What's the compelling feature?

[Ben]

...and still managed to hold on to the cachous and the bag did not break.

...which wouldn't have been the case had Stride been subject to a sudden unanticipated attack.

[c.d.]

...which wouldn't have been the case had Stride been subject to a sudden unanticipated attack.

you mean, in your opinion, do you not?

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

dismissed her in a fashion that the Doctors noted that they knew where to cut

Clearly the despicable villain had access to a copy of Gray's Anatomy, or how could he possibly have known about the "cut between the earlobe and the collar-bone" ploy??? I'm getting at Dr Bagster "Pon My soul!" Phillips here, not you, Jon - I'd prescribe reading his sometimes sensationalist utterances twice before meals, and both times with a clear head.

[Ben]

you mean, in your opinion, do you not?

Not really, mate, no.

I'd say it's a pretty inescapable conclusion from a physiological perspective.

[FrankO]

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

It's complex enough as it is, Michael - don't make it any worse!

Frank

[perrymason]

Quite right Frank, thanks for pointing that out. The intent was clear, but the grammer incorrect,...where have I heard that before?

I think on Ben's point about the cashous, I agree with him....the fact they are in her hand when attacked likely indicates she did not see serious trouble coming. And when added to the fact that she likely didnt have them in her hand when Schwartz sees her "assualted", is an even more compelling reason to surmise that. She took them out after the "assault", something completely out of place if she feared for her life at that moment.

She was killed quickly...in perhaps 2 seconds as suggested by the medical testimony....and her scarf was twisted.

My guess would be she thought she was on her way out of the yard and away from a boorish man when grabbed and slit.

Drunk man...maybe knows Liz solicits... and wants some of that action...Liz denies him once in front of witnesses, and perhaps once more inside the yard. Does he then slap the woman for disrespecting him....or for being a whore that thinks shes too good for him....with 4 or 5 missing teeth, or is the indignation and booze a lethal combo?

Cheers

[c.d.]

Quite right Frank, thanks for pointing that out. The intent was clear, but the grammer incorrect,...where have I heard that before?

I think on Ben's point about the cashous, I agree with him....the fact they are in her hand when attacked likely indicates she did not see serious trouble coming. And when added to the fact that she likely didnt have them in her hand when Schwartz sees her "assualted", is an even more compelling reason to surmise that. She took them out after the "assault", something completely out of place if she feared for her life at that moment.

She was killed quickly...in perhaps 2 seconds as suggested by the medical testimony....and her scarf was twisted.

My guess would be she thought she was on her way out of the yard and away from a boorish man when grabbed and slit.

Drunk man...maybe knows Liz solicits... and wants some of that action...Liz denies him once in front of witnesses, and perhaps once more inside the yard. Does he then slap the woman for disrespecting him....or for being a whore that thinks shes too good for him....with 4 or 5 missing teeth, or is the indignation and booze a lethal combo?

Cheers

Hi Michael,

How could she not see serious trouble coming? How likely is it that after being assaulted she says "boy that was a close one. I could sure use a cachous?" To me, it indicates that the trouble was long gone.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Hi Michael,

How could she not see serious trouble coming? How likely is it that after being assaulted she says "boy that was a close one. I could sure use a cachous?" To me, it indicates that the trouble was long gone.

c.d.

I think your last line is the answer cd, for all we know Broadshouldered Man helped her to her feet after their altercation. Maybe thought he'd try a different tact....sugar instead of salt, and when that resulted in a rebuff, he lost it.

Ill also add this.....there is reason to surmise that Liz might have been waiting for someone in particular. She is in the area for some time before being killed...she is dressed according to her lodging house friend in her "evening wear", she has flowers on her coat and she didnt pay for her bed that night despite earning money that would have done so that very afternoon. She did not know when she would return to the lodging house. She is sober. And she has cashous on her...something I would think would come after paying for a bed or food or booze, due to her level of poverty.

If BSM is rebuked because she had a "date", would he believe that, or might he feel that a two bit whore is looking down her nose at him?

Cheers cd.

[Ben]

I think on Ben's point about the cashous, I agree with him....the fact they are in her hand when attacked likely indicates she did not see serious trouble coming.

Indeed so, Mike. In fact, thinking on, she may have noticed the man approaching her from Commercial Street and produced them prior to his arrivial in a last minute breath-freshening effort, but then clenched her fists to fend him off (with cachous ensconced within) when it became clear that the man had less than contractual designs upon her.

Best wishes,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

What if she was waiting for Jack?

c.d.

[Jon Guy]

I think on Ben's point about the cashous, I agree with him....the fact they are in her hand when attacked likely indicates she did not see serious trouble coming. And when added to the fact that she likely didnt have them in her hand when Schwartz sees her "assualted", is an even more compelling reason to surmise that. She took them out after the "assault", something completely out of place if she feared for her life at that moment.
Cheers

Hi Mike - doesn`t it make more sense that Liz is leaning by the gateway holding the cashous in her left hand. eating with her right, as you do, when BS Man approaches her and grabs her,she makes a fist ...

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"Don't you dare threaten me, you hateful subhuman sickening disgrace"

New levels of grace, Ben! I find it deplorable that you resort to antics like these, and I will refrain from lowering myself to anything like it. I will, however, go on relentlessly to prove you wrong on the issue. That is no threat, unless you choose to see it that way - it is a way to establish the truth in this errand, and searching for that truth is what these boards ought to be about.
In fact, I have already proven you wrong, something you ommitted to admit. For that was a cutaway coat with no tails, was it not?

"You are not pinning a "cutaway" on Schwartz's man with no evidence. Even if an expert turned up and told me that a panda costume counts as a cutaway, you still don't get to place a cutaway on the suspect because the evidence is 100% not there. Bad luck for you. Rotton beastly luck."

I would not even try to pin anything but a dark jacket on BS man, Ben. The argument we are having is not on that point as you well know. It is about the question whether Marshalls mans jacket, described as a cutaway, could have been a shortish jacket, much resembling the ordinary jacket of them days, with no tails. And that it could - and would.

"If a cutaway doesn't have tails, then a Victorian man observing it at a distance in darkended conditions will not refer to it as a cutaway"

Since the one thing that gives a cutaway away (nice construction for a subhuman, wouldn´t you say...) is the fact that pieces of the ordinary jacket are cut away from the front, anybody - including the Victorian man - could and would refer to a cutaway as a cutaway after having seen it from the front. One more time, Ben; the jacket I sent a picture to you of, has got NO TAILS, right? Now, why would a Victorian, or anybody else, have to see that jacket FROM BEHIND to conclude that it was a cutaway? In fact, looking at it from behind would have made it impossible to state that it was a cutaway!

"If you're claiming that the "cutaway" in the photograph looked anything like the jacket worn by Schwartz's man, then you're on to an even sillier losing wicket, since it resembled the loose-fitting jacket worn by Lawende's man!"

Absolutely, Ben! Absolutely! But then again, I never said a word about that particular jacket looking like the jacket worn by BS. The only thing I used it to was to substantiate my claim that a cutaway jacket from them days need not have any tails. It is a jacket from a decade or three before 1888, and fashion dictated that an 1880s jacket should be tight-fitting, so Schwartz´s mans respectable look would have included a close-fitting jacket if my guess is correct.

But as for what BS mans jacket looked like, I of course don´t really know. If it had had significant things like two differing colours or an elephant sewn onto the back, it stands to reason that we would have known. Nothing such was recorded, so it was probably a more discreet dark jacket.

What I DO know, is that if we were to establish that all cutaways had tails reaching as far as the knee or longer, then Marshalls mans jacket would seem incomparable to a normal jacket. And like I said, as long as we have no closer description of BS mans jacket, we must settle for a normal type being the most probable one.
If, however, we can show that a cutaway jacket in them days could be a shortish jacket with no tails, much looking like the jackets on the two men in my earlier post, then it would be perfectly obvious that such a cutaway could easily be described as a normal, dark jacket by Schwartz.

And if we can establish a type of cutaway as a normal, untailed jacket, then yes, of course a cutaway could have been worn by Lawendes man too. No question about that. I fail to see however, why that should affect my reasoning on the types of jacket...?

"Again, we can either accept the actual definition or some nonsense you cooked up from nowhere"

No, Ben. No, no, no. You have the picture of a cutaway with no tails by now. That does not equal me cooking up something from nowhere. It equals me proving that I was right from the outset. We do not have to travel many posts back to see you asserting that all cutaways have tails, and I have shown that this is wrong. I have also found numerous other examples on tail-lacking cutaways, but since they are newer I have refrained from posting them. It seems though, that in the 40:s and 50:s, short cutaway jackets were popular among fashionconcerned women. These jackets look something like a bolero vest with sleeves, and no tails whatsoever. They are all called cutaway jackets due to their tailoring at the front. But like I say, since they are not contemporary, I will not post the threads.

May I finally take the liberty to advance a proposal of a shared smoke of a peace-pipe, Ben? If we both try our hardest not to call one another foul names, it will be easier for those who share in the debate to pick up on the useful stuff. Calling you derogatory names would be an easy thing to do, but it would swear against the truth; you are one of the posters here to whom I happily and respectfully lend an ear in all matters concerning the Ripper murders.

In this case, however, I genuinely believe that you are wrong, and long as all I find goes to reinforce that belief, I will see it through. I cannot see you making any other decision, had you been in my clothes.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon!

You write:

"doesn`t it make more sense that Liz is leaning by the gateway holding the cashous in her left hand. eating with her right, as you do, when BS Man approaches her and grabs her,she makes a fist ..."

I think not, Jon. That would mean that she had the cachous in her hand from the beginning, held on to them as he grabbed her and dragged her towards the streeet, did not let go of them when she was thrown to the pavement, kept clenching them as she entered the yard, and held on to them as she had her throat cut.

No, Jon, I think that is a poor bid.

But I do agree with Ben, that she would not have seen trouble coming when she took them out! And to me, she must have taken them out when inside the yard. Meaning that she did not use them to attract a punter that was already hooked, if a punter it was.
On the other hand, if it was NOT a punter, but an aquaintance of hers, perhaps a lover - and we have already seen that it seems there is a possibility that BS man was identical to the man Marshall saw kissing her an hour earlier - then that could well explain why she agreed to step into the yard with him in spite of his manhandling her before. A domestic row is more often than not handled in privacy, and the only immediate privacy offered was that of the yard. And since she felt comfortable enough with that man to step into the yard with him to tell him off (yes, that is guesswork, but it is functioning such)- although not at ease after his earlier behaviour - that would explain why she took her cachous out.

The best, Jon!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I find it deplorable that you resort to antics like these, and I will refrain from lowering myself to anything like it. I will, however, go on relentlessly to prove you wrong on the issue.

Fish, with all due respect, if you think debate is all about trying to wear the other opponent out by pretending you have the loudest voice, I'm afraid I won't be part-taking from the peace pipe any time soon, chiefly because you've chosen entirely the wrong debating opponent. It won't be a long-term sustainable strategy for you, not against me. In fact, that sort of strategy will result in me basically out-living you or, ever so slightly more likely, the moderators close the discussion.

For that was a cutaway coat with no tails, was it not?

Nope, it wasn't a cutaway as the term defines on account of it lacking a tail. If my auntie had bollocks, she'd be my uncle, and if that coat had tails, it would be a cutaway as accepted convention defines. Some might refer to it as such - of that I've no doubt - but not those observing it in Victorian darkness from a distance.

It is about the question whether Marshalls mans jacket, described as a cutaway, could have been a shortish jacket, much resembling the ordinary jacket of them days, with no tails. And that it could

Indeed it could.

Trouble is, it could equally have been a loose-fitting jacket of the order described by Joseph Lawende.

Since the one thing that gives a cutaway away (nice construction for a subhuman, wouldn´t you say...) is the fact that pieces of the ordinary jacket are cut away from the front, anybody - including the Victorian man - could and would refer to a cutaway as a cutaway after having seen it from the front.

Trouble is, the "cutaway front" in the examples you've provided in an attempt to invalidate my position haven't been obvious at all, rendering it nigh on impossible to distinguish it from a normal jacket, and yet Marshall and Smith both specified "cutaway". For Marshall to have specified cutaway in those conditions, it must have been rather conspicuously...a cutaway.

Now, why would a Victorian, or anybody else, have to see that jacket FROM BEHIND to conclude that it was a cutaway?

Because if it didn't have a tail, it wouldn't be a proper cutaway.

That was easy.

so Schwartz´s mans respectable...

Errrr....what?

Schwartz's what?

There was no mention of Schwartz having a respectable appearance in the police report which, to me, lends great credence to Schwartz not having a respectable appearance (or else it would have been remarked upon in the police report.

And around and around and around we go.

If, however, we can show that a cutaway jacket in them days could be a shortish jacket with no tails, much looking like the jackets on the two men in my earlier post, then it would be perfectly obvious that such a cutaway could easily be described as a normal, dark jacket by Schwartz

Trouble is, it wouldn't have been a proper cutaway without tails. Trouble is, Schwartz's jacket could also have been a loose-fitting one, just like Lawende's susepct's, and I'm grateful that you've acknowledged this.

You have the picture of a cutaway with no tails by now

Not really a cutaway, though, Fish. The definition of a cutaway is a garment that is cut away at the front and tailed at the back.

We do not have to travel many posts back to see you asserting that all cutaways have tails, and I have shown that this is wrong

Fish...I so desperately want a puff from that peace-pipe, but these sentences have me reaching for the alcohol instead.

In this case, however, I genuinely believe that you are wrong, and long as all I find goes to reinforce that belief, I will see it through.

I don't know really what you mean by this, and what you hope it will acheive though, that's the problem. Isn't it fairly obvious that I don't believe I've seen any compelling reason to believe I'm wrong, or that the actual definition of a cutaway should be revised? Surely it's better to call it a disagreement and leave it there? If people haven't died of boredom reading this debate, I'm sure they've made up their own minds by now.

I apologize for my earlier aggression, and acknowledge that I too will happily and respectfully lend and ear to your ripper-related thoughts, but there has to be a bit of a stalemate awareness here.

Cheers,
Ben

[perrymason]

Jon and Ben, you make a good point that she could have had the cashous in her hand as she waited by the gates, and when BS meets up with her, based on my idea that she was loitering for some reason, but perhaps not soliciting.

I picture her getting up from the altercation with BSM and brushing down her ankle length skirt a bit though, adjusting her clothing a bit, and that would be awkward if she had something in her hand. Why I suggested after that first "assault" is that the act of freshening her mouth seems to me to complete her "restoration" if you will, to pre-BSM man encounter Liz. One with a flower on her jacket, a long clean black skirt, and perhaps with a bit of anticipation of something she is looking forward to......perhaps the answer has to do with where she would sleep that night.

It would seem Liz Stride enjoyed men in her personal life. She has ended a relationship that same week, and yet is out on a Saturday night looking perhaps a little dressy for her "street" work, and without spending the money she earned that day cleaning to secure a bed. She may have bought cashous instead, thinking that bed wasnt going to cost her anything that night perhaps. That and a flower for her jacket.

Best regards.