What's the compelling feature?

[perrymason]

Im not interested in debating this coat issue with my friends Ben and Fisherman, but was'nt Schwartz's clothing called in at least one instance "theatrical looking"? Maybe by the reporter who "ran him down" after the news of his account was known?

Just wondering about "theatre" as relates to the entrances and exits and surroundings in and around Dutfields that night. Everyone seems to come and go at just the right time to see no-one else, even when they say they were in the same place at the same time...Eagle and Lave for example. Also very much like Mitre, with Harvey and Jack, or Jack and Watkins...or Watkins and Harvey.
Cheers.

[Fisherman]

Phew, Ben!

First and foremost, I will happily smoke that peace-pipe with you. I am glad that you do not think it impossible.

Moving on to the subject, when you say "Nope, it wasn't a cutaway as the term defines on account of it lacking a tail" I despair to some extent, Ben. Surely, when I can produce a picture of a cutaway coat with no tails - and it is very clearly named a cutaway coat in the context - you must admit that there was cutaways around with no tails? I fail to see how you could not do so, I must say. What if I come up with an expertīs assertion that the normal cutaway coat in the 1880s East end would have been a short jacket with no tails? Will that still see you replying "No, that canīt be right, since a cutaway has to have tails"? Surely you will bow to expertise, Ben?

Having gone through lots of material on the net, and having tried to make an unbiased assessment of it all, my guess is actually that the garment that was refered to as a cutaway by Marshall, was in no way an uncommon one among clerks and such. As you know, I believe that it was a shortish jacket with no tails at the back and nothing more to tell it from an ordinary jacket by than the obliquely cutaway pieces at the lower front. My guess is that it was a very, very common jacket on the streets. But we will know more as/if we get some answers from the institutions I have contacted!

I am confused by this:

My words:
"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"

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

...since it here seems that you agree that Marshalls manīs jacket could have lacked tails. Surely that is a mistake on your behalf?
Anyways, I do not understand what "trouble" would be connected with the possibility that all three men, BS man, Marshalls man and Lawendes ditto, could have worn short, tailless cutaways? My guess is that Lawendes man and BS man were not one and the same, but I have nothing invested in this belief of mine - if the short, tailless cutaway was an ordinary thing, then it stands to reason that it has bearing om Lawendes man too, and thatīs about it.
Like I said before, though, the clerklike man Marshall describes would probably not have had a loose-fitting jacket, but a tight-fitting one, since that was prescribed by fashion in the 1880s (the jacket on the picture I sent was an earlier model by some decades).
This would mean that Lawendes man was not only a shabby, rough man, but also probably rather unfashionable, adding to the description of a man at the lower end of the respectability scale.

All in all, Ben, the wise thing to do as we await the hopefully soon arriving statements of the expertise on the museums I have contacted, may be to let this lie where it lies for the moment being. I will gladly do so, just as I will respond to whatever questions you may want my opinion on, on the issue!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Another compelling feature?

One factor which I believe is often overlooked is that, between 1886 and sometime in 1888 (possibly as late as September of that year), Stride and Kidney had lived together at 35 Devonshire Street (now Watney Market), which was barely a third of a mile away from Berner Street (Henriques Street). The two locations are indicated by the red and blue crosses on the map below:



In other words, it appears that Liz was killed in what until quite recently had been hers - and Kidney's - stomping ground. They would both have been familiar with the area, its pubs, and many of the people who frequented them. Stride and Kidney may well have still frequented the same pubs themselves.

[Fisherman]

Michael!

You write:
"Im not interested in debating this coat issue with my friends Ben and Fisherman, but was'nt Schwartz's clothing called in at least one instance "theatrical looking"

Yes, Schwartz has been described thus. It has even been thrown forward that he could have been a less reliable witness due to his profession, something I think is a slightly clumsy remark.

Whichever, we are not debating Schwartzīs clothes, Mike - we are scrutinizing the garments worn by three other men, BS man, the man seen with Liz by Marshall at 11.45 PM, and the man seen with her by PC Smith at about 00.30 AM.

So Schwartzīs own clothing is unmined territory - feel free!

The best, Michael!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Interesting stuff, Sam! Thanks!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

One thing that has not yet surfaced is this:

Letīs assume that Marshallīs man and BS man actually were one and the same. What does that mean in Kidneyīs case? Well, it pretty much puts him in the clear, since he was recalled to the hearings on day four of the proceedings - the very same day that Marshall was there, offering his evidence!
Of course, Marshall never got a good look at the face of his man, so maybe not anyhow ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

One factor which I believe is often overlooked is that, between 1886 and sometime in 1888 (possibly as late as September of that year), Stride and Kidney had lived together at 35 Devonshire Street (now Watney Market), which was barely a third of a mile away from Berner Street (Henriques Street). The two locations are indicated by the red and blue crosses on the map below:

[ATTACH]1964[/ATTACH]

In other words, it appears that Liz was killed in what until quite recently had been hers - and Kidney's - stomping ground. They would both have been familiar with the area, its pubs, and many of the people who frequented them. Stride and Kidney may well have still frequented the same pubs themselves.

Interesting observation Sam, and I think it might fit into my supposition that BSM had seen Liz soliciting before, and might not take kindly to being turned away.

Liz's case does have some odd things as side notes,.. Batty Street being a stones throw from Berner and Dutfields Yard, the site of Lipski, the Jewish killer the year before, and the "Lodger" who caused some concern to his landlord, and police, during the killings. Liz also lived in Poplar at one time, and living not more than 2 or 3 blocks away from that location a young man who may have known her and has been "disturbed" all that Fall kills himself, by cutting his own throat, on the day Mary Kelly is buried. She was also said to have dated a policeman, the brother or cousin of the people she kept house for at one time.

Not necessarily relevant at all, but she and her family drowning story and all the other tidbits make for interesting reading.

Best regards.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

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

No Fisherman,

You're missing the point here.
There are indeed valid reasons for questioning Schwartz's statement; as has been said before, Mr Letchford's sister and Mrs Mortimer both were outside their houses on Berner Street at the time of the Schwartz incident, and none of them saw or heard a thing (except for Mortimer who saw Goldstein, a sighting that ws later confirmed).
Arguing that 'the others could just as well have been lying if he could' is not valid, because these inconsistencies are not displayed in connection with the ones you compare with. The often debated issue with Cadosch, Long etc. is not really a big thing, since those time discrepancies is something that has to expected in connection with the time estimations of witnesses. Besides, Long were a witness oustide on Hanbury Street and and Cadosch in the back yard, so it's not really the same thing.

Schwartz's ststement is more problematic since it contradicts other statements by witnesses present on approximately the same spot on same street on the same time where two other witnesses didn't see anything (and they most likely would have) plus that other witnesses and factors on that place don't leave much room for fiddling around with the timing since the time frames and empty spots are very limited.

I am not saying that Schwartz was lying (I admit I do have a problem with finding a motive for him to lie, although people do this for many odd reasons), only that the short time frames with a lot of busy people coming and going on the scene - added with the fact that his statement is unsupported by other witnesses who also were there at approximately the same time - must leave room for the possibility.

In short, in Schwartz's case we are not just simply talking about timing discrepancies but also about a sighting that is not supported by others who were there at the same time. This makes the issue much more complex than in Cadosch's or Long's case.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

One factor which I believe is often overlooked is that, between 1886 and sometime in 1888 (possibly as late as September of that year), Stride and Kidney had lived together at 35 Devonshire Street (now Watney Market), which was barely a third of a mile away from Berner Street (Henriques Street). The two locations are indicated by the red and blue crosses on the map below:

[ATTACH]1964[/ATTACH]

In other words, it appears that Liz was killed in what until quite recently had been hers - and Kidney's - stomping ground. They would both have been familiar with the area, its pubs, and many of the people who frequented them. Stride and Kidney may well have still frequented the same pubs themselves.

A very interesting observation, Sam. I certainly had overlooked that one. Intriguing.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks Mike (and the Two Swedes )

Interesting observation Sam, and I think it might fit into my supposition that BSM had seen Liz soliciting before, and might not take kindly to being turned away.

It also lends weight to two noteworthy possibilities in relation to the Stride murder, namely (a) that she may have known her assailant personally; and (b) her assailant may have known precisely where to look if he wanted to find her. I'd maintain that in no "C5" case other than Kelly's could those two ideas be so strongly entertained.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Sam and Ben

Forgive me for sticking me nose in as it was not addressed to me ..but doesn`t the fact that he did knife Stride when there seemed to be no reason to do so point to him being a psychopathic killer - rather than a street thug ?

Absolutely not, Jon.

It would not be very singular for a street thug to do that in 1888. Killing women with a knife or a throat cut happens all the time, even in domestic environment, and in 1888 it would be even more likely. You don't need to be a psychopathic killer to do that. I don't know where you have gotten that idea. The number of cases involving throat cuts and knife attacks on women, made by common thugs is certainly not an uncommon thing through crime history.

To me it is extremely frustrating that as soon as a murder has been perpetrated with a knife, people are screaming 'psychopathic killer'. To be frank, psychopathic killers are not that common, but brutal knife murders performed by thugs are. It doesn't take any skill, nor a psychopathic personality. Only anger, jealousy, drunkedness... you name it. Crime annals are full of this stuff.

[c.d.]

Hi Glenn,

May I ask where you got that information regarding Mrs. Mortimer and Latchford's sister?

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:

"No Fisherman,

You're missing the point here."

...and

"In short, in Schwartz's case we are not just simply talking about timing discrepancies but also about a sighting that is not supported by others who were there at the same time. This makes the issue much more complex than in Cadosch's or Long's case."

Spot on, Glenn! No objections whatsoever. The reason I brought up a number of other witnesses (and Abberline) was to point out that it is a moot point to speak of Schwartz as a potential liar, since we will never be able to prove it.

My own stance on the subject remains that Schwartz did NOT lie. I think he was there, and I think he gave a fair description of the proceedings in Berner Street, painting himself out as a coward (most liars avoid that), something he polished slightly by changing Pipeman to Knifeman when the Star got hold of him.

The best, Glenn!
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi cd,

Mrs Fanny Mortimer's statement is mentioned in a couple of newspapers, but the one most referred to is the statement in Evening News, October 1 1888.

The sister of Charles Letchford is mentioned in Paul Begg's The Facts but also in the A to Z. Can't remember the original source.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Spot on, Glenn! No objections whatsoever. The reason I brought up a number of other witnesses (and Abberline) was to point out that it is a moot point to speak of Schwartz as a potential liar, since we will never be able to prove it.

My own stance on the subject remains that Schwartz did NOT lie. I think he was there, and I think he gave a fair description of the proceedings in Berner Street, painting himself out as a coward (most liars avoid that), something he polished slightly by changing Pipeman to Knifeman when the Star got hold of him.

The best, Glenn!
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman!

Well, we can't prove it, but considering other evidence we should take the possibility into the account.
Considering the incredibly vast importance of his statement and the implications it brings, it is actually even more important not to ASSUME that his story is true.
When a witness statement is delivered, which contradicts to such an extense with other evidence and also is totally unspported by other statements by people who were there, there ALWAYS has to be room for doubt. It is NEVER a moot point. On the contrary, just lean back and accepting it - regardless of how much it appears to hang together internally - is quite a dangerous approach.

Personally, I see loads of problems with his statement and most of the confusing problems with Stride's murder is actually thanks to his statement - erase it, and many complex issues connected with the murder disappears.

The only thing that bothers me is that I can't see any immediate reason for him to make up the story. But on the other hand, far more credible people than him have appeared to be false witnesses. He has always been made out to be a 'reluctant, scared witness' but we shouldn't forget that he - at the end of the day - was not very reluctant to be interviewed by The Star.

All the best