What's the compelling feature?

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

"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."

Me, I´m a Swede. English is not my native tongue. But Mike´s take on it is exactly the same as mine: Probably less than 20 minutes, but Blackwell offers the 30 minute possibility as a safety net. That would mean that the medical evidence, as read by Blackwell, all points to less than 20 minutes, and if he has to settle for the scenario with ten added minutes, then that is due to some inconsistency or inconsistencies between Stride and the normal victim.
A Swede´s five cents, no more, but there you are ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

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?

Hi Fisherman,

I thought we just had this argument?

No, the "respectable" bit isn't sensational, but then neither was the bit about the pipeman having a red moustache, and yet neither detail appeared in the Swanson report, while other press details were in direct conflict with it. We can either accept that the police were pretty negligent and failed to ask all the salient questions the Star did, or a few embellishments crept in afterwards. I find the latter easier to accept.

I still don't understand why you're using the claim about the two men being from the "same class of society" (or whatever) to conclude that Schwartz had a respectable appearance. Same class can mean same low class, surely? Schwartz's general description of the broad-shouldered man; partially intoxicated, peaked cap, black jacket hardly suggests respectability.

Best regards,
Ben

[jason_c]

Its interesting to look at the descriptions of the grey and salt and peppered colouring jackets. They indeed are similar in colour. Schwartz with his language barrier used the term grey. The term "salt and pepper" would have been alien to him.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I thought we just had this argument?"

We did. The reason I push it further is that you do not seem to accept or even understand my stance.

"No, the "respectable" bit isn't sensational, but then neither was the bit about the pipeman having a red moustache, and yet neither detail appeared in the Swanson report, while other press details were in direct conflict with it. We can either accept that the police were pretty negligent and failed to ask all the salient questions the Star did, or a few embellishments crept in afterwards. I find the latter easier to accept.”

Leaving us where? If you have another look at the Swanson report, you will notice that it says nothing of any moustache at all. It does not say ”clean-shaven”, it does not say ”bearded”, it does not say ”side-whiskers”. And yet it is obvious that Pipeman must have answered to SOME sort of description when it comes to facial hair, is it not?

But it is not to be found in Swansons report. Why?

There are a number of possibilities here:
-There has been some discussion as to the possibility of the police withholding details.
-Maybe it was discussed; it seems reasonable: ”Did the man have any facial hair?” ”No Sir, not as far as I could see.” And if it was not there, maybe Swanson thought that if he did not mention it in the report, it would equal no facial hair.
-Maybe it was NOT discussed. Seems incredible, but we are left with the possibility, as long as we have no ”1888 police manual for asking about the facial hair of suspected persons”.

I also think that Schwartz not speaking a word of English may have played a role; it could have been an awkward interrogation altogether, and the police may have felt at least to some extent relieved to have at least most of the answers they would normally get. We just don´t know.

PLUS I think that if we feel the need to speak of embellishments, the embellishment of mentioning that BS man and Pipeman gave a somewhat respectable impression would be a strange one to come up with. People who feel a need to add some spicing to their stories usually manage to come up with something more eyecatching. To me, the words on respectability ring perfectly true, and that´s all I have to say on the matter.

”I still don't understand why you're using the claim about the two men being from the "same class of society" (or whatever) to conclude that Schwartz had a respectable appearance. Same class can mean same low class, surely? Schwartz's general description of the broad-shouldered man; partially intoxicated, peaked cap, black jacket hardly suggests respectability."

Am I going nuts here? Who has said anything about Schwartz´appearance??? It´s BS man I am speaking of, and HIS appearance. And he was described as respectable in appearance! And I have already said that respectable does NOT have to mean well off – of course BS and Pipeman may have belonged to the same LOW class. I have no objections to such a guess - long as we recognize that it is merely an educated such.
The salient point, however, is that they would NOT have belonged to the low class people who wore clothes that were in shreds and who took little care to keep clean. BS and Pipeman obviously did, if we are to believe the newspaper – and I suggest that we allow for that it in this case.

I´m not sure if I can put all of this in any other way, Ben, should you feel the need for me to do so. I feel I have tried all ways that are linguistically negotiable to make my view clear.

BS man took an interest in his appearance. And no matter if he was poor or a bit better off, Pipeman gave the impression of belonging to the same societal level as did BS.
They were not trashy people. There was a measurement of neatness about them, MAYBE even of at least some economical means. And that seems to make them hard to compare with the man seen in Church Passage, a man who gave an impression of being a shabby character.

Conclusion: the written reports we have, give support to a notion that BS man and the man in Church Passage were NOT one and the same.

The best!
Fisherman

[Ben]

the written reports we have, give support to a notion that BS man and the man in Church Passage were NOT one and the same.

Not in a millon frickin' years, mate, and long-winded posts to simple points don't make your arguments any more persuasive either.

Leaving us where? If you have another look at the Swanson report, you will notice that it says nothing of any moustache at all.

Not true, I'm afraid:

Second man: age 35, height 5ft 11 in, complexion fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown; dress, dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand.

That is from Swanson's report of the 19th October.

Brown moustache from the report. Red moustache from the press. Now, a red moustache isn't a sensational detail but rather a mundance one, and yet it is in direct contrast to the police report. Your argument is that a reporter wouldn't have come up with "respectable" from nowhere because it isn't sensational enough, but then what of the other details that are also non-sensational, and which are also in direct contrast to the police report?

The salient point, however, is that they would NOT have belonged to the low class people who wore clothes that were in shreds and who took little care to keep clean.

Ah, but then there was never any suggestion that Lawende's suspect had ripped clothes. He was ostensibly a peaked-cap Joe Average, just as Schwartz's man was.

They were not trashy people. There was a measurement of neatness about them, MAYBE even of at least some economical means

According to the press report, which is direct conflict with the police report on the matter of the suspects' appearance, and which says nothing about either man appearing respectable.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Not in a millon frickin' years, mate, and long-winded posts to simple points don't make your arguments any more persuasive either."

Well, Ben, if you think I am long-winded, maybe we should avoid quibbling over this for a million frickin´ years?

Besides, you are of course wrong here, since the only written reports we have has BS down as being of respectable appearance and Roundneck as a rather rough and shabby character. Like it or not, Ben, those descriptions do NOT tally, and therefore the fact that the written sources point to two different men will actually stand for all of them frickin´million years – and beyond.

On the moustache: I turned to the witness section on Casebook (which was at hand) when I needed to see how Pipeman was described, and it came out thus:

"Second man: age, 35; ht., 5 ft 11in; comp., fresh; hair, light brown; dress, dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat, wide brim; had a clay pipe in his hand."

It also said:

"In the Star interview, the second man has red moustaches -- in the police statement, there is no mention of moustaches on the second man, who is then described as having light brown hair."

...which all is rather curious - the moustache simply was not there. If it is a failure on Casebooks behalf, so be it.

Another thing is whether a "brown" moustache is "in direct contrast" to a red one. I think not; light brown and red could well be mistaken for each other. It would have been another thing if the colours were black and red.

"...there was never any suggestion that Lawende's suspect had ripped clothes. He was ostensibly a peaked-cap Joe Average, just as Schwartz's man was."

Nice try, Ben; if they wore caps with peaks on them, they were dressed similarly, right? But no, Roundneck was NOT "just as Schwartz´man", and that is the issue here: One was respectably looking, while the other was not.

My wording:

"They were not trashy people. There was a measurement of neatness about them, MAYBE even of at least some economical means"

Your words:

"According to the press report, which is direct conflict with the police report on the matter of the suspects' appearance, and which says nothing about either man appearing respectable."

Ben, that press report is of course NOT in "direct conflict" with the police report, no more than a light brown moustache is in direct conflict with a red one. There are differences, but the general description tallies between the two. Don´t be silly, Ben! And like I said before, I will happily accept your advice to be careful with newspapers. But I will not accept your guesswork - or anybody else´s for that matter - as a superior source to the Stars story. End of story.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Reread this part, Ben:

"According to the press report, which is direct conflict with the police report on the matter of the suspects' appearance, and which says nothing about either man appearing respectable."

...and noticed that what you are saying here is that there was no mentioning in the Star of a respectable appearance on BS:s behalf...? Surely, that is a miss languagewise on your behalf - one "and" too much?

Also, I have been fishing the Internet for that "brown moustache" of yours (and Pipemans) without finding it. I havent got my books here, so could you please give me your source? I´ll be away for some hours now, but I will get back to you if called for.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Besides, you are of course wrong here, since the only written reports we have has BS down as being of respectable appearance and Roundneck as a rather rough and shabby character.

Nonsense.

The "respectable" version only comes from The Star, and The Star said several things about the suspects' appearance that didn't tally with what the police report said, a reality which naturally casts doubt over the veracity of that "respectable" claim. Intoxicated, peaked cap, short jacket is not respectable; it's Joe Average, just like the man Lawende observed. The only different being that the Joe Averageness would have stood out much more in an affluent environment than in a rough one full of dockers.

Another thing is whether a "brown" moustache is "in direct contrast" to a red one. I think not; light brown and red could well be mistaken for each other. It would have been another thing if the colours were black and red.

Please don't grasp at straws. If he thought the moustache looked red, he'd say so to the police. But he didn't. He said brown, and yet the press said the man's moustache was red.

That is a conflict. That is a discrepency. 100% irrefutably so.

One was respectably looking, while the other was not.

ACCORDING TO THE STAR

NOT ACCORDING TO THE POLICE REPORT.

THE POLICE REPORT AND THE PRESS REPORT WERE AT ODDS, IN MANY RESPECTS, ON THE SUBJECT OF APPEARANCE AND ATTIRE.

Please, please don't irritate me, Fisherman.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Also, I have been fishing the Internet for that "brown moustache" of yours (and Pipemans) without finding it. I havent got my books here, so could you please give me your source?

Certainly. It's from Donald Swanson's report from 19th October. HO 144/221/A49301C/8a

Hope this helps,

Ben

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

Never mind the newspapers. We should treat the police reports with caution.

Here's a little gem.

Dr. Blackwell consulted his watch on his arrival in Berner Street—1.16 am.

[Dr. Phillips]: "I was called on Sunday morning last at 1.20 am to Leman-street Police-station, and was sent on to Berner-street . . . I found Inspector Pinhorn and Acting-Superintendent West in possession of a body, which had already been seen by Dr. Blackwell, who had arrived some time before me."

[Dr. Blackwell]: "Dr. Phillips came about twenty minutes to half an hour after my arrival."

This rare example of two pieces of WM evidence supporting each other puts Phillips' arrival in Berner Street between 1.36 and 1.41 am.

Yet in Swanson's handwritten 19th October report he has both doctors examining Stride at 1.10 am.

I wonder what else Swanson got wrong.

Regards,

Simon

[Dan Norder]

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...

...or that the person who can't understand the quote is an idiot.

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi everyone

I misspoke earlier when I said that Schwartz did not testify at the inquest because of the language barrier.

Quoting Phillip Sugden, The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, New York 1994 page 202

"Why, then, did the police not produce Schwartz as a witness at the inquest? Unfortunately we have no information that can answer that question. A possible explanation is that, as in the case of the writing in Goulston Street, they deliverately suppressed his evidence because it seemed to implicate the Jews, but there are others. Perhaps they considered his testimony so important that they wished to keep the details secret. Perhaps Schwartz, for reason best known to himself, did not want to appear. Did he, like Pearly Poll, absent himself from his lodgings? Or quite simply, did he fall ill? We can speculate, but we do not know."

I have no additional info myself. I recall on this site seeing a recent magazine cover photo of Schwartz. Was there an accompanying article that shed any light on this or any related matters?

Again, thanks for all your help

Roy

[Sam Flynn]

light brown and red could well be mistaken for each other.

Indeed, especially under poor lighting conditions. Ditto handkerchieves, come to think of it - but best not go there!

[Roy Corduroy]

Fall from Grace

Hello again,

Excerpts

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

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.”

So Jack the Ripper lost some of his respectable veneer after murdering a woman in a yard, then making his way across from St. Georges in the East to the City, where he appeared rather rough and shabby. In the company of another woman, soon to be dead.

Roy

[Fisherman]

Ben!

"Please dont irritate me?"

Honestly, what could happen? Are we speaking physical punishment here? Like I said, don´t be silly, Ben. There is every reason to push the points I am pushing, no matter how irritating you find it.


You write:
"Intoxicated, peaked cap, short jacket is not respectable", and that is of course just plain wrong. The intoxication has NOTHING to do with the respectability mentioned, since what Schwartz said was that BS was respectably dressed in dark clothes. You are not saying that the clothes were intoxicated too, I hope? A short jacket, unrespectable?? Where did THAT come from? If it is, I went to work in an unrespectable manner today.
What does it take to gain respectability? Dinner jacket? Swallow tails? And are we to believe that none of the men who wore peaked caps were respectable?
This, Ben, is just useless. You are trying to paint a picture of somebody you have not the faintest idea what impression he gave. Can we please allow Schwartz to supply the opinion, SINCE HE SAW THE GUY?? And mentioned that he was respectably dressed?
There is no - NO - contradiction either, not a whisper anywhere saying anything that goes against Schwartz´opinion. Had there been so, it would have been another thing, but as it stands, no.
Do you honestly think that the "respectable" comment was an embellishment on Schwartz´behalf? That the reporter dreamed it up? And if so, what do you substantiate such a ludicrous theory with?

Likewise, it is hopelessly faulty to state that a light brown moustache and a red one could not be mistaken colourwise. I notice that others have picked up on that too. To see an overwhelming contradiction in it is making a whole chicken farm out of a tiny feather. People who dislike being called redheads often claim that they have light brown hair, for Christ´s sake!

On the moustache: I checked with Sugden, and yes, it is mentioned in the Swanson report. Why it is left out in the witness profile here on Casebook is beyond me, but like I said, it is a point of very smallish - if any - interest. Thanks for pointing me to the source, though.

Now, try and not to get irritated henceforth. Sam and Simon has stepped in and contributed to showing why it would be futile. To my mind, trying to stop people from expressing a view should cause one helluva lot more irritation than having to swallow the fact that written reports sometimes go against one´s opinion.

All the best!
Fisherman