Stride Poll 2

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

But why 'prominent'?

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.

Hi RJ,

Prominent was the word returned in an AI search on "peaked cap in 1888".

I wouldn't dispute your argument that they aren't describing the same man.

There are considerable differences in the millinery and apparel aspects of sightings by witnesses.

Best and Gardner described a "a black billycock hat, rather tall". "He was well dressed in a black morning suit with a morning coat.

Smith saw "a dark felt deerstalker's hat". "His clothes were dark. The coat was a cutaway coat.".

Packer saw "a wideawake hat and dark clothes; had the appearance of a clerk".

Brown - "Had he a hat or a cap on? - I cannot say", "I saw that he had a long dark coat on".

Adding the random nature of the sightings of Stride's flower and a case could be made that they are all describing different men.

[FrankO]

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.

Me too, Tani. As long as the people that witnesses were/are describing don't have any features that stick out, their descriptions of them will be unreliable. I'd put more stock in how they describe someone's behaviour than how they were dressed. For instance, I'd put more stock in the scuffle Schwartz said he witnessed than in how he said the man and woman were dressed, apart from the broad shoulders, as that would be a feature that sticks out.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Me too, Tani. As long as the people that witnesses were/are describing don't have any features that stick out, their descriptions of them will be unreliable. I'd put more stock in how they describe someone's behaviour than how they were dressed. For instance, I'd put more stock in the scuffle Schwartz said he witnessed than in how he said the man and woman were dressed, apart from the broad shoulders, as that would be a feature that sticks out.

I certainly think that a hefty dose of caution should be applied when we consider witness descriptions Frank. Even though someone like PC Smith was quite likely to have seen Stride we have to keep in mind that he was an average man, trudging around in the poorly lit, often dangerous streets in the early hours whilst thinking about his wife at home in a nice warm bed. It can’t be impossible that he might have seen a woman of similar description and clothing and he convinced himself that it was Stride. All witnesses were fallible.

Streets were insufficiently lit and people, men and women, wouldn’t have had access to high street fashion outlets so men and women often dressed very similarly (and by that of course I meant men like men and women like other women) Then there’s the possibility of the killer dressing differently on different nights. Even something like the description of a person’s build can be affected by clothing. BS man, for eg, might just have worn a bulkier coat that night or worn and extra jacket beneath a coat giving him a slightly bulkier appearance.

We also can’t assess an individuals eyesight. There would have been many people around that required glasses but couldn’t afford them.

Last of all Frank (and I once started a thread on this subject) is it beyond the realms of possibility that the killer was smart enough to deliberately alter his appearance? And before you conjure up images of Inspector Clouseau in his hunchback disguise I just mean different clothing, a different hat, a neck scarf etc.