost in transcription.

As for the additional 10 minutes he tackiede on it only indicates that Blackwell was a lot more honest and understood a lot more about the vagueness of any time of death estimates than you are. But then he was a professional and actually at the scene whereas you are an armchair researcher 120 years removed from the event, so what did he know.

Your reliance on what are at best after-the-fact recollections of an unscientic and cursory observation of a body under extremely poor conditions is absolute folly. To begin with, you have no idea about the accuracy of any of the times stated by those involved--none. Further, you have no idea whether when Blackwell estimated a time of death "after my arrival" he meant when he got to Dutfield's Yard, when he was first apprised tonthe situation, or when he had completed his albeit cursory examination of the victim.

[perrymason]

Don,

Thank you for your comments on the thread. And since you corrected me on Mr vs Doctor, I shall be as polite and remind you that his adding 10 minutes to the estimate,..as quoted from transcripts,.... making the cut possibly earlier than 12:56...which is the literal translation of the original remark, does not in fact make it less than 20 minutes...regardless of whatever press verbage you choose.

He made an obvious slip by saying "not more" and corrected it not by taking way some time, but by adding it.

As I said before, if GIGO doesn't bother you...feel free to use whatever time you like. Heaven knows its the only way that the Ripper argument works, by manipulating the time of the cut so it coincides with Diemshutz's arrival. But bear in mind no versions of Blackwells statements indicate a cut as late as 1am. None.

Maybe your frustration levels would be lessened by not suggesting meanings of phrases are intentionally self contradictory by the witness providing them.

Best regards.

[Supe]

Bah, for some reason my post posted itself before I finished, so I shall pick up my narrative where it left off.

Moreover, no modern forensic pathologist, far less a physion, would hew to the split-second timing of a death as you propose. Certainly not without recording the ambient temperature and that of the body; or ascertaining whether there were reasons the victim was overheated or otherwise when attacked; or running a series of tests to see if the victim suffered from a medical condition that would hasten or lessen blood flow and clotting, and so on.

As it is, Blackwell arrived and sometime afterward looked at the wound by the light of a bulls-eye lantern or two and felt the body. On the basis of that very quick examination he later opined that the victim had been dead for no more than 20 minutes and, to err on the side of caution since he, at least, understood how inexact his estimate was, possibly as many as 30 minutes ago. It was a guess at time of death and not even a particularly informed guess.

You may actually be right in your own guesses about the circumstances of Liz Stride's death, but your adamance that she died no later than 12:56am based on the two newspaper reports you cite is just plain foolishness. Your self-proclaimed stubborness about anything that runs counter to your beliefs is not a virtue but rather reflective of an inability to accept you are wrong--something for which you often chide other posters.

A different thread and a different topic, but I wonder, do you still believe Mary and Maria spent the afternoon of November 8 singing "This is the way we wash our clothes" in Miller's Court?

Don.

[perrymason]

"On Sunday morning last, at ten minutes past one o'clock, I was called to Berner-street by a policeman. My assistant, Mr. Johnston, went back with the constable, and I followed immediately I was dressed. I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was 1.16 a.m."

"[Coroner] Did you form any opinion as to how long the deceased had been dead? - From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived."

And that seems unclear to you and Chris? If so your problems are not with me.

And yes, I believe its very possible that Maria and Mary spent that last afternoon doing some wash? How could such a crazy idea occur to me? Well......we do know they spent the afternoon together in her room.....we do know that Maria left clients clothes in the room....we do know she gave Mary a few coins that day, and we do know that a pump is right outside her windows, and a tin bath is under her bed.

Call it a hunch.

Its always interesting that people ream me out for saying something, trash talk to me like Im some stooge that has to listen to it....then add that I may very well be right....as some sort of concession to reason. Maybe lead with I may be right and youll get better feedback.

Best regards.

[Chris]

"[Coroner] Did you form any opinion as to how long the deceased had been dead? - From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived."

And that seems unclear to you and Chris? If so your problems are not with me.

I cannot fathom quite what your problem is, but I have explained to you at least half a dozen times now that it's not a question of the phrase you quote being unclear.

The point is that the report you quote is contradicted by the majority of the reports of Blackwell's inquest testimony, which say something quite different.

And despite what you pretend, there is absolutely nothing unclear or contradictory about Blackwell saying "not more than 20 or 30 minutes", any more than there would be about someone saying "I won't be more than 5 or 10 minutes", or "It won't cost more than 20 or 30 pounds".

[Fisherman]

Frank van Oploo writes:

"Originally Posted by Fisherman
In Chapmans case, such a position would even be nigh on impossible to reach, since there was a fence in the way, remember.

But even if there had been room enough, another thing that would be rather hard to believe is that the left arm would remain lying over her breast while her body was being turned over on her back again from lying on her left side. Unless one believes that it was placed there afterwards, of course."

...and there is every reason to believe it may have been, Frank; since Phillips at the inquest said: "The left arm was placed across the left breast".
Whichever way, it did not cut her any more space beside that fence ...

The best, Frank!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

Quote: (My wording)
"Also, if you take a second look at the Star´s article, you will notice that Schwartz said that both men (BS and Pipeman) seemed to belong to the same class of society."

Bens wording: "He doesn't specify which class, he just said that they seemed to belong to the same class as eachother, and given that we're dealing with St. George-in-the-East, it should be clear that we're not talking about aristorcacy here. If you're deducing from this that both men were from a higher class then you're making deductions not remotely borne out from the evidence."

Easy, Ben! I am not "making deductions not remotely borne out from the evidence" at all. How could I be? Schwartz states that BS man gave a respectable appearance, and since we have that bit, and he adds that Pipeman seemed to belong to the same level of society, the evidence actually goes along with my proposal very well, thank you very much.

What I have NOT done - and this is where you go wrong and put words in my mouth at one and the same time - is to say that these guys were high class people. There is no need whatsoever to deduce this, since poor people can be respectable people, whereas rich ones can be totally unrespectable.
What I think lies in Schwartz description of respectability, is that BS man was not dressed in rags. He would have been a man who seemed to have made what he could out of his attire and his general appearance; whole (perhaps mended, but still whole) clothes, and a washed face, clean hands and polished shoes and so on. There is no need to belong to any high class for that.
There would still have been a general unlikeness in appearance to the one displayed by the Church Passage man, who would have been a man who did NOT tend to his general appearance; shabby, badly shaven, dirty, clothes worn and torn.
The two could still represent economically equal people. Just as Pipeman could have. And THAT is what the evidence tells us, no more. And if anyone is straying from the evidence on the point, it sure isn´t me.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[perrymason]

I would think Chris that we at least share the belief that "tennis-like" snips back and forth are distasteful and pointless, and we are entitled to our own opinions....which we have given.

Best regards

[Chris]

I would think Chris that we at least share the belief that "tennis-like" snips back and forth are distasteful and pointless, and we are entitled to our own opinions....which we have given.

Certainly you are entitled to your opinion. But if you misrepresent what others have said, you can hardly be surprised when they set the record straight.

As far as I'm concerned, I simply thought it would be useful to draw people's attention to the conflicting evidence about Blackwell's inquest testimony. As it was factual information, I didn't foresee that it would lead to an argument. In any case, I hope the facts are clear now, so I have no wish to pursue the matter further.

[FrankO]

Hi Fisherman,

...and there is every reason to believe it may have been, Frank; since Phillips at the inquest said: "The left arm was placed across the left breast".
Whichever way, it did not cut her any more space beside that fence ...

I know that Phillips said something like that, but regardless of whether it was actually placed or had just fallen there or whatever, we agree on that there's nothing particularly suggesting that she was turned over on her left side before her throat was cut. Had there been, then wouldn't the doctors who examined the victims' bodies in situ have suggested anything like that? Yet, none of them did. In fact, there's more reason to believe that Chapman wasn't: there wasn't enough space for it, there wasn't any need for it as he could just lift her right shoulder somewhat and turn her face towards the fence, so why would he have wanted to waste precious mutilating time doing something that wasn't necessary?

All the best,
Frank

[perrymason]

Tsk, tsk.....given the opportunity to end this with dignity, you accuse me of misrepresenting facts. Since I quoted verbatim what was printed, and used it as my foundation, bollocks. What is misrepresented here thanks to you is the notion that he was saying she may have been killed closer to 1am than to 12:56am.

You are the type of person who if traveling abroad and finding himself at a Red-Yellow-Blue traffic light will pause when it turns Blue. I will proceed.

Enough.

[Chris]

bollocks

Well, rest assured I won't go to the trouble of pointing out any helpful factual information on these boards again.

[Supe]

Chris,

Don't let Pig-headed Perry sour your experience. He simply will not let the facts sway him from his often naive, ill-informed and uncompromising beliefs--and for all his bleating about "evidence" the ideas he advances are almost always simply beliefs.

That he could not immediately grasp the implications of the newspaper reports you posted is not surprising. Whether he will not listen to reason or is teperamentally indisposed to alter his thinking I can't say, but the best advice I can give you is to ignore him and enjoy the company of those who are intelligent enough to consider arguments that do not necessarilly agree with their own notions. There are plenty of us here, believe me.

Don.