What's the compelling feature?

[Roy Corduroy]

Good Evening again,

Mr. Fisherman, I am following your posts as per Ben's argument.

Excerpt from the Star Oct 1 article of the reporter's interview with Schwartz:

"Both men seem to belong to the same grade of society."

That is surely the knife-wielding grade.

Much like Sherlock Holmes would set down his pipe and take up the hypodermic needle, the second man put down his pipe and took up a knife. In fact, he had only a knife. Remember, there was no Pipeman in the Star piece.

Respectfully yours,

Roy

[Ben]

Fisherman,

Asserting over and over and over again that Schwartz said the man looked respectable when the police report said no such thing encroaches on whole new levels of irritation. No, there is no reason to push the points your are pushing beyond an apparently egocentric desire to get the last word in, and that isn't going to wash with me at any stage as you ought really to have discovered by now.

since what Schwartz said was that BS was respectably dressed in dark clothes.

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

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?

It doesn't matter.

We know that the press and police versions were at variance over appearance and attire. That's all you need to understand. Red is different to brown. If he thought the suspect had a red moustache from the outset, the likelihood is that he'd have said so from the outset, rather than saying brown to the police and then red to the reporter. That has absolutely nothing to do with being mistaken or undecided. If the latter, he'd have stated that the man had a red or brown moustache, or reddish brown. At the very least, the uncertainty as to colour would have been mentioned.

If he had a respectable appearance, the chances of it being picked up upon in the police report are extremely strong indeed. The chances of it being negligently overlooked by the police, but picked up by a sagacious Star reporter are much slimmer.

[Fisherman]

And on it goes:

"Asserting over and over and over again that Schwartz said the man looked respectable when the police report said no such thing encroaches on whole new levels of irritation"

Police report equals "must have happened", is definitely correct.

Newspaper report equals "could never have happened", is beyond doubt wrong.

Stupendous stuff, Ben. And if you can convince the posters here that this is how the evidence should be read, then I am truly amazed.

I have no wish to get the last word in, Ben. I am no child. I once was, but that was a very long time ago. And to have someone claiming that it is egocentric - EGOCENTRIC! - on my behalf to believe in a totally uncontroversial report stating that a specific Eastender was dressed respectably, is a very, very strange thing. To say the least!

What you are saying here, Ben, is that every piece of information that can be gained from newspaper sources, and that are not corroborated by the official reports, are by definition useless. Please let it sink in. I will let that stand for you.

What it all ends up in, is a situation where I support my view with a source that I believe is very useful when treated with care, whereas you support your view with "cause Ben says so" and advice me not to irritate you by having differing opinions. For example, you keep saying that the police must have asked Schwartz about the appearance of BS man, and that they would have known if he was respectable in appearance. Well, Ben, if they DID ask about his general appearance, and if they DID get an answer, then why is it NOT in the report? Have you never asked yourself that, or does it not fit the "cause Ben says so-bill"?

As for what matters and what I "need to understand", I am perfectly clear on those bits after having seen your arguments. I am bitterly disappointed, and you are welcome to take that as a compliment, Ben. But as it stands, the most useful conclusion to draw from your approach in this case, is to end the exchange here and now.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Roy Corduroy writes:

""Both men seem to belong to the same grade of society."
That is surely the knife-wielding grade. "

That argument will take us nowhere at all, I´m afraid. No matter if Pipeman took out a pipe, a knife or a bazooka, it does not alter what was said about respectability in Schwartz account to the Star: it was a respectability that showed itself IN HOW BS MAN WAS DRESSED!

Street thugs can be respectably dressed. Assasins can be respectably dressed. Whores can. Trash collectors can.

Will it never sink in? BS man was respectably dressed. Church passage man gave the impression of being a rough, shabby type, with a sailors appearance.
Imagine Tom Saddler, as he roamed the East end street, getting mugged and beaten up. He was a rough, shabby sailor. It is an appearance that tallies EXTREMELY poorly with that of BS man, AS DESCRIBED BY SCHWARTZ.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Stupendous stuff, Ben. And if you can convince the posters here that this is how the evidence should be read, then I am truly amazed.

No.

No.

Here is what I Said:

If he had a respectable appearance, the chances of it being picked up upon in the police report are extremely strong indeed. The chances of it being negligently overlooked by the police, but picked up by a sagacious Star reporter are much slimmer

have someone claiming that it is egocentric - EGOCENTRIC! - on my behalf to believe in a totally uncontroversial report stating that a specific Eastender was dressed respectably, is a very, very strange thing

It is egocentric in the extreme to keep banging on about the press version being the correct one when it was clearly at odds with the police report, particularly on the subject of the man's attire.

What you are saying here, Ben, is that every piece of information that can be gained from newspaper sources, and that are not corroborated by the official reports, are by definition useless.

Not useless, just not to be taken as gosepl as you are doing here.

Well, Ben, if they DID ask about his general appearance, and if they DID get an answer, then why is it NOT in the report?

Well, that would be very strange and somewhat unlikely, wouldn't it? It seems far more likely that if that detail was inquired about - and it probably was - it would have been been included in the report. Its absence from the Swanson report suggests that the description of the man was explanatory enough; that of a rough, tough, peaked-cap short-jacket wearing booze-befuddled fella, and that in no way paints a picture of respectability. The clue is in the description, folks, a description that indicates a general fit with the Mitre Square suspect. The only way "respectable" would come into the equation is if the Berner Street attacker was wearing a collar and tie, but nothing of the kind was mentioned in any Schwartz report.

I'm speaking as someone who is much on the fence as to whether Stride was a ripper victim or not. I acknowledge that there are some good arguments in favour of her exclusion, but this doesn't come close to being one of them. As I mentioned before, a "rough shabby sailor" is far more likely to be noticed in Mitre Square than in Berner Street, where they were commonplace.

Then I scratch my head in disbelief when I read your reply to Roy:

Will it never sink in? BS man was respectably dressed.

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

This is what I mean by irritating. I don't mind disagreement, that's fine. What I do get testy about is when people go back to repeating the original assertion as though we never debated the dratted thing at all, hence "BS man was respectably dressed".

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben, I am through with this.

I will only address your last point, and I will do it without using capital letters, since capital letters do not produce truth, just as little as shouting at people does so.

"What I do get testy about is when people go back to repeating the original assertion as though we never debated the dratted thing at all, hence "BS man was respectably dressed."

...is what you say, and it seems you really think that the whole object of the debate was to make us all accept a description of BS man that swears against the only written, contemporary source we have. That I should bow to your suggestion that BS was "a rough, tough, peaked-cap short-jacket wearing booze-befuddled fella".

That I won´t.

For much as you claim that the Star report was at odds with the police report, it was not at odds with that self same report on the description of BS mans general appearance. It never could be, as it did not for a moment concern itself with that self same general appearance. You are trying to distill something out of thin air here, Ben, and I am amazed to see you even trying.

Do we have a description of BS mans general appearance? Yes, that we do! It comes from a newspaper, the Star, and should not be treated as gospel, but as a strong indicator of respectability on BS mans behalf, when it comes to his attire.

The only other description of BS mans general appearance I have ever seen, was – believe it or not – made by a poster on these boards who had the audacity and ego to believe that his own cooked-up impression about BS mans general appearance should be favoured over a contemporary source.

And who, incidentally, spoke of me as being egocentric a few posts away...

Now Ben, you step in and use your bold, capital letters to once more state that the police report would have been correct on a topic it actually had nothing at all to say about, and we are through with this business, with the additional topping of you gaining the last word. Be my guest!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

That I should bow to your suggestion that BS was "a rough, tough, peaked-cap short-jacket wearing booze-befuddled fella".

No bowing necessary, Fisherman. It's all there in the police report. Clearly, the man who attacked Stride was all of those things, none of which paint a picture of respectability. He was clearly rough and tough to do what he did to Stride, he was apparently intoxicated, and wore the clothes I mentioned. All in the police report.

Yes, that we do! It comes from a newspaper, the Star, and should not be treated as gospel, but as a strong indicator of respectability on BS mans behalf

Well no, not really. A better indicator is the police report, which says nothing about the man having a respectable appearance, but points instead in the direction of a non-respectable individual. If the clues are so obvious, is it really necessary to describe the man's general appearance? As I said, the clue is in the physical description, and unless the man had a collar and tie (which wasn't mentioned) there was nothing in the description which suggested a respectable appearance.

Best regards,
Ben

[Observer]

Hi

What’s the compelling feature in the Stride murder?

If Schwartz is to be believed, Stride was the only victim who was observed being attacked shortly before her death.

The work of Jack the Ripper? Not unless he changed his method of despatching his victims.

The person who attacked Stride might have been unaware that Schwartz was approaching, but surely must have been aware of the man with the pipe on the other side of the road. Going by the previous murders, I doubt whether Jack the Ripper would attack a victim in the full sight of a witness.

There are alternatives however, could the attacker and pipe smoker have been friends?

After a nights drinking they are walking up Berner Street on the opposite side of the road to the socialist club, as they approach the club Stride who is soliciting in the club doorways calls out to them. One of the men, the broad shouldered one, being a little tipsy takes exception to being propositioned and goes over to Stride and attempts to throw her out of the street, this is why Schwartz observed the man throwing Stride into the road, as opposed to dragging her into the yard, his friend take the opportunity of the stop to light his pipe.

Stride would not want to shout out loudly for fear of attracting the police and being arrested, this is what Schwartz states, the woman cried out, but not very loudly.

So Schwartz appears, and not only disliking prostitutes our broad shouldered friend also hates Jews, and shouts out Lipski, Pipe smoker thinking Schwartz was going to interfere with his friends attack upon Stride chases him off down the street.

Of course Stride still ends up with her throat cut. Did the broad shouldered man eventually drag Stride into the yard and slit her throat? Or was there time for the duo to disappear, and another assailant to appear, this time a more deadly one, a man who was to become known as Jack the Ripper?

All the best

Observer

[perrymason]

Just thought that Id remind folks that "not more than" doesnt mean "after". And when adding to that approximate time of cut, instead of decreasing it, one cannot assume that the lesser amount is more accurate...for it is clear, less than 20 is 19 or less...not as much as 30. The gap was widened, not narrowed by the addition of the phrase. What is seemingly obvious is that his prediction was that she was killed between 20 and 30 minutes from his arrival.

"From twenty minutes to half an hour.. (from) when I arrived."

The unambiguous and seemingly simple explanation, as quoted taken at the Inquest. For some anyway.

The quotes that say not more than 20..but perhaps as much as 30, are structurally incorrect. If Chris believes that 30 is not more than 20....that is his choice, not an accurate interpretation of the sentence syntax. Either Blackwell himself made the "not more than" error, or the press. If structurally grammatically unsound statements are your preference though, you can find them....they have been posted here as "proof" by others.

Although you may find people using "not more than" erroneously in everyday speech when they indeed did mean possibly "more than", I would think an educated surgeon would be as precise as he can be in an Inquest.....and offer something like the quote I posted above.

Best regards.

[Observer]

Hi

To add to post 248

Then again, the first two victims of Jack the Ripper went to their deaths willingly, Jack didn't have any trouble from them. Consequently we don't know how the Ripper would have reacted if a victim resisted him. Could broad shouldered man have been the Ripper, and this was his first taste of resistence from one of his victims? Could Stride have become uncomfortable in his presence and resisted his advances, the resulting episode as witnessed by Schwartz having then taken place?

all the best

Observer

[perrymason]

Thats an interesting posit Observer. However, Im more inclined to view this episode as you described in the first portion of your thoughts....that what has been described by Schwartz, and the fact Liz has only one cut.. does not seem to be something we would think fits the profile of the abdomen mutilator at large who has to that point in time, not been seen. Or not noticed,... Broadshoulders is seen and noticed assaulting a woman.

I would think since only Liz and BS man are left alone at approx 12:45-46, and there is no-one that we know of in the yard from 12:40 until 1:00am, he is most likely her killer. And not very likely the Ripper.

Best regards.

[Ben]

Could broad shouldered man have been the Ripper, and this was his first taste of resistence from one of his victims?

Indeed so, Observer. The fact that the man appeared to have been intoxicated might also have loosened his guard somewhat. Other serial killers have been alcohol abusers (Dahmer etc) and this often results in their "MO" being less than uniform and robotic every time, while others have consumed alcohol before seeking a victim (Bundy). I'm not among those who consider the actions of the broad-shouldered man to be especially "out of character" for the ripper. We simply don't know how he would have reacted if Albert Cadosche investigated the kerfuffle over the dividing fence in Hanbury Street, or if George Morris had popped out for a smoke in Mitre Square at the "wrong" time a la Pipeman.

All the best,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

Michael and Ben,

Do you think Jack was a numpty features?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chava]

Tom, I didn't know that Cadoche had heard a conversation. Can you tell me where to look to find this info?

By the way, although I do believe that Stride was an interrupted Ripper killing, your analysis of the crime scene similarities among the killings only holds true for the first four. Kelly's crime scene, placement of body etc etc was entirely different. (But then I do not believe that Kelly was a Ripper victim...)

[Observer]

Hi Tom

Michael and Ben,

Do you think Jack was a numpty features?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I know this is not adressed to me but he could well be under the influence of drink. However of the theories that I have recently put forward, (post 248) I favour the disgruntled local who didn't take to Stride propositioning him, he assaulting her, not murdering her. Trouble is there's not much time for another assailant to have murdered Stride between Schwartz's attacker, and Diemshutz's entrance.

all the best

Observer