What's the compelling feature?

[Sam Flynn]

Lawende`s man had the appearance of a sailor.

Apparently so, Jon. However should heed Lawende's precise words (or, rather, the description distilled from what he is reputed to have said) and the order in which they came out:

"Dress - Pepper and salt coloured loose jacket. Grey cloth cap with peak of same material. Reddish neckerchief tied in knot. Appearance of a sailor".

Note that the "appearance of a sailor" comes immediately after the mention of the neckerchief. I don't know about sailors wearing pepper-n-salt jackets or grey cloth caps, but I do know that the age-old image of a sailor has him wearing a knotted kerchief around his neck. For example, two different sailors' outfits from circa 1890s:



Did Lawende's alleged comparison refer to the ensemble, or merely to the tied neckerchief traditionally associated with sailors? Equally, whilst Marshall certainly states that his man's headgear was what a sailor would wear, sailors don't (and as far as I know never did) wear grey cloth caps, as Lawende's man was wearing.

Finally, despite courageous protestations to the contrary, Marshall's description of a man of "clerkly" appearance and decently dressed, can in no way be compared with Lawende's "rather rough and shabby" character seen outside Church Passage. Lawende may have moved in slightly different circles to Marshall, but both men would have been capable of knowing a clerk when they saw one.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn writes:

"despite courageous protestations to the contrary, Marshall's description of a man of "clerkly" appearance and decently dressed, can in no way be compared with Lawende's "rather rough and shabby" character seen outside Church Passage"

Where on earth have you been, Sam? Yes, yes, yes and yes! The two are totally and utterly incomparable, whereas there are lots and lots of pointers to Marshalls man and BS man both having that clerklike appearance, that sturdy built and nicely comparable clothes on top of that.

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Roy Corduroy]

Fisherman & Mr. Sam,

Oh, it was the same man allright. He lost some polish when he killed a woman in a yard, then cut crosslots to find another.

Roy

[Sam Flynn]

Oh, it was the same man allright. He lost some polish when he killed a woman in a yard, then cut crosslots to find another.

"Lost some polish", Roy?!! If he had not been in Southwark, safely ensconced in his mother's belly at the time, I'd have no hesitation in naming Charles Chaplin as the suspect - he alone could have gone from clerk to hobo in such a short space of time

[Fisherman]

Roy!

One thing that I have not picked up on before, is the significance of Lawendes man wearing a loose-fitting jacket. I have always thought that a jacket is either tight-fitting or loose-fitting, and that´s that.
But as I have delved into the mysteries of the 1880:s clothing practises, I have picked one thing up: that century saw a fling of fashion that resulted in the men wearing very tightfitting jackets. This is a description of it, that I found on the net:

"Men's clothing in the 1880s had a closer fit then previous decades.
Short, narrowly fitted jackets with narrow sleeves were popular during the 1880s. The lapels of the jacket were extremely narrow and small, and the jacket fit close to the throat, barely revealing the necktie."

So, you see, it is not only the colours of the clothes and the shabbyness and rough appearance of the man that swears against him being the clerkly type –it is also the fashion. A loose-fitting jacket would be an exception from the rule.

The best, Roy!
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Fisherman & Mr. Sam,

Oh, it was the same man allright. He lost some polish when he killed a woman in a yard, then cut crosslots to find another.

Roy

It was most certainly not the same man. So that's nonsense.

As for the man seen by Schwartz (to return to him briefly) we don't even he even existed in the first place.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Apparently so, Jon. However should heed Lawende's precise words (or, rather, the description distilled from what he is reputed to have said) and the order in which they came out:

"Dress - Pepper and salt coloured loose jacket. Grey cloth cap with peak of same material. Reddish neckerchief tied in knot. Appearance of a sailor".

Note that the "appearance of a sailor" comes immediately after the mention of the neckerchief. I don't know about sailors wearing pepper-n-salt jackets or grey cloth caps, but I do know that the age-old image of a sailor has him wearing a knotted kerchief around his neck. [...]
Did Lawende's alleged comparison refer to the ensemble, or merely to the tied neckerchief traditionally associated with sailors? Equally, whilst Marshall certainly states that his man's headgear was what a sailor would wear, sailors don't (and as far as I know never did) wear grey cloth caps, as Lawende's man was wearing.

Hi Sam,

To me it sounds like it was Lawende's overall impression.
However, since no other element on Lawende's man resembles any real sailor features, one has to conclude that it mainly was the red neckerchife that led to his conclsuion.
However, we should take into account here that Lawende most likely didn't refer to any sailor with uniform, but a 'sailor type' in civilian clothing.
Many from the poor classes and the lowest working class wore any jacket they could find, and I have seen loads of photos with men from that category wearing loosely/ill fitting jackets, including peaked cloth caps.
So it might have been the red neckerchief in combination with the shabbiness and the loosely fit jacket that gave him the impression of a sailor TYPE although not in uniform.

I do NOT think he referred to anything like what's displayed in the pictures you provided.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Glenn,

I guess my point is that Lawende's description as we know it (or, rather, that which appeared in abbreviated form in the Police Gazette) didn't emerge robotically from his lips, but probably derived from a line of questioning along these lines:

Policeman: What was the man wearing?
Lawende: He was wearing a jacket and cap.
Policeman: What kind of a jacket?
Lawende: It was... how do you say... "salt and pepper"?
Policeman: Was it light or dark cloth, old or new?
Lawende: Oh, dark cloth... and not new - no. I should say rough and shabby.
Policeman: What about the cap? Was that the same?
Lawende: Yes - but not "salt and pepper", no. It was made of grey cloth, and had a - how you say? - peak.
Policeman: A leather peak?
Lawende: No - it was cloth. Same material as the rest of the cap.
Policeman: Can you tell me what else this man was wearing?
Lawende: He had a sort of red scarf about his neck.
Policeman: You mean a neckerchief?
Lawende: Yes - that's right - a neckerchief.
Policeman: How was it worn? Was it loosely wrapped, like a cravat, or...
Lawende: No, no. It was tied in a knot - you know, like a sailor wears around his neck. It reminded me of a sailor.

...or something to that effect. This later gets boiled down - quite accurately - to the more pithy and familiar, "Dress - Pepper and salt coloured loose jacket. Grey cloth cap with peak of same material. Reddish neckerchief tied in knot. Appearance of a sailor".

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Why such a long-winded post again?

The article, Ben? It´s articles, plural, four of them, each one pointing to the fact that there were short cutaway coats around.

The existence of short-cutaway coats were never in question. However, cutaway coats are still characterized by a distinctive tail at the back, and you're articles more than bear me out on this point. If you're following a person wearing a cutaway from behind, then the tail would have been especially in evidence, enabling it to be readily distinguished from any other coat or jacket. It would have been so obviously a cutaway.

I even supplied the web address to a picture showing you that there were cut-away patterns offered in the 19:th century where it is blatantly obvious that a cutaway need hardly even reach over your bum.

Absolute nonsense. If it didn't reach over the bum, it wouldn't have been a motherfeckin' cutaway!

Look again, Ben, especially on the pattern from the cutting manual, and THEN tell me that I am wrong

You're wrong.

Do you always function like this? State something that is wrong, be presented with evidence pointing showing just that, and Booooh - you have been attacked by someone force feeding evidence

My position is that a cutaway would have been easily recognised and described as such, especially from a rear view, which is why both Smith and Marshall specified cutaway. Nothing that you've shared with us has cast doubt on this obvious reality, indefatigable and aggressive though your efforts have been.

But the interesting part here is of course the fact that Marshalls man tallies very well with BS mans length, whereas there is a clear discrepancy in length between Smiths man and BS man.

Yes.

There is.

But there isn't a clear discrepency in height between Marshall's man and Smith's man. In fact, they tally very nicely, along with the cutaway reference that was conspicuously in absence from the Schwartz description.

whereas there are lots and lots of pointers to Marshalls man and BS man both having that clerklike appearance

If you're claiming that there are "lots and lots of pointers" to BS man having a clerklike appearance then you are either ignorant, delusional or a hopeless liar.

In the end, it goes nicely to point out that Marshalls man and BS man have very, very much in common, undoubtedly much more than Smiths man and Marshalls do.

Absolute nonsense. Awful ghastly dreadful nonsense. I need a drink.

[Ben]

The Swanson (Abberline)/Star accounts are irreconcilable. They make nonsense of one another. Pipeman morphs into Knifeman.

You're absolutely right, Simon!

Finally, despite courageous protestations to the contrary, Marshall's description of a man of "clerkly" appearance and decently dressed, can in no way be compared with Lawende's "rather rough and shabby" character seen outside Church Passage.

You're absolutely right, Gareth!

[Ben]

Still I feel that the matter of the cutaway coat is soon settled, since I have shown Ben a number of examples of me being correct on the issue.

Um, correct on what issue, Fish?

What exactly was your "cutaway-related" position in the first place?

Does it all tie in with your crazy assumption that a guy in a cutaway picked up Stride, asked her if she was intending to continute prostitution and retorted with "You'd say anything but your prayers" when she replied in the affirmative; left before 12:30 to have a drink in Commercial Street; allowed another similarly-dressed cutaway-wearing man to chat to her for a few minutes (who then went away); before leaving the Commercial Street pub and walking straight back down Berner Street to find Stride right where he left her, and decided this time he was going to kill her and run away straight afterwards....? All because you've decided, with no basis whatsoever, that Marshall's man had the same coat as the broadshouldered man?

My position is that cutaways were distinctive, and easily recognizable as such, which is why both Marshall and Smith referred to such a garment....whilst Schwartz didn't.

Tomorrow, I expect a frank admission from you that you're just pulling my leg here. You must be. I mean, there's no way you could speak with such absolute certainly (and with attendant absolutes and preposterous "undoubtedlys") about such a crazily speculative hypothesis unless it's just all one big hilarious joke you're playing on me.

[Fisherman]

Ben!

You write:

”The existence of short-cutaway coats were never in question. However, cutaway coats are still characterized by a distinctive tail at the back, and you're articles more than bear me out on this point. If you're following a person wearing a cutaway from behind, then the tail would have been especially in evidence, enabling it to be readily distinguished from any other coat or jacket. It would have been so obviously a cutaway.”

Now, what I am trying to say here, is that your assertion that a cutaway coat always has tails that will reach down to at least knee-length (for that IS waht you are saying, is it not?), is something that not seems to be true!
I will once again point you to the picture of two men in cutaway´s on the website http://www.uvm.edu/landscape/dating/...4d13c8e4917c76 where it is perfectly obvious that a cutaway coat or jacket need not meet that description of yours. As you can see, these garments were totally similar to an ordinary jacket, but for one thing – the lower front parts were CUT AWAY obliquely. All you have to do is to take one look at the picture and read the text and you will see what I am talking about!

These jackets were introduced in the 1880s, and would have been quite ordinary. They look NOTHING like the cutaway we traditionally give that name, but then again Ben; you must have seen hundreds and thousands of pictures of people on the East end streets of the 1880s. On how many of these pictures have you seen Eastenders roaming the streets in long-tailed jackets??

And again: how did you arrive at the conclusion that BS mans jacket was short? I think it was – I think it was a jacket exactly similar to the short cutaway jackets worn by the men in the picture I have pointed you to, but I really have never seen something to evidence your claim. What is your source, Ben?

You write:
”My position is that a cutaway would have been easily recognised and described as such, especially from a rear view, which is why both Smith and Marshall specified cutaway.”

Ben, ask yourself what is cut away in a cutaway? Where did the name come from? It does not refer to the tails, Ben, it refers to the front of the jacket, where the cut away pieces are those at the lower end of the jacket! THAT has been cut away, whereas the tails have been ADDED to most cutaways, to a larger or smaller extent. But not to ALL cutaways, as is obvious on the picture – those are cutaway garments with no tails, and the jackets only just cover the bums of them two gentlemen!

Next:

My words:

”whereas there are lots and lots of pointers to Marshalls man and BS man both having that clerklike appearance”

Your words:

”If you're claiming that there are "lots and lots of pointers" to BS man having a clerklike appearance then you are either ignorant, delusional or a hopeless liar.”

This, Ben, is unnecessary. What I write is that there are lots of pointers to show that Marshalls man and BS man had that appearance. I never said specifically that BS had that, I said that the two men taken together had it. Different thing.

”Does it all tie in with your crazy assumption that a guy in a cutaway picked up Stride, asked her if she was intending to continute prostitution and retorted with "You'd say anything but your prayers" when she replied in the affirmative; left before 12:30 to have a drink in Commercial Street; allowed another similarly-dressed cutaway-wearing man to chat to her for a few minutes (who then went away); before leaving the Commercial Street pub and walking straight back down Berner Street to find Stride right where he left her, and decided this time he was going to kill her and run away straight afterwards....? All because you've decided, with no basis whatsoever, that Marshall's man had the same coat as the broadshouldered man?

My position is that cutaways were distinctive, and easily recognizable as such, which is why both Marshall and Smith referred to such a garment....whilst Schwartz didn't.”

My assumption, Ben, is that Marshalls man and BS man COULD well have been one and the same. My assumption is that the descriptions of these two men seemingly tallies exceedingly well. My assumption is that the two jackets may well have been one and the same - a dark, short cutaway jacket with no tails. My assertion is that Marshalls mans jacket may and probably would have been of the type presented on the photo I am pointing you to – a cutaway (!) that only just covered the bum, and that displayed no more tails than the ordinary jacket.
On the rest, I make no assumptions as such, whereas I have told you that there are hundreds of scenarios possible, explaining what elapsed during the hour between Marshalls sighting and the row outside the yard.

”Tomorrow, I expect a frank admission from you that you're just pulling my leg here”

I am not, Ben. I am as serious as I can be. Your attitude has ensured that.

I have been long-winded again, and I know that. But since short does not seem to do the trick, I simply have to.

Finally, I will ask you to start your next post by giving me the answers to two questions:

1.What is your opinion on the picture I have pointed you to, showing two men clad in cutaways fashioned for the 1880s, obviously with NO tails on them, and no longer than an ordinary jacket? Surely you have to admit that these cutaways could well be what BS man wore?

2.What is your source for stating that BS mans jacket was a short one?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Why such a long-winded post?

I'll give you a well-intentioned tip; it's much better to be direct and succinct. I learned this only recently. Long posts are often skimmed through only very cursorily with the key points often getting overlooked in the process.

the lower front parts were CUT AWAY obliquely. All you have to do is to take one look at the picture and read the text and you will see what I am talking about!

Yes, Fisherman, that is perfectly true of short cutaways, but long or short, a cutaway is very obviously and discerneably a cutaway, and if seen, will certainly be referred to as such. Either that or a "morning suit" or "morning coat" which refers to the same garment (see the description from Best and Gardner).

On how many of these pictures have you seen Eastenders roaming the streets in long-tailed jackets??

Few few, but then on very few pictures have I seen Eastenders roaming the streets in any form of cutaway.

Ben, ask yourself what is cut away in a cutaway? Where did the name come from? It does not refer to the tails

It doesn't refer to the tails, but it still has tails. That is a feature of the cutaway coat, it tails off at the rear. Hedgehogs was presumably so called because they were predominantly hedge-dwelling creatures. They weren't called "Spikeys" despite the conspicuous presence of spikes. You see?

those are cutaway garments with no tails

No, you're mistaken. A cutaway will always have a tail; it's just the case that the length of the tail will vary.

What I write is that there are lots of pointers to show that Marshalls man and BS man had that appearance.

I know you've written that. You certainly haven't demonstrated it.

My assumption is that the two jackets may well have been one and the same - a dark, short cutaway jacket with no tails

Ah, that's fine. I'm ok with assumptions. I respectfully disagree, and would instead suggest a far greater congruity between Smith's man and Marshall's man, especially since both witnesses specifically describe a "cutaway" coat, unlike Schwartz, and especially because it doesn't involve a complicated shinannigan involiving the man leaving Stride for a hour before returning, experiencing a radical change of mood towards her, and killing her. At least, with the Smith and Marshall evidence, a reasonable case can be advanced that Stride was in the company of a clerkly character for an hour or so before leaving her alone by 12:45 (as she was seen by Schwartz), and then encountering her killer.

What is your opinion on the picture I have pointed you to, showing two men clad in cutaways fashioned for the 1880s, obviously with NO tails on them, and no longer than an ordinary jacket?

How can you say there were no tails when the picture didn't afford a rear view? Here's what wikipedia says about the cutaway:

A morning coat is a single-breasted coat, the front parts usually meeting at one button in the middle, and curving away into a pair of tails behind.

No tails = no cutaway.

2.What is your source for stating that BS mans jacket was a short one?

Did I say that? Whoops, my bad! Short or long, a rear view of the order that Schwartz aquired would have told him immediately whether or not the outer garment was a cutaway. If it was, he'd have referred to it as such, just as Smith and Marshall did.

We're getting absolutely entrenched over a trivial detail. I seem to able to hypnotize people here into that habit.

Best regards,
Ben

[Roy Corduroy]

Fisherman, Sam & Glenn,

Top of the morning to you,

Yes I meant what I said. Imagine you are the murderer. You murder a woman in a yard, then, seeking more prey, you cut across town at night. You will not look so sharp there as when you started out, will you now?

Yes, Fish I asked my wife about the cutaway and she said "it flares out from front to back." I laud your
efforts, sir, in clothing research.

Yes Sam, I understand, clerk to hobo. Clerk- Marshall (verified). Hobo-paraphrase of "rough & shabby" (verified) from the Daily Telegraph transcript of Lawende inquest testimony. OK. I counter with the word sailor, uttered by both Marshall & Lawende in verified statements.

Yes Glenn, I heard you implode one of my pillars.

It was most certainly not the same man. So that's nonsense. As for the man seen by Schwartz (to return to him briefly) we don't even he even existed in the first place.

OK, I am waiting patiently and calmly. Explain to me how Schwartz's man did not exist please.

Again, sirs, I appreciate you including me in your discussion group. It helps me learn.

Roy

[Mitch Rowe]

Schwartz could have been lying. There is nothing or anyone that I know of that corroborates his story. His story dont fit when the whole of the events that night are taken into consideration. As such I personally must choose to ignore his testimony. I feel it will just confuse me on the real issues. This doesnt mean I am dropping the "evidence" that does not fit my theories. It means just the opposite. I looked at the story Schwartz tells and it dont seem credible.

On the other hand..Anyone that chooses to ignore the fact that less than an hour after Stride is killed Eddowes is killed is ignoring evidence to fit ones own theory.

These so called "Witnesses" that appear thoughout these series of murders must be given a low value of worth as evidence simply because its possible to mix things up/lie/see something different/ect.. However having said that there are sometimes when a witness can crack the case for ya.

The problem with the witnesses we have in the JTR cases is that we cant interview them. We need to see them face to face. We need to use our skills at reading body language and to be able to play "Mind Games" with them in order to asses their value as a witness or suspect. I would be picking Schwartz brain right now. Im so pessimistic about his story.

A one on one with him is what is needed for me to believe him. The only other alternative is another witness who corroborates his story.

So I want to talk to BS Man and PipeMan. They are witnesses until they become suspects. With what evidence is left I really have no reason to suspect them. John Richardson is far more suspect.

From what I know about it so far... I have to say Stride was killed by JTR. JTR is my prime suspect for at least the C5 murders. JTR worked alone.