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.

[Tom_Wescott]

Just voted, I am firmly of the belief it happened , and BS man was the killer, and JTR.

The broad-shouldered laborer-type guy? Well, that rules out scrawny little Aaron Kosminski.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

"Elizabeth Stride" was the only so-called Ripper victim to be buried before she was officially identified. So anyone could be in her grave.

[GBinOz]

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.

The thought has crossed my mind that when the couple Marshall saw departed in a southerly direction they may have visited his home and he changed clothes, specifically his hat, before being seen by Smith. On the other hand they may just have been headed to the George IV at No. 68, on the corner of Boyd Street.

[FrankO]

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.

Some good points here, Mike.

If modern people are as bad as they are at remembering and then describing people after a fact, then that would even be moreso for people back in the LVP, with (much) poorer lighting conditions and no money for glasses for the poor.

As to your last point, it's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that the killer deliberately change his appearance in the way you suggest. And although I like every Clouseau disguise, I wasn't thinking about something like that either, when reading your suggestion. I think whether the real killer did that or not, would depend on how much the public and possible witnesses were on his mind. Or how close the descriptions were given by every subsequent witness. If they didn't match much or at all, then he might not have felt any need to change anything. If they did, he might have cared, or not. But it certainly is possible.

Cheers,
Frank

[Tani]

A disguise of sorts is possible, but that would necessitate a man able to pay for more than a couple of changes of clothes. That would have cost quite a bit of money unless the clothes were second hand and may have not fit very well; if it's the latter we might want to take ill-fitting clothing into account. Hats were quite dear as I recall, as well.

[The Rookie Detective]

The thought has crossed my mind that when the couple Marshall saw departed in a southerly direction they may have visited his home and he changed clothes, specifically his hat, before being seen by Smith. On the other hand they may just have been headed to the George IV at No. 68, on the corner of Boyd Street.

Or to 22 Ellen Street, just near the junction with Berner Street; virtually opposite the shop on the corner that sold Cachou.

It's possible.

[The Rookie Detective]

Bs man may have indeed killed Stride.


But would the man who had used overkill to silently murder and mutilate Chapman at sunrise (quite literally), then go and publicly assault a woman outside a club in front of witness/witnesses, and then shout a racial slur before going to cut the woman's throat?

Bs man publicly assaulted Stride, and by doing so he advertised his intentions of violence.


That is completely the opposite to the way the Ripper worked; with a level of awareness to be both silent and maniacal at the same time.


Behaviour tells us a lot, and Bs man's behaviour should rule him out as the Ripper


He may have killed Stride, but he didn't behave like the Ripper, because he openly gave away his intentions to cause violence towards Stride.