What's the compelling feature?

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Dark cutaway coat. Dark trousers. Stoutly built. Round cap with a small peak. Middle aged. Does that ring any bells?

Yes!

He sounds an awful lot like the smartly-dressed clerkly character seen by PC Smith at approximately 12:30am; the man who had clearly departed the scene leaving Stride alone by the time Schwartz appeared; the man who was quite clearly different to the broad-shouldered attacker who had arrived alone from the direction of Commercial Road before encountering a lone Stride. Or did he say a fond farewell to Stride at 12:30am, head north to the main road, then do an abrupt about turn, meet Stride again and this time decide to kill her?

'Cause that would be a rather strange scenario, surely?

Now that the "bozze-befuddled" bit must be taken away - according to you, not to me, since I feel that the paper report may well be treated as very useful - I also think that you may have to rethink you picture of the overall appearance of BS man.

And I think you may have to rethink your picture of the overall appearance of the BS man. I think you've wedded yourself too strongly to the "respectable" detail that appeared in the press and, conspicuously and significantly, not in the police report.

Bit of a stalemate really, isn't it?

Best wishes,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"He sounds an awful lot like the smartly-dressed clerkly character seen by PC Smith at approximately 12:30am; the man who had clearly departed the scene leaving Stride alone by the time Schwartz appeared; the man who was quite clearly different to the broad-shouldered attacker who had arrived alone from the direction of Commercial Road before encountering a lone Stride. Or did he say a fond farewell to Stride at 12:30am, head north to the main road, then do an abrupt about turn, meet Stride again and this time decide to kill her?"

He comes CLOSE to that description of Smith´s too, but not close enough to compete. Smith´s man was taller (about 5 ft 7 - 5 ft 8), and had dark complexion, something that was NOT mentioned by Marshall. Most importantly though, Smith has nothing to say about the built of the man, whereas Marshall has him down as a stout man!

There is actually nothing at all that swears against Marshalls man and BS man being one and the same when it comes to appearance, whereas there is if you scrutinize Smith´s guy. There is also the parcel that man was carrying, and of which Marshall says nothing.

"Or did he say a fond farewell to Stride at 12:30am, head north to the main road, then do an abrupt about turn, meet Stride again and this time decide to kill her?"

I don´t follow, Ben; Marshalls testimony is clocked to about 11.45 PM, not 12.30 AM. There is a full hour between his man´s appearance south of F. Street and his reappearance (if it was him) at Dutfield´s yard. There may be a number of perfectly credible scenarios explaining what you call "a fond goodbye" (may just as well have been an ironic one, for example) turning into murder.
She could have told him their affair was over, and he tried to take it graciously.
She could have told him she had done her last night of prostituting herself, after which he found she had been lying.
And so on, Ben. Nothing strange at all in such a picture.

And no, I find no reason at all to rethink my picture of BS man, since nothing has been put forward to credibly point him out as a ruffian, whereas whe have TWO descriptions of a stout fellow dressed in exactly the same respectable-looking clothes, appearing in the company of Liz Stride within little more than an hour of her time of death.
That, Ben, is ample and compelling reason NOT to believe in BS man being anything else than a man of a clerkly, respectable appearance!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

There is actually nothing at all that swears against Marshalls man and BS man being one and the same when it comes to appearance, whereas there is if you scrutinize Smith´s guy. There is also the parcel that man was carrying, and of which Marshall says nothing.

No no no. Good heavens!

He probably picked up the parcel some time between the Marshall and Smith sightings - no discrepency there at all. Marshall didn't say anything about the man's complexion because he was on the other side of the road and didn't get a look at the man's face - no discrepency there at all. Marshall thought the man's height was 5"6' while Smith proffered 5"7' - no discrepency there at all. Marshall's man is closer to Smith's than Schwartz's.

She could have told him their affair was over, and he tried to take it graciously. She could have told him she had done her last night of prostituting herself, after which he found she had been lying.

It's all speculative stuff, though, Fish. I don't begrudge you that at all, but the evidence is too ambiguous to allow for the confident conclusions you appear to arriving at. For example, you have Stride walking around and canoodling with Marshall's man at 11:45pm, the latter then leaves her and goes elsewhere sometime before 12:30am for reasons you don't really explain. Along comes another clerkly-looking man with a parcel. He skulks around with Stride for a while before departing, and then at 12:45am we have an encore from Mr. "Anything but yer prayers" who comes back and killers her instead.

It's all fine and dandy, but don't be hugely surprised if most people settle for "Jack the Ripper killed Stride" as a somewhat simpler explanation. Not the correct one, necessarily, but simpler.

And no, I find no reason at all to rethink my picture of BS man, since nothing has been put forward to credibly point him out as a ruffian

Sure there is.

His actions and movements and general appearance announce the obvious "ruffian".

whereas whe have TWO descriptions of a stout fellow dressed in exactly the same respectable-looking clothes

No, we don't. We have one "respectable" account from the Star that doesn't appear in the police report. Wisdom lies in accepting the police report rather than press tittle tattle. Please, I don't want to hear that "exactly the same" woo woo. A cutaway coat is most certainly not the same as a short jacket, and a "felt hat" (which appeared in the Star account that you endorse as gospel) is quite different to a sailor-like cap.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

A note to Jon....I do see that I confused what sighting you were referring to regarding Brown/Marshall, and that was because I was assuming you had erred on the time and was making a case for someone seen with Liz close to the time of her death, not over an hour earlier.

I dont believe you can sort out who among these descriptions may be the same man and seen by more than 1 person:

Marshall: 11:45-Small, black coat, dark trousers,middle aged, round cap with a small sailor-like peak. 5'6", stout, appearance of a clerk. No moustache, no gloves, with a cutaway coat.


PC Smith: 12:30pm-Aged 28, cleanshaven and respectable appearance, 5'7", hard dark felt deerstalker hat, dark clothes. Carrying a newspaper parcel 18 x 7 inches.

Brown: 12:45pm-5'7", stout, long black diagonal coat which reached almost to his heels

Schwartz: 12:45pm-Broadshouldered Man; Aged 30, 5'5", brown haired, fair complexion, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.

And later that night Lawendes suspect: Aged 30, 5'7", fair complexion, brown moustache, salt-and-pepper coat, red neckerchief, grey peaked cloth cap. Sailor-like.

Even though the description are quite similar for all of these men, its not very likely it is one man that was seen by all. Which adds some conviction to the notion that many, many men between 28 and 30 wore similar looking garb out at night, as many were probably either unemployed, or employed at night in similar types of work.

For example, Marshall's man has no moustache, Schwartz's man does,.. I believe Marshall saw a flower on Liz's jacket breast, Brown didnt,.. PC Smith saw a hard felt Deerstalker hat, Marshall saw a round hat with a sailor like peak,... Marshall's man was stout, PC Smith I believes says strong build, Brown's man was stout and Schwartz says Broadshoulders, the men range in height from 5"5" to 5'7".

I realize that different people notice different things, and to varying degrees of accuracy, but I would think the commonality of men between 26 and 30 wearing dark coats and caps should indicate that there were quite a few men out at night who were similar in appearance. There is also a difference between a hat and a cap, the second being headgear that is less rigid in shape.

And Lawendes man had a salt and pepper coat and a red scarf with a grey cap...matching none of Strides witness suspects.

Best regards.

[Ben]

And Lawendes man had a salt and pepper coat and a red scarf with a grey cap...matching none of Strides witness suspects.

I think that's just Lawende being more specific, Mike. The lighting quality (or lack thereof) didn't allow for much distinction between grey and black, or grey and "salt and pepper" etc.

Best,

Ben

[Jon Guy]

For example, Marshall's man has no moustache, Schwartz's man does,.. I believe Marshall saw a flower on Liz's jacket breast, Brown didnt,.. PC Smith saw a hard felt Deerstalker hat, Marshall saw a round hat with a sailor like peak,... Marshall's man was stout, PC Smith I believes says strong build, Brown's man was stout and Schwartz says Broadshoulders, the men range in height from 5"5" to 5'7".

And Lawendes man had a salt and pepper coat and a red scarf with a grey cap...matching none of Strides witness suspects.
.

Hello again Mike. Regarding Marshall`s man and his moustache, or lack of. Marshall stated he could not see his face as the man made a point of not showing his face- which I feel is important.

Also, Schwartz was never in a position to note whether BS Man was wearing a red neckerchief as he was behind him for the greater part of the incident.

[Jon Guy]

PS. Jon, the sense I am speaking about is not that of the killer, but that of Franks post!

Understand now, sorry mate. I agree, Frank posts some good stuff.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

" Marshall's man is closer to Smith's than Schwartz's."

Then, pray tell me Sir: On what points do Schwartz´s and Marshalls men differ??

Of course, Ben, he could have picked up that parcel within that hour. But there is no such need involved when we settle for Marshalls man, is there? And why did he take the opportunity to change hats at the same time??

"Marshall thought the man's height was 5"6' while Smith proffered 5"7' "

5 ft 7 to 5 ft 8, Ben - so there is a difference. And again, there is no need to explain such things when we settle for Marshalls man, is there?

"It's all speculative stuff, though, Fish. I don't begrudge you that at all, but the evidence is too ambiguous to allow for the confident conclusions you appear to arriving at. For example, you have Stride walking around and canoodling with Marshall's man at 11:45pm, the latter then leaves her and goes elsewhere sometime before 12:30am for reasons you don't really explain. Along comes another clerkly-looking man with a parcel. He skulks around with Stride for a while before departing, and then at 12:45am we have an encore from Mr. "Anything but yer prayers" who comes back and killers her instead."

Indeed it is speculative, Ben! But surely you did not expect me to deliver an exact version of what happened, signed by BS man?
You asked me what could have caused the behaviour between "the fond farewell" and the murder, and if you ask such things, speculation is what I and the rest of the world has to offer.
Now, Marshalls man and Stride (and Marshall was dead sure that it WAS Stride) stood in the doorway for some ten minutes, before they took off in a southernly direction, and that is all we have.
The only thing overheard was "You will say anything but your prayers", and since speculation is the topic here, I would say that such words may well have been the answer to, say, a promise on Stride´s behalf that she would give up prostitution. Guesswork? You bet! But guesswork that functions linguistically and offers one (of a hundred) scenarios in which we get a credible explanation to why they seemed to part on good terms, only to latter turn into victim and killer. Could have happened like this, or - like I said - in a hundred other ways.

"His actions and movements and general appearance announce the obvious "ruffian"."

His actions did, you are right there, Ben. But I was - as always - speaking of the appearance. And as Marshall effectively shows us, a short jacket and a cap with a peak may well be the attire of a clerkly looking man with a respectable appearance. And by God, Ben, there is nothing more to lean against in that police report, is there? So when Marshall shows us that there is no need whatsoever to believe you on this point, then there it is! No way around that, I´m afraid.

My words:

”whereas whe have TWO descriptions of a stout fellow dressed in exactly the same respectable-looking clothes”

Your words:

”No, we don't. We have one "respectable" account from the Star that
doesn't appear in the police report. Wisdom lies in accepting the police report rather than press tittle tattle. Please, I don't want to hear that "exactly the same" woo woo. A cutaway coat is most certainly not the same as a short jacket, and a "felt hat" (which appeared in the Star account that you endorse as gospel) is quite different to a sailor-like cap.”

Me oh my, Ben, we ARE getting desperate here, are we not? Now you want to press the view that I favour the Star report over the police report.
Anybody who has taken part of this discussion of course will know that is plain stupid; I favour the Star report over the police report when it comes to the question of BS mans general appearance SINCE THE POLICE REPORT TELLS US NOTHING ON THE SUBJECT! Had that report spoken of "shabbily dressed", then it would have been another thing, but as it stands: NO!

I have seen worms on fishing hooks who have acted less evasive than this, Ben. For you know very well that the police report speaks of EXACTLY the same type of hat as does Marshall (and NOT Smith), and you also know that BS mans jacket was described simply as a dark jacket, with no further elaborations on it´s length, making it utterly comparable to a dark cutaway coat.

And please do not tell me that you do not want to hear that "exactly the same" woo woo any more.
Why? Because what we look for when we try to establish what really happened back then is corroborations between reports from different sources. And THAT is EXACTLY what we have here: two descriptions of men seen with Stride within little more than an hour before her death that tally down to the very last detail.
It is compellingly strong evidence, and if you don´t recognize that, those who are interested in corroborations like this – and you should be too, Ben – will do so.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Michael!

You write:

"For example, Marshall's man has no moustache, Schwartz's man does"

Please don´t do that! Here is a very relevant part from the Stride inquest:

[Coroner] You did not see his face. Had he any whiskers? - I cannot say. I do not think he had.

If you don´t get to see a man´s face, Mike, there is of course no telling if he had a moustache or not.
Now, take away that part, and compare Marshalls man to Shwartz´s guy, and tell me what you see...? Exactly, Michael!

The best,
Fisherman

Whoops; Jon got there first!

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

Why such a long-winded post?

Then, pray tell me Sir: On what points do Schwartz´s and Marshalls men differ??

Clothing for starters. A cutaway coat is nothing like a short jacket, whereas I recall both Smith and Marshall specifying cutaway, just as both mentioned the man having a respectable appearance. Nothing of the kind is mentioned in the police report on Schwartz's suspect, and unless the researcher is harbouring some silly agenda, it's better to accept the police report.

5 ft 7 to 5 ft 8, Ben - so there is a difference. And again, there is no need to explain such things when we settle for Marshalls man, is there?

5"7' from one witness and 5"6' from another is so far from being a "discrepency" it's unbelievable. Debate crushed and stifled for eternity on that score.

The only thing overheard was "You will say anything but your prayers", and since speculation is the topic here, I would say that such words may well have been the answer to, say, a promise on Stride´s behalf that she would give up prostitution. Guesswork? You bet!

I'd say so! Trouble is, you're asking us to accept your speculative scenarios as the only credible explanation whilst confidently ruling out the speculative scenarios of others, and that isn't going to fly. Not on my watch.

His actions did, you are right there, Ben. But I was - as always - speaking of the appearance. And as Marshall effectively shows us, a short jacket and a cap with a peak may well be the attire of a clerkly looking man with a respectable appearance.

No, Fish, it doesn't, because Marshall said nothing about his man having a "short jacket". He mentioned a cutway similar to the garment worn by Smith's man.

I favour the Star report over the police report when it comes to the question of BS mans general appearance SINCE THE POLICE REPORT TELLS US NOTHING ON THE SUBJECT

Well if you think that's a sensible approach to the study of history, be my guest. If you resort to a contradictory press report to fill in the perceived "blanks" in the police report whilst rashly supposing that the "blanks" were facts and not embellishment, be my guest. If you're prepared to accept that the silly old duffers in the police force forgot to ask about general appearance, but that a journalist managed to extract the salient details they missed, be my guest.

For you know very well that the police report speaks of EXACTLY the same type of hat as does Marshall (and NOT Smith)

"Exactly"? What? A cap with a peak? Bloody hell, that narrows down the options, doesn't it? A deerstalker is a cap with a forepeak. It also has an aft peak, but from a front view, it isn't noticed. It could be argued far more persuasively that Smith's man and Marshall's man had "exactly" the same type of coat.

and you also know that BS mans jacket was described simply as a dark jacket, with no further elaborations on it´s length, making it utterly comparable to a dark cutaway coat.

Utter nonsense. A cutaway coat is very long at the back, most commonly taling off near the heels. It is completely different to a jacket and would never be referred to as such. Honestly, if you want to nitpick, I'll be here all day to play.

And THAT is EXACTLY what we have here: two descriptions of men seen with Stride within little more than an hour before her death that tally down to the very last detail.

Yeah, Smith's man and Marshall's.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"A cutaway coat is nothing like a short jacket"

A short cutaway coat, often used for horseriding, is very much like a short black jacket. No difference there, Ben!

"5"7' from one witness and 5"6' from another is so far from being a "discrepency" it's unbelievable. Debate crushed and stifled for eternity on that score."

Aaaand once again, it was said 5 ft 7 to 5 ft 8, and then we may be speaking of some six centimeters, a clear difference. That difference was not there inbetween Schwartz´s man and Marshalls man!

"you're asking us to accept your speculative scenarios as the only credible explanation"

Again, no I am not: I am forwarding the fact that there are many such possible scenarios that cover for what you meant could hardly be covered. Different thing altogether.

"Well if you think that's a sensible approach to the study of history, be my guest."

If we have nothing else, and if we can corroborate stories from different sources, that is as sensible as we are going to get here. It beats your assertion out of thin air that BS was a shabby type, corroborated by NO source whatsoever, by miles and miles. But then again, we could be defining "sensible" in differing ways here...

"Marshall said nothing about his man having a "short jacket". He mentioned a cutway similar to the garment worn by Smith's man."

Did he? Did he say "The man I saw wore a garment similar to that worn by PC Smith´s man?
I think not, Ben.
If you take a closer look, you will find that he said nothing at all about the length of the jacket, meaning that it could have been a long OR a short cutaway coat.

"Exactly"? What? A cap with a peak? Bloody hell, that narrows down the options, doesn't it?"
No, Ben:
A cap with a peak.
Dark jacket and trousers.
Stout bodybuilt.
Respectable appearance.

It´s called addition, Ben.

"A cutaway coat is very long at the back, most commonly taling off near the heels. It is completely different to a jacket and would never be referred to as such. Honestly, if you want to nitpick, I'll be here all day to play."

Sure, Ben. Try Googling "short cutaway coat" and you will see. I got 58 hits on something that does not exist. Strange, is it not?

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Ben

I have to say,my friend, that I`m with Fisherman on this one.
I do see Marshall and Schwartz` man as the same.
Although Fisherman and I will disagree on the nature of the relationship between Stride and Marshall`s BS Man.

I can see a similarity between PC Smiths man and Mrs Long`s man.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

A short cutaway coat, often used for horseriding, is very much like a short black jacket. No difference there, Ben!

I will attempt to be exceptionally patient here. I hope to goodness I succeed, but no promises. A cutaway coat is completely different from a jacket regardless of how short or long it is. A cutaway coat is characterized by a long tail at the back (like with white tie and tails) and no Victorian would ever confuse it with a "jacket".

Aaaand once again, it was said 5 ft 7 to 5 ft 8, and then we may be speaking of some six centimeters, a clear difference. That difference was not there inbetween Schwartz´s man and Marshalls man!

You're taking the piss out of me, Fisherman. You must be.

You're honestly arguing that Smith and Marshall must have seen different men because one said 5"6' and the other said 5"7. I absolutely cannot believe what I'm reading. You may as well say that Schwartz and Marshall definitely saw different men because one said 5"5' and the other said 5"6'.

It beats your assertion out of thin air that BS was a shabby type, corroborated by NO source whatsoever, by miles and miles.

Nonsense. I never insisted that BS was a shabby type. From the police description he comes across as pretty average for St. George-in-the-East. The same description would probably appear less average and more shabby within the City of London.

Did he? Did he say "The man I saw wore a garment similar to that worn by PC Smith´s man? think not, Ben.

He referred to a "black diagonal cutaway coat" which corresponds pretty brilliantly with Marshall's description of a man in a cutaway, and very poorly with Schwartz description of a bloke in a short jacket.

No, Ben:
A cap with a peak.
Dark jacket and trousers.
Stout bodybuilt.
Respectable appearance.

All you're doing here is picking and choosing aspects from the police and press versions to come up with the appearance you want. Show me, for example, where the Star refers to BS wearing a cap with a peak? You won't find it. Instead you'll find a "felt hat" with no peak to speak of, and that's from the same article that talked about a "respectable" appearance.

Damn, I love nitpicking.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I do see Marshall and Schwartz` man as the same.

It's possible, I don't rule it out completely, but the reasons that Fisherman is currently coming up with to argue that case are extremely muddled and unconvincing from what I've seen so far. Out of interest, Jon, do you believe that the man is question was also the ripper of just Stride's killer? If you're looking for witness similarity, the suspects seen by Smith and Marshall are very similar, and the same may be said of Lawende and Schwartz's men.

Best,
Ben

[Dan Norder]

Im not sure that it was within their best interest to acknowledge that there were more than one knife wielding nuts running around even if they knew it or suspected it. And its clear there were...at that same time. At least 5 non-Canonicals say so.

Oh, please. Looks like you need another reality check.

First off, it was definitely not in the police officials' best interest to acknowledge that the serial killer that the press was making them look like idiots for not capturing was still running around killing people. I'm sure they'd much rather portray the incidents as unrelated than link them -- and there are documented instances of them doing just that when they investigated other deaths. We also see the exact same thing in other instances of serial killing: the police are very hesitant to admit that crimes are linked until they can't deny it any more. Individual random incidents of violence could be, and were, ignored by the public. A madman who returns time after time to continue killing just for the sake of killing cannot be ignored.

Secondly, just because you refer to some victims as "non-Canonicals" it doesn't mean that you've proved they were killed by someone other than the Ripper. It's possible they were, but it's also very possible that Jack had a more victims than the five. And we know from other serial killer cases that after the culprit is caught a group of other murders that the police hadn't linked together turns out to have also been part of the same series. Why do the police miss these other murders? Because they are too focused on trying to find and look at only the closest matches they can and miss out on the others. It's very likely the same mental process is at work in the Ripper case: people being so stubbornly restrictive in what they allow to be connected that they miss the big picture.