Why is Liz Stride's Murder So Contentious?

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm sure they did, but a good reporter gets the job done. He obviously bargained and agreed not to run Schwartz's name, since it never appears. He may also have agreed to change some details, hence Pipeman becoming a red-headed Knifeman, etc.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

I have to wonder. Wouldn't the police have told Schwartz not to say anything to the press?

c.d.

[Supe]

It seems to have become "official" that the man Schwartz saw with Liz was drunk, so it is interesting to note where this came from. In his interview with the Star, not the police, the Star reported saying the man walked as if "partially intoxicated." This observation depends, of course, on Schwartz's own opinions about degrees of sobriety, but certainly does not suggest rip-roaring drunkeness.

Moreover, the observation may have been cadged out of Schwartz by a newspaper reporter who would have no qualms about asking leading questions.

Star: Try to remember, anything unusual about this man you saw approaching Stride?
Schwartz: Not really, it was so quick.
Star: How did he walk?
Schwartz: I'm not sure; maybe he swayed a bit.
Star: As if he'd been drinking?
Schwartz: I don't know . . . I suppose so.

I've been there, done interviews and led someone along in order to put some "color" into a story. So I'm suggesting that the man who accosted Liz may have been stone cold sober

By the way, I quite agree with Tom's point about the wound.

Don.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi C.D., I don't have my notes (and haven't looked at them in a year) but I believe it was one of the doctors. Llewellyn noted that the cachous fell from her hand when he moved it, so felt she couldn't have been rattled around too much prior.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Hi Tom,

Who was it that made the statement about the position of her body?

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi C.D. It was said that she looked as though she'd been laid down. What they're illustrating by saying this is that there was no sign of any struggle or resistance. Also indicating this is that none of the cachous slipped from her hand, as would have been the case had she taken a hard fall. So yes, I believe she was laid down on the ground, probably in a similar manner as most or all of the other street victims.

Regarding Schwartz, my earlier points were simply meant to show that there is reason not to accept his testimony as gospel. Certainly Abberline believe him, but then Abberline also believed George Hutchinson. Make of that what you will.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for that information. If you don't mind, I have another question on which I am unclear. Didn't the position of Liz's body indicate that it had been placed deliberately on the ground? If so, why would the BS man (assuming he was not Jack) take the trouble to do so?

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all, just a few quick points...

* It's far more difficult to kill a person by slicing their throat than most people think, particularly if you've never done this before. More often than not, there are small cuts or 'false starts' found on the throat. Many times the victim does not even die. In the case of Stride, we have one clean cut opening the left carotid artery. And this was done in the dark in a semi-public place without attracting attention. I'd say this denotes some level of confidence and competence in her killer. Certainly Dr. Phillips felt the same way. This is also how Chapman and Nichols were killed. The second, deeper wound was probably intended to escalate the bleed out of the victim to fascilitate the Ripper's intended abdominal mutilations. Since none were to be performed on Stride, there was no reason for superfluous wounds.

* It was in fact Schwartz that the Star is talking about when they say the police did not 'wholly accept' his statement. This is corroborated by other articles appearing around the same time.

* I suspect that Schwartz was temporarily living at the Berner Street club up until the day of the murder and that it was this association that caused police to suspect his statement, since it was awfully convenient for the club members that Schwartz came forth essentially placing the blame on gentiles. William Wess may have been Schwartz's interpreter as he served in this position at the same time and at the same police station as Leon Goldstein. But all of this right now is speculation on my part.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Grabbit]

'If' BS was drunk, then isn't it quite likely that he's left a pub at closing time? This puts the time more likely to be after 12.30. But how much after 12.30?

If he's on his way home, much would depend on where he was drinking, but would he not be more likely to be drinking fairly locally. This may put the timing of his siting earlier than than we think.

Pipe man may be another pub kick-out who has just stopped in a convenient doorway to fill his pipe for the walk home.

Just musing. Any thought anyone?

[Fisherman]

Oh, I do oblige, Ben. Since I have published the pic there is really nothing much more to say.

Fisherman

[Ben]

Don't worry, CD.

I'm begging him!

Really hope he obliges.

[c.d.]

Ben/Fisherman,

Guys, I'm begging you, please don't start that fricken cutaway thing again. If you must, start a separate thread. All of us will thank you.

c.d.

[Ben]

I said let's agree to disa-bloody-gree!

The values and meanings of words vary over time, Ben

Indeed Fish, and we learn from the Stride investigation itself that a cutaway was being used as a synonym for an overcoat, not a jacket. Nobody is justified in claiming that actual evidence from the Stride investigation is less reflective of "reality" than a picture you found on the internet. If the cutaway was of the unconventional "jacket" variety, then I've no doubt that Marshall would have specified a jacket, or at the very least a "cutaway jacket", rather than simply use the expression "cutaway" and hope that the jury, press and all and sundry would assume he waa talking about a jacket.

Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben, please don´t resort to dictionary definitions. There is no need to. On the pic I just furnished, you can just take a look and you will see that the back in the 1880´s there was a JACKET that was called cutaway. It is not long - it is ordinary JACKET length.

In Sweden, when we joke about our military service, we say that the bid there is "If the map and the reality do not agree with each other - use the map!"

I have always prioritized reality over maps. That is why I prioritize my pic - showing 1880´s cutaway jackets - over any dictionary definition. It represents the reality on the streets of the decade we are speaking of, simple as that.
The values and meanings of words vary over time, Ben. A cutaway will have looked distinctly different over the years, and one single dictionary definition won´t capture that.

If you want to disagree with me, that´s fine. I´m not posting just for your sake. I´m posting to offer the possibility for each and every poster here to have a good, long look and establish for themselves whether a cutaway must have had tails, be overcoatish - or if it could just have been a common jacket, something that tallies perfectly with Schwartz´and Marshalls descriptions.

Fisherman

[Ben]

Are you actually telling me not to state my opinion, Ben? Are you?

No, Fish, I expressed my fervent "hope" that you wouldn't persist in an argument that we've not only had before, but actually duplicated recently on a Druitt thread of all places. I don't think that's very productive.

The dictionary definition of a cutaway is a garment with tails, also referred to as a morning coat. Since we know that witnesses were using the term cutaway as a substitute for an overcoat, it's clear that the length at the rear was a distinguishing feature of a cutaway. Personally, I don't think a witness to a murder inquiry would refer specifically to a cutaway unless he saw the tradtionally accepted version of one, but your mileage may vary.

Let's agree to disagree, please.

Best regards,
Ben