What's the compelling feature?

[drstrange169]

Hello Michael,

Back to your original post,

“… Arriving shortly after 1:10, Dr Blackwell examined the woman as she lay, and by 1:16 by his own watch, proclaimed that the woman was cut within the last 30 minutes, perhaps as recently as 20 minutes prior to this conclusion. The doctor was a Senior Medical Man, and was attempting to set a time of a throat cut within a ten minute window, but within the past 30 minutes. I believe this would be within his skill set to do. Approximately. With a 10 minute window…”

A couple of semantic points;

In his interview, on the night of the murder, Blackwell actually “proclaimed,” … Life could not have been extinct for more than 20 minutes... It wasn’t until the inquest that he became even less precise.

He was hardly a “senior medical man” having only qualified sometime in 1882. Some of his earlier case decisions were … well let’s say, not the kind I’d want from a doctor treating my family.

And a major medical fact.

The best forensic experts today would be hard pressed to pin point a time of death to a 10 minute window, in Victorian times it was categorically impossible. What test could he have applied that would be capable of being that precise?

It is not a question of linguistics but rather medicine. Blackwell was stating the murder took place at an indeterminable time within a 20/30 minute period.

The little snippets of medical evidence we have indicate “the blood was still flowing from the throat” when Spooner arrived. Blood flows for approximately five minutes after the heart stops beating. Lamb wasn’t sure if the blood was still flowing when he arrived but was sure some areas were still in a liquid state, which means its was either still flowing or had literally just stopped when he arrived. Bizarrely, Blackwell is reported as saying it was still flowing when he arrived.

Based on medical knowledge, it is quite possible, if not probable, that Elizabeth Stride was murdered around the time Diemschitz arrived. The frightening thought is that she may have been alive right up to Blackwell’s arrival.

Thanks for your time,

[Fisherman]

Ben!

Why am I so long-winded? Well, in case you have not noticed, so are you.

Ill try to touch only on the more salient points. That should keep you happy!

My question:

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

Your answer:

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

I think, Ben, that you have almost NEVER seen any picture from that time and place of men clad in what you describe as a cutaway. I also think that this fact should have rung a warning bell when you decided to debate the issue; would anyone (and in this case we have TWO cutaway men) in the 1880:s take to the streets with knee-long tails?
Of course not. It is a silly notion. The cutaway guys were to be found at Ascot, and not on Berner Street.

What you HAVE seen, however, in them East end photos, is heaps of people wearing short cutaway coats and jackets, with no tails on them. They look very similar to ordinary jackets, as you know by now. The photo I posted clinches it. No tails = no cutaway is plain wrong, Ben. Read the text alongside the photo: "Notice how the men's jackets in the image below are cut up from the bottom." That was what gave these short jackets the name cutaway. Or are you still claiming that there were thin tails hidden behind these gentlemen, reaching "at least to their knees"? I think not, Ben!

What do you do, when faced with a predicament like this? You search the records, and find out what kind of garment went under the name of "cutaway" in the East end of that time.
This is what I did, and I subsequentially found that short jackets like the ones displayed on the photo I mentioned, were called cutaway jackets. Now, you claim that we can´t see them from behind, but that is of course nothing but a moot effort to escape the unevitable - these jackets had no tails, and you can see it very clearly on the gentleman to the left, where the outline of the lower part of the jacket is completely discernible to such an extent as to conclude that these were jackets that had no resemblance whatsoever to your description of a cutaway. They were short, dark jackets, EXACTLY what BS man was reported to have.

You have of course realized by now that you were wrong. That shows itself in your sudden and slightly desperate dubbing of the issue "a trivial detail".

Trivial, Ben? Then why spend such time and effort on trying to fault me on what in the end cannot be faulted?

You know as well as I do, that if a cutaway could have been a short jacket, easily confused with the normal short jacket, then we have two spottings of men clad in exactly the same clothes, both colour- and tayloringwise, displaying the same clerkly appearance and the same stout built of body. And such a spotting would reinforce the notion that Stride was killed by an aquaintance whom she had been kissing an hour before she was killed, and NOT by the Ripper, to a very significant extent.

That is no small detail. That is a breakthrough in the work of identifying the people surrounding Stride in the moments before her death.

Short enough for you, I hope, Ben.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

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.

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.

Schwartz` story is corroborated ?

Mrs Mortimer heard what she thought was a policeman walking past her door at 12.45. This was not PC Smith, he was ten minutes earlier, it was either BS Man or Schwartz.

Both Mortimer and Letchford`s sister stood at their doors at about 12.50 and saw nothing, which fits Schwartz` statement, Liz was been assaulted by the gates.

All the Club members testified that no-one was in the yard between 12.45 and 01.00, which again fits with Schwartz` story.

If invented, how would Schwartz know the yard or street was empty for his incident to occur ?

[Fisherman]

Mitch writes:

"Schwartz could have been lying"

Absolutely, Mitch. And so could Long. And so could Cadoche. And so could Gardner. And so could Barnett. And so could Hutch. And so could Best.

Come to think of it, so could Abberline.

Thing is, long as you cannot prove it, you had better to prepare for living with that. And if you have taken part of the discussion on this thread, it should be patently obvious to you that the man mentioned by Schwartz looked very much like a man testified about by a completely different witness.

The best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

Hi Roy

Mr. Observer, she did have bruises and an abrasion:

" Over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collarbone and in front of the chest there was a bluish discoloration, which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since."

"there was an abrasion of the skin about one and a half inches in diameter, apparently stained with blood, under her right arm."

Hope this helps,

Roy

Hi Jon

Stride had slight bruising, but what was the intention of Schwartz’s attacker? Was the attack premeditated? Did the assailant approach Stride with the full intention of killing her? If not, then I’d expect more injuries to Stride especially upon the face.

Schwartz did not describe the man holding a knife, to me the attack upon Stride as witnessed by Schwartz does not appear to be the behaviour of a man who intended to kill.

I could well be wrong though, could the attack upon Stride at 12:45 a.m. have escalated into murder? I think not.

One thing is certain though, there can be no doubt that the eventual murderer of Stride intended to kill her, her throat was severely cut, and if it was the work of the Ripper then why no mutilation?

All the best

Observer

[Ben]

I also think that this fact should have rung a warning bell when you decided to debate the issue; would anyone (and in this case we have TWO cutaway men) in the 1880:s take to the streets with knee-long tails?

Of course they did, Fisherman, this was the late Victorian period. Not so much in the East End, but in the better-heeled boroughs of London they would certainly have "taken to the streets" so attired.

What you HAVE seen, however, in them East end photos, is heaps of people wearing short cutaway coats and jackets, with no tails on them

Oh, what nonsense! I've seen them wearing normal jackets (quite commonly the "loose-fitting" variety) which are not "cutaways". If they don't have tails, they are most emphatically not cutaways. Please don't tell me what I have or haven't seen. If William Marshall had seen a man in a jacket with nothing resembling a tail at the rear, he would not have called it a cutaway.

They look very similar to ordinary jackets, as you know by now. The photo I posted clinches it. No tails = no cutaway is plain wrong, Ben.

Oh, what nonsense! Didn't I just provide the quote?

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

That is the definition of a cutaway. It "curves away" into a tail. Here's an actual dictionary definition.

a man's formal daytime coat having the front portion of the skirt cut away from the waist so as to curve or slope to the tails at the back.

No tails = no cutaway. Fact.

So what do you do, when faced with a predicament like this? You search the records, and find out what kind of garment went under the name of "cutaway" in the East end of that time.

Or in your case, ignore factual definition because it doesn't suit your outrageous cooked-up agenda, and dredge up some obscure nonsense to force-feed into your conclusions.

Now, you claim that we can´t see them from behind, but that is of course nothing but a moot effort to escape the unevitable - these jackets had no tails, and you can see it very clearly on the gentleman

Oh, what nonsense! It would have had a tail if it was a cutaway. That is the definition of a cutaway. You can't see the man's back, and yet if the caption refers to it as a cutaway, it must have had a tail.

They were short, dark jackets, EXACTLY what BS man was reported to have.

What on earth are you on about? "Exactly"? Where's this "exact" description of the broadshouldered man's jacket?

You have of course realized by now that you were wrong.

I've realized that your current approach to the study of history consists of wilful falsehoods, and a futile pretense that the actual dictionary definition of a cutaway is wrong while yours is right. That's about all I've realized. But do please continute to convince yourself of the patently false, while the more discerning readers point and laugh.

You know as well as I do, that if a cutaway could have been a short jacket, easily confused with the normal short jacket

A cutaway is easily recognised as such, which is why both Marshall and Smith specified cutaway...while Schwartz didn't.

and tailoringwise, displaying the same clerkly appearance

Who said anything about BS having a "clerkly appearance"? Nobody. You invented it out of thin air; lying to yourself in essence.

And such a spotting would reinforce the notion that Stride was killed by an aquaintance whom she had been kissing an hour before she was killed, and NOT by the Ripper, to a very significant extent.

Only if you were allowed to get away with outright invention and conjured up definitions of Victorian garments which run contrary to the actual definition, yes, otherwise, you're wasting everyone's time.

it should be patently obvious to you that the man mentioned by Schwartz looked very much like a man testified about by a completely different witness

Yeah, Joseph Lawende being about the closest.

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

I could well be wrong though, could the attack upon Stride at 12:45 a.m. have escalated into murder? I think not.

It must have done, really, because she was found dead shortly afterwards. Any suspect observed attacking a victim shortly before the discovery of that victim's body is automatically the most viable suspect. Why no mutilation? A few options spring to mind; the first is that he wasn't the ripper, a second is that he was interrupted by Diemschutz, but a third - and possibly my favourite - is that he feared the imminent return of Schwartz and/or the Pipeman with the nearest PC on beat; William Smith.

All best wishes,

Ben

[Fisherman]

I´ll settle for only one sentence this time, Ben.

"A cutaway is easily recognised as such, which is why both Marshall and Smith specified cutaway...while Schwartz didn't."

What makes you think that Schwartz was familar with the word cutaway? How much do you think he had picked up on the subject of British fashion, given that you yourself have not yet understood what variety of patterns a cutaway could subscribe to.
To quote from a dictionary will get you the definition of the garment that applies in the year that dictionary hits the market. We are speaking fashion here, Ben, and fashion, in contrast to your stubborness, varies over time.

A cutaway jacket in the East end of them days could and would be a shortish jacket of the type displayed on the photo I provided, and not something suited for Ascot. Beware, Ben, before you jump to quick conclusions on who is being laughed at...

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Dusty to respond to your points, I wont get into this particular avenue of discussion again, suffice to say that everyone is capable of deciding what they accept as the "sound" statements, and interpreting the various quoted discrepancies differently, Ive chosen my particular statements in this instance.

Not that Im complaining, nice to see a thread of mine with the legs this one has...but.....aside from trying to match early witnesses suspects up with later ones, or questioning the accuracy of points made regarding statements or the qualifying points in the introduction here.....I dont recall a single post that is addressing the premise..other than the 2nd.

Choose your medical opinion on TOC however you like, make it that Diemshutz is standing right there when it occurs for all I care, use an assumption that Broadshouldered Man had been with Liz earlier that night....however you see the facts, put them together.

What is the compelling feature that allows us to assume that the murderer of Elizabeth Stride was killed by Jack The Ripper?

Ill re-iterate what I said early on.....I believe that to make such a statement you would need to use the assumption that he was interrupted....that he intended only a single cut, or that Broadshouldered Man was Jack. On the first point, I suppose thats based on what you think is a rational accurate interpretation of Blackwells remarks knowing his intent...to define a cut time "period" approximately...on the second point, there is absolutely no physical evidence suggestive of a act initiated then halted still incomplete, nor is there any evidence using her physical demeanor to suggest further acts were intended, and the third point is what all the discussion is about.... whether BS looks like Marshalls man, or PC Smiths, or Lawendes, as if by proving that one witnessed suspect matches another victims...so, ergo we have have Jack.

Mr Schwartz is not known to have seen Jack, nor is Mr Lawende, none of the suspects witnessed that night are proven, nor do we have reason to suspect, that they were Jack...not Marshalls, Smiths, Browns, Schwartz's, only Lawendes.

You have a man witnessed walking as if intoxicated, from behind, who interacts with a woman who has been seen hanging around the area since after the meeting ended, just outside a yard that was by witness testimony empty at 12:40am. Further testimony suggests it was empty when Lave was in it and a witness walked through it. We are told by the witness, Schwartz, that the apparently intoxicated man approached Liz and tried to steer Ms Stride into the street, and in the process she fell to the ground...making a verbal exclamation. The man with Ms Stride noticed the witness, yelled something at him, likely a warning, and the witness then continues on home to his new address...which is not on this street... as of earlier in the day, and courtesy of his wife. He is followed, or a man who had been smoking a pipe across the street follows after him, and at 12:45-12:46, Ms Stride and her assailant are left alone just outside the place where she is found dead in 14 minutes. The outside, earliest estimate of Mr Blackwells guess on cut time at 1:16am, says that she may have been cut as early as 12:46am.

What is the compelling feature using these facts, and the demeanor of the victim in death and crime scene evidence, that compels us to believe she is a Ripper victim?

Best regards all.

[Observer]

Hi Ben

Hi Observer,



It must have done, really, because she was found dead shortly afterwards. Any suspect observed attacking a victim shortly before the discovery of that victim's body is automatically the most viable suspect. Why no mutilation? A few options spring to mind; the first is that he wasn't the ripper, a second is that he was interrupted by Diemschutz, but a third - and possibly my favourite - is that he feared the imminent return of Schwartz and/or the Pipeman with the nearest PC on beat; William Smith.

All best wishes,

Ben

I'd plump for your first assumption. But wouldn't the Ripper have time to mutilate Stride between the attack as witnessed by Schwartz, and the arrival of Deimshutz? The third assumption bears some merit.

all the best

Observer

[Ben]

What makes you think that Schwartz was familar with the word cutaway?

Gosh, you really really want this man to have worn a cutaway, don't you?

There's no evidence of any description that Schwartz saw a man wearing a cutaway, but in one last-ditch desperate attempt to pin the cutaway on the broadshouldered man, it's now the case that Schwartz secretly meant "cutaway" because he was unfamiliar the language?

That's an option I can't rule out, naturally, but it's very different to the "lots and lots of pointers" you were trying to get away with earlier.

To quote from a dictionary will get you the definition of the garment that applies in the year that dictionary hits the market

Which, in this case, is the same definition it's always been.

Regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

Why no mutilation? A few options spring to mind... possibly my favourite - is that he feared the imminent return of Schwartz and/or the Pipeman with the nearest PC.

But until the point where BS allegedly committed murder he had nothing to fear from anyone's imminent return, as I explained the other day. He could simply have walked away leaving Stride bruised and shaken, but alive, and he need have feared no further retribution for doing so.

[Sam Flynn]

There's no evidence of any description that Schwartz saw a man wearing a cutaway, but in one last-ditch desperate attempt to pin the cutaway on the broadshouldered man, it's now the case that Schwartz secretly meant "cutaway" because he was unfamiliar the language?

I fail to see what's so desperate about that suggestion, Ben. Schwartz was an Hungarian immigrant who spoke little or no English - it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he didn't have "cutaway" in his vocabulary. Let's face it - it wasn't in mine, until I started reading about this case!

[Ben]

He could simply have walked away leaving Stride bruised and shaken, but alive, and he need have feared no further retribution for doing so.

And that's where I respectfully disagreed, Gareth. If he had the urge to kill, he'd probably passed the point of no return by then, and even if he hadn't, it would have been very problematic if Stride had recognised him again. Any protestations on his part that it was "just a normal street tussle" (etc) would have dashed if he was paraded before other ripper witnesses as a consequence.

Schwartz was an Hungarian immigrant who spoke little or no English - it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he didn't have "cutaway" in his vocabulary

True, but that's still a long way off any form of evidence that the BS man wore a cutaway.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben!

You are making a mistake here: I am not the desperate one - you are.

I have contacted three leading fashion museums to have an expert say and show what you will not tolerate from my lips. While we wait, let´s have a look at another cutaway, shall we? This thread: http://images.google.se/imgres?imgur...%3Dsv%26sa%3DN

...leads to a nice picture of a cutaway (exhibit 11) where you can see the lower lining all way round. Strangely, it has no tails.

If you are ready to lay down and die on the issue (which is no more than a peripheral oddity to you, remember), please tell me so, and I can call of the hunt. If not, I will keep bombarding you til you give in or take the shape of Casebook´s laughing stock. Make no mistake about it.

The best,
Fisherman
(sitting back, waiting for Ben to say that there ARE actually tails on the jacket this time on display - nailed up on the backside, and out of sight ...)