Stride Poll 2

[barnflatwyngarde]

Just voted, I am firmly of the belief it happened , and BS man was the killer, and JTR.
I have constantly commented over the years, more so recently on FB, that people don't seem to want BS man to be her killer, or her killer isn't JTR, ( because if the killer is seen in the act, and it is JTR , they would rather not follow where that inevitably leads).

So many argue that BS man killed Liz, but he wasn't JTR, or that someone else came along afterwards and killed her.

Steve

I agree Steve.

I personally think that BS man was probably the same "short stout man" seen entering Millers Court with Mary Jane Kelly.

[Lewis C]

Just voted, I am firmly of the belief it happened , and BS man was the killer, and JTR.
I have constantly commented over the years, more so recently on FB, that people don't seem to want BS man to be her killer, or her killer isn't JTR, ( because if the killer is seen in the act, and it is JTR , they would rather not follow where that inevitably leads).

So many argue that BS man killed Liz, but he wasn't JTR, or that someone else came along afterwards and killed her.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Where do you think that leads that people don't to follow? It would mean that either James Brown was wrong about seeing Stride or that he saw her prior to the Schwartz incident, but I don't think that would be that much of a problem for most people.

[The Rookie Detective]

Great poll.

I have now voted.

The incident didn't occur and the Ripper killed Stride.


But it was a close one.


I nearly voted for the killer having been Mortimer, who saw Stride go into the yard from her door.
Stride had flirted with her poorly husband earlier, and Mortimer just flipped. She took a kitchen knife, slipped into the alleyway, and then cut her throat. She then walked back indoors and tended to her husband (who incidentally died not long after the murder; relatively speaking)

Mortimer then makes up a **** and ball story about being on her doorstep for half an hour, a story about a couple speaking to her about them standing on the corner, hearing a policeman walk past with a measured tramp, and seeing a random man walk past with a black bag.

Don't fall for it

She was a ruthless stone cold killer.


I blame Fanny.


For pretty much everything



Regards


RD

[Abby Normal]

Im with el and lewis. I voted bs man was her killer and jtr. The final straw for me is the peaked cap, of course.

[Georgeb]

Hi great poll. I went for three, which I think is different to your last poll when I thought she wasn't a Ripper victim. Although having said that its hard to reconcile her being attacked so quickly after the first incident. It is strange that this is the murder with the most eye witnesses and we still can't decide if she was a Ripper victim. If I think about much longer will want to change vote.

[Lewis C]

Hi great poll. I went for three, which I think is different to your last poll when I thought she wasn't a Ripper victim. Although having said that its hard to reconcile her being attacked so quickly after the first incident. It is strange that this is the murder with the most eye witnesses and we still can't decide if she was a Ripper victim. If I think about much longer will want to change vote.

Hi George,

I think that's because witnesses have little effect on our opinions about whether she's a Ripper victim. The doubts about her being a Ripper victim mostly come from her lack of mutilations.

[rjpalmer]

"He had a peaked cap."

Unfortunately, it's like saying he had eyebrows.

[Abby Normal]

"He had a peaked cap."

Unfortunately, it's like saying he had eyebrows.

no its not. yes they were popular back then but even your photo shows many more people wearing different style hats. Plus more than one witnesses describes a valid suspect wearing a peaked cap.

As an analogy on peaked caps, baseball caps are perhaps as ubiquitous here in the states as they were back then and if several witnesses today claimed on the night of a murder the suspect was wearing a peaked cap, any detective worth his salt would probably conclude the killer was wearing a baseball cap. Its not rocket science nor mysterious, although it seems people with pre conceived theories and favored suspects discount it because it dosnt fit with what they believe.

And of course there is Abberlines opinion. I guess he didnt know what he was talking about either did he rj?

[rjpalmer]

no its not. yes they were popular back then but even your photo shows many more people wearing different style hats. Plus more than one witnesses describes a valid suspect wearing a peaked cap.

No offense intended, Abby. If you believe Schwartz saw the killer, it is an entirely respectable opinion--and certainly one that the police were willing to entertain.

As for me, ever since I first stumbled upon these boards 25 years ago, various theorists have suggested that Schwartz and Lawende described the same man with a peaked cap. An old poster named Radka frequently voiced this belief.

But I've never been convinced that a peaked cap is unique enough to forge a definitive link between the two sightings. It's too commonplace.

Yes, both men described a suspect of around 30 years of age with a moustache and a peaked cap. It's fair to say that this is reasonably suggestive.

But there are also significant differences. Schwartz described his man's cap as black; Lawende described a man in a gray cap. There must have been enough light near Mitre Square to distinguish color, because Lawende also described the man wearing a red handkerchief---which Schwartz failed to mention.

Schwart'z man was 5' 5". Lawende's was 5' 7" or 8". Not a huge difference, but perhaps a significant one. Schwartz's man had broad shoulders; Lawende described a man of 'medium build.' Schwartz's man had a dark jacket & trousers; Lawende's man's clothes were 'salt & pepper.' Schwartz's man had a brown moustache; Lawende's had a fair one.

Were they the same man? It's like asking was the glass half empty or half full.

Could have been the same man, but it's far from certain.

"I respectfully submit it is not clearly proved that the man that Schwartz saw was the murderer...." Chief Inspector Donald S. Swanson, 19 October 1888.

[Abby Normal]

No offense intended, Abby. If you believe Schwartz saw the killer, it is an entirely respectable opinion--and certainly one that the police were willing to entertain.

As for me, ever since I first stumbled upon these boards 25 years ago, various theorists have suggested that Schwartz and Lawende described the same man with a peaked cap. An old poster named Radka frequently voiced this belief.

But I've never been convinced that a peaked cap is unique enough to forge a definitive link between the two sightings. It's too commonplace.

Yes, both men described a suspect of around 30 years of age with a moustache and a peaked cap. It's fair to say that this is reasonably suggestive.

But there are also significant differences. Schwartz described his man's cap as black; Lawende described a man in a gray cap. There must have been enough light near Mitre Square to distinguish color, because Lawende also described the man wearing a red handkerchief---which Schwartz failed to mention.

Schwart'z man was 5' 5". Lawende's was 5' 7" or 8". Not a huge difference, but perhaps a significant one. Schwartz's man had broad shoulders; Lawende described a man of 'medium build.' Schwartz's man had a dark jacket & trousers; Lawende's man's clothes were 'salt & pepper.' Schwartz's man had a brown moustache; Lawende's had a fair one.

Were they the same man? It's like asking was the glass half empty or half full.

Could have been the same man, but it's far from certain.

"I respectfully submit it is not clearly proved that the man that Schwartz saw was the murderer...." Chief Inspector Donald S. Swanson, 19 October 1888.

thats all fair enough, but it sure is a far cry from your original remark, " its like saying he had eyebrows".

"The man and the peaked cap hes said to have worn, quite tallies with the description I got of him"
-Frederick Abberline.

you can stick with Swanson, I'll go with Abberline.

But you make a good point with the differences in descriptions of the suspect between the stride and eddowes crime scenes, that has often thrown me for a loop. But most of the differences have to do with color of something, and that could be chalked up by different lighting, witness eyesight, faulty memory etc. and besides the differences are rather slight, comparitively speaking, not only in color but in general.