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.

[GBinOz]

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?

I suppose it comes down to perception but I was imagining a peaked cap to be more along this style:



or this



Didn't Lawende say that the man looked like a sailor?

AI Overview

In 1888, "peaked cap" likely refers to a hat with a prominent, stiff visor, commonly used by soldiers and other uniformed personnel.

[Abby Normal]

I suppose it comes down to perception but I was imagining a peaked cap to be more along this style:



or this



Didn't Lawende say that the man looked like a sailor?

AI Overview

In 1888, "peaked cap" likely refers to a hat with a prominent, stiff visor, commonly used by soldiers and other uniformed personnel.

yes. agree. And i believe Marshall or another witness described as... something a sailor might wear.

[Tani]

I'm always cautious of witness statements as a whole. A lot of modern evidence has proved many such statements to be hopelessly muddled and incorrect, down to clothing colours, hair, height etc. People are not good at remembering things they saw for just a few seconds. In 1888 when the streets were a lot darker it would have been even harder. I think witnesses are useful and we should listen to them, but not take their words as final. Schwartz didn't even speak English so any words he heard were likely filtered through his own linguistic concepts.

So I take the story with some caution, as he could have seen anyone; the woman may not even have been Liz at all. I think the incident probably happened, but immediately pointing the finger and saying 'that's JTR' seems very overkill for a single witness statement.

[rjpalmer]

In 1888, "peaked cap" likely refers to a hat with a prominent, stiff visor, commonly used by soldiers and other uniformed personnel.

Hi George,

But why 'prominent'?

If we throw William Marshall into the mix, he does describe a 'cap' like something a sailor might wear but he specifically describes the peak (or bill) as 'small.'

Indeed, Marshall shows the complexities involved when we try to connect different witness descriptions (Daily Telegraph, 6 October):


Did you notice how he was dressed? - In a black cut-away coat and dark trousers.

Was he young or old? - Middle-aged he seemed to be.

Was he wearing a hat? - No, a cap.

What sort of a cap? - A round cap, with a small peak. It was something like what a sailor would wear.

What height was he? - About 5ft. 6in.

Was he thin or stout? - Rather stout.

Did he look well dressed? - Decently dressed.

What class of man did he appear to be? - I should say he was in business, and did nothing like hard work.

Not like a dock labourer? - No.

Nor a sailor? - No.

Nor a butcher? - No.

A clerk? - He had more the appearance of a clerk.

---

So, while both Lawende and Marshall describe a man with a cap with a peak, that's where the similarity ends. Lawende thinks the man looks like a sailor (did the red handkerchief add to this impression?) while Marshall specifically states the man didn't look like a sailor, but like a decently dressed, middle-aged clerk.

I would argue they aren't describing the same man.

And with Schwartz, Swanson doesn't call it a peaked cap, but a cap with a peak. That sounds like splitting hairs, but is it? Schwartz was speaking through an interpreter, so it's hard saying what exactly he was describing.

Meanwhile, in reference to Abberline, his endorsement of the peaked cap theory seems to have been colored by a highly dubious statement in the Daily Chronicle that ran a few days before his interview, claiming that George Chapman (Klosowski) wore a P. & O. cap in 1888. This would have been very similar to the cap you have pictured in your post.

In reality, Chapman probably didn't wear such a cap until the 1890s when he moved to Hastings and began to fancy himself a yachtsman. In 1888, Abberline was more than willing to believe that Isenschmid was a viable suspect, and also accepted George Hutchinson's description of a gaudily dressed toff, so I do take his later pronouncements with a pinch of sea salt as perhaps an overly-eager attempt to link Klosowski to the murders.

Oddly, the Daily Chronicle piece doesn't refer to our well-know witness statements from Schwartz or Lawende, but to unnamed women in Whitechapel.

"The man who was 'wanted' in connection with the Whitechapel Murders aways wore a 'P. & O' cap, and carried a black bag, according to the tale of some of the women who escaped him."

[rjpalmer]

P. & O. Cap from an advertisement in the mid-1880s.