What's the compelling feature?

[perrymason]

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

You can certainly decide what course of action you choose to take in the future Chris, but I never said posting "facts" was a problem at all, I only objected to the way mine were addressed.

The whole issue is what he meant, not what the exact wording was in the press reporting of it, and it seems clear to me that when discussing the cut issue his intention was to suggest 20 minutes with a possibility that it may have been as long as 30 minutes before he arrived. To use quotes that omit that 10 minute addition is a questionable choice, because it demonstrates in which direction from that 20 minute benchmark the extension is being allowed. He is allowing himself to err on the most recent cut prediction by as much as 10 minutes...in an opposite direction from 1am. He buffers his guess by adding the 10 minute interval that preceded the 12:56am prediction...increasing the overall time from arrival at 1:16am from 20 to 30 minutes prior. In effect he is saying I think it was no more than 20 minutes from my arrival, but to be fair it could have been done up to 10 minutes before that.

All that is needed is to see it referred to more than once, and we do.

Ive never said this is the answer, though Ive been accused of it, Ive said by statements rendered, this is the scenario. So dont be hung up on 12:56...thats just my literal benchmark using his 20 minute remark, not his own words. But I believe the addition of that 10 minutes indicates in which direction from 1am we should be considering most seriously as her cut time.....and that is not 1am.

Regards and goodnite.

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

I accept that one can have a respectable appearance and still be from the labouring class, but we have no compelling reason to take The Star quote at face value, especially if the "respectable" reference was conspicuously absent from the Swanson report.

All the best,
Ben

[Chris]

The whole issue is what he meant, not what the exact wording was in the press reporting of it ...

How many times do you want to go through this?

The Daily Telegraph and the Times reports of Blackwell's inquest testimony imply what you want them to - that Stride had been dead for more than 20 minutes.

The other four reports imply something quite different. That Stride had been dead for less than "20 minutes to half an hour".

The Daily News report could scarcely be clearer:
I do not think the deceased could have been dead more than twenty minutes, at the most half an hour.

I'm sorry, but my patience really is wearing thin at this point in time. Why can't you just acknowledge that the evidence about what Blackwell said is conflicting, and that some of the reports contradict your interpretation?

If that's too much to ask, why can't you just shut up and stop wasting everybody's time?

[perrymason]

How many times do you want to go through this?

The Daily Telegraph and the Times reports of Blackwell's inquest testimony imply what you want them to - that Stride had been dead for more than 20 minutes.

The other four reports imply something quite different. That Stride had been dead for less than "20 minutes to half an hour".

The Daily News report could scarcely be clearer:
I do not think the deceased could have been dead more than twenty minutes, at the most half an hour.

I'm sorry, but my patience really is wearing thin at this point in time. Why can't you just acknowledge that the evidence about what Blackwell said is conflicting, and that some of the reports contradict your interpretation?

If that's too much to ask, why can't you just shut up and stop wasting everybody's time?

Can you not see that the quote is self contradictory....forget the times. The sentence ending itself contradicts his NOT MORE preface...How can something be not more than 3 feet tall, at the most 5 feet tall? Thats what Ive been saying.....just not literally. My mistake.

Not more than 20 minutes means 20 minutes or less, not more than 20 minutes but perhaps as much as a half hour is not as literal a translation.....one, because its a self contradictory statement which cannot be correct, and two, because it elongates rather than diminishes the estimated time period. Making the suggestion that the "not more" was either quoted incorrectly or spoken in error.

Something cannot be not more than a set amount, yet equally plausibly be an amount greater than, logically.

So thats why I said what I did about the quotes...if youre reading words youll have a dandy time here. If your trying to interpret the meanings, you have to go further.

And Don....we were at one time cordial and friendly, an Ive noticed the shift to confrontational and rude. You've posted a challenge to anything at all as long as I wrote it. Not sure what prompted that, but sorry you feel that way.

You and others have a problem with the manner in which I say things, fair enough....I am stubborn, but very often its not with the position taken. I like cordial discussion...I like to be spoken to in a manner that you would. And I get pissed when a valid point gets crapped on because someone doesn't like the way its phrased.

And Im not a shrinking violet.

And Ive got no grudges.

Best regards.

[Chris]

perrymason

You're really claiming you can't understand what this means?
I do not think the deceased could have been dead more than twenty minutes, at the most half an hour.

Clearly, it means that Blackwell thought that Stride died 20 minutes or less before he saw her body, or at the outside half an hour or less.

[perrymason]

perrymason

You're really claiming you can't understand what this means?
I do not think the deceased could have been dead more than twenty minutes, at the most half an hour.

Clearly, it means that Blackwell thought that Stride died 20 minutes or less before he saw her body, or at the outside half an hour or less.

I see. It doesnt trouble you that not more than 20....is actually less than 30? You dont see any contradiction in that phrasing....ok. When a quote doesnt make sense, it either means it was a mis-quote, or it was taken out of its original context, or the witness was an idiot....in this case, being the extending of a period by 10 minutes, it can no longer meet the "not more" criteria of the earlier portion of the quote. Its a mistake, either his or the reporters...more than likely he said something like "approx 20 minutes from when I arrived, but not more than 30".

The way it is quoted cannot frame any 10 minute time period, because by its own construction, the quote is illogical. Yet he clearly intended to frame a 10 minute window. By his addition of it to his estimates.

Since we have many variations of many statements throughout the "series" in the press, I prefer using the ones that are coherent. To each his own.

No hard feelings Chris. I had thought this was a much clearer issue than has been made out here, but apparently not.

Regards.

[Chris]

perrymason

Are you a native English speaker?

[perrymason]

....dry, but funny. And funny that you would imagine you have that kind of edge over me to begin with.

It were inschool that I leanrd that not mor meens Not mor, if thats what y'all meens. Maybee yor school tot sumthin different.

Its a relatively simple concept....to suggest not more than 5 pages of crap have ensued from this conversation, but maybe as many as 10, doesnt mean less than 5. Nor does it mean more than 10. It means someone screwed up saying "not more" when the intention was indeed to add more to the equation....and to set a range between 5 and 10...not 5 and zero.

I think you'll do splendidly with the Canonites here.

[Chris]

perrymason

It was a genuine question. I understood you were from Canada, and wondered whether you might be Francophone.

But evidently it's not a question of understanding. Obviously you're determined to twist Blackwell's words so that they fit your theory.

That's fine - you can waste as much of your own time as you like playing these games. But it worries me a bit that all your blather may succeed in confusing others. So I'll just repost those six reports of Blackwell's testimony, so that things are crystal clear.
________________________________

I do not think the deceased could have been dead more than twenty minutes, at the most half an hour.
Daily News, 3 October

Did you form any opinion as to how long the deceased had been dead? - From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived.
Daily Telegraph, 3 October

I do not think the deceased could have been dead more than twenty minutes, or at the most half an hour when I saw her.
Morning Advertiser, 3 October

I think deceased could not have been dead more than twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived.
The People, 7 October

When he got to the yard at 1.16 a.m. the body was still warm, and the woman could not have been dead more than twenty minutes or half an hour.
St James's Gazette, 3 October

The CORONER. - How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her?
Witness. - From 20 minutes to half an hour when I arrived.
Times, 3 October

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks for re-posting your summary, Chris. To my mind, there's only one conclusion - Blackwell had a faulty watch.

[robhouse]

As far as speaking of a salt and pepper jacket... these are generally interwoven small patterns of black with a lighter colored thread, white or some tone of gray. I think this type of jacket could be SEEN as being black, if the street itself was dark. Also, doing a quick google search for salt and pepper jacket shows a number of varieties of varying degrees of darkness, such as this example:

http://sharongallagher.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/SaltPepperBlazerBlack.291210951_std.jpg

So I think we cannot conclude that this detail indicates any dissimilarity between the men seen by Lawende and Schwartz. Also, I think there may have been a light at the entrance to church passage where Lawende saw the suspect, which may have made the jacket more clearly visible to him, but I do not have any books with me to confirm this...

Rob House

[The Good Michael]

I think that Blackwell's statement means that Stride was killed very recently, probably less than twenty minutes before his arrival, but he would begrudgingly add another 10 minutes, maybe because he couldn't be 100% sure. Yet it is clear that he leans to the less than 20 minutes mark to me.

Then again, I am a native AMERICAN English speaker, so my interpretation, much like a Canadian's, is open to criticism

Mike

[Fisherman]

Frank van Oploo writes:

"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?"

I agree totally, Frank! And I think that one of the conclusions we have to draw from this is that Stride did not receive the same treatment as did the other significant victims. To me, that is a clear, clear pointer away from Stride being a Ripper victim.

All the best, Frank!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

As far as speaking of a salt and pepper jacket... these are generally interwoven small patterns of black with a lighter colored thread, white or some tone of gray. I think this type of jacket could be SEEN as being black, if the street itself was dark. So I think we cannot conclude that this detail indicates any dissimilarity between the men seen by Lawende and Schwartz.

Indeed, not, Rob. However, it also does not rule out that both witnesses saw two different men wearing what was a commonplace item of clothing - viz., the ubiquitous dark-fabricked jacket favoured by thousands.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I accept that one can have a respectable appearance and still be from the labouring class, but we have no compelling reason to take The Star quote at face value, especially if the "respectable" reference was conspicuously absent from the Swanson report."

Not agreed, Ben. That is, I of course second your sensible notion to be careful with newspapers, but I really think that treated with care, there is much to gain from the newspapers that may shed some light over these events.

In this case, we have a pointing out of Schwartz stating that BS had a respectable appearance. Is this sensation stuff, something the reporter would make up to "sell" his article?
Of course not. It is a passage that cannot easily be explained as something the reporter threw in to spice the material up, and therefore there is every reason to believe that it is a factual detail.
Furthermore, since the subject does surface again when Schwartz notes that Pipeman seemed to belong to the same class, we have a kind of corroboration that adds further credibility to the issue.

Now, if the article had said that BS man had three eyes, or that he spoke an ancient Indian dialect or that he had nineteen knives tied to his body with a pirate´s belt, I would be much more inclined to disbelieve something so obvious that was left out of Swansons report. But a respectable appearance is totally uncontroversial, and thus I choose to believe that it WAS noticed and mentioned by Schwartz. What I find we CANNOT do is to conclude that the police MUST have asked about the general appearance. A newspaper report is a newspaper report, and it should be looked upon with critical eyes. But it is still a contemporary written source, and as such superior to any assertion on our own behalfs of what we are "certain" would have been asked by the police.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman