Why is Liz Stride's Murder So Contentious?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I hope there's not going to be any persistence here"

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

"I don't think anyone would refer to a tail-less garment as a "cutaway" in darkness and at a distance, Fish, as traditionally a cutaway was a garment with tails more resembling an overcoat than a jacket. I believe Smith referred to both an overcoat and a "diagonal cutaway", which would tally very well with the description offered by Marshall."

Since the cutaway was given away by the cut away pieces on the lower FRONT of the garment, Ben, there is every reason to believe that seeing such a jacket from the front would have amounted to a verdict of "cutaway". Much as the traditional cutaway added tails to the cut away pieces on the front, these tails were not the distinguishing addition that gave away cutaway status on the Whitechapel streets of 1888.

Please let´s not quibble over this again, just let the other posters take part of the existing information. The site
file:///Users/schon/Desktop/Men's%20Clothing%20-%201880s%20-%20Clothing%20-%20Dating%20-%20Landscape%20Change%20Program.webarchive
will lead to a picture of two gents dressed in 1880´s cutaways, and everybody can see that they are jackets and not coats (you will notice that they are actually called "cutaway jackets" in the picture), just as the distinctive feature of them are cutaway bits on the lower front.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Chris writes:

"If that's not the origin of your "heavy-set neck", I'd be interested to know where it comes from. I thought I had included all the variants of the description on the wiki page."

It IS the origin - I did not remember the actual wording. And I have never read it as anything else than a description of his neck. But you may of course be right, Chris! The comma between "knot" and "round" is of course what causes the ambiguity, but I am very pleased to see your take on it since it adds valuable information to the picture on my behalf!

And so, Mascara and Paranoia, you may well be right here - Lawendes man may have been a thin guy. Good thing Chris came heavy-se ... sorry, ROUND, and offered the alternative interpretation!

All the best, Chris and M&P!
Fisherman

[Ben]

I don't think anyone would refer to a tail-less garment as a "cutaway" in darkness and at a distance, Fish, as traditionally a cutaway was a garment with tails more resembling an overcoat than a jacket. I believe Smith referred to both an overcoat and a "diagonal cutaway", which would tally very well with the description offered by Marshall.

I hope there's not going to be any persistence here, as we've been here before, and I'll just copy and paste.

Thanks,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Chris Lowe writes:

"To get off topic for a moment its great to find people attacking the argument rather than the people making the argument. "

Thanks for that, Chris! And I´ll give you the benefit of a doubt on who the police did not wholly accept - but since the preceding sentences concentrate on the imprisoned man, and since we are told that though the police has not charged him, they hold on to him to make further inquiries, I think the more probable interpretation is that this was done because he had presented them a story in which they did not believe to the full.

The best!
Fisherman

[Chris]

And Lawendes man was described as a man with a heavy-set neck, meaning that he was probably not on too much of the thin side!

Does that come from Swanson's report, concluding "dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor"?

Despite the odd punctuation, I think "round neck" is just telling us where the handkerchief was tied.

If that's not the origin of your "heavy-set neck", I'd be interested to know where it comes from. I thought I had included all the variants of the description on the wiki page.

[truebluedub]

Truebluedub writes:

"OK we only have the Star's word on it that a reporter met Schwartz himself. According to the Star the first man was drunk which does not appear in what the police said, the second man is the one doing the shouting in the Star contradicting the Police version, and the second man's hair colour changes from brown to red.

On October 1 The Star say: The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted. Yet on the 19th of October Swanson's memo showed they were accepting the statement. The "Lipski" discussion went on on the 25th and 29th of October, the 1st of November the 5th of November. Showing that the statement was taken seriously a whole month later and demonstrates that Schwartz heard Lipski and not a warning."

I´m afraid, Truebluedub, that you are leaving out an important piece here. What the Star says is this:

"The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted."

So the man whose statement the police would not wholly accept was not Schwartz - it was the man imprisoned since he tallied with Schwartz description. Meaning - of course - that Schwartz was believed throughout, explaining why the "Lipski" outcry was scrutinized for a longish time afterwards.

The best,
Fisherman

Actually its ambiguous it could refer either Schwartz or the man in custody depending on how you read it.
To get off topic for a moment its great to find people attacking the argument rather than the people making the argument.

Chris Lowe

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Ah. So maybe Jack did eat the stolen organs after all.

[Fisherman]

Mascara and Paranoia writes:

"That's mostly why I think that BS man and the man Lawende saw are different men; their weight. BS seems a little stocky from the description of him, whereas sailor lad had an average build and his jacket (I assume, going by Lawende's description) was a bit baggy. Not only that but the specific colour of the latter's jacket is, well, specific. The other man/men wore a simple dark coat[?].
You're gonna correct me if I'm (probably) wrong, all of these descriptions are confusing me. "

I´m afraid we have to allow for the possibility of stocky men wearing loose-fitting jackets too, M&P. And Lawendes man was described as a man with a heavy-set neck, meaning that he was probably not on too much of the thin side!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Just this, Ben:

"I also note with interest that both Lawende and Schwartz pinned a "jacket" on their suspect, whereas Marshall and Smith both spoke of an overcoat or a cutaway. Believe me, I don't want to go down that route again, but it's one of the chief distinguishing factors for me."

No need to believe that Smith and Marshall spoke of the same man - to my mind, they did not. And a cutaway - though it could be something else too - could very well be just a jacket. Tight-fitting "cutaways" with no tails were fashionable in that very decade, and would have been worn by many a clerk. So there are no contradictions involved whatsoever, and you should not allow it to be a distinguishing factor at all.

Fisherman

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Let me just add for the rest on the boards that Schwartz´man and BS man wore jackets that may have been exactly the same and were of the same colour, wore caps that may have been exactly the same, wore dark trousers that may have been exactly the same, were both on the overweight side, and were both described as respectably or decent looking.
Lawendes character differs in the respects that he was described as shabbily dressed, wore an illfitting pepper-and-salt coloured jacket, wore a red neckerchief that neither Marshall nor Schwartz spoke of and gave an impression that evidently had Lawendes companion unsettled.

Fisherman

That's mostly why I think that BS man and the man Lawende saw are different men; their weight. BS seems a little stocky from the description of him, whereas sailor lad had an average build and his jacket (I assume, going by Lawende's description) was a bit baggy. Not only that but the specific colour of the latter's jacket is, well, specific. The other man/men wore a simple dark coat[?].

You're gonna correct me if I'm (probably) wrong, all of these descriptions are confusing me.

[Ben]

and were both described as respectably or decent looking.

The "respectable" detail was conspicuously absent from the initial report, though, Fish. It's tempting to disregard that as trivial, but in this case we know that the Star contained details that were in direct contradiction to the original report. I also note with interest that both Lawende and Schwartz pinned a "jacket" on their suspect, whereas Marshall and Smith both spoke of an overcoat or a cutaway. Believe me, I don't want to go down that route again, but it's one of the chief distinguishing factors for me. Both Lawende and Schwartz put the man's age as 30, while Marshall was far less specific as to age.

Bear in mind that a shabbily-dressed man with a peaked cap would look much more conspicuous in the well-heeled City that he would near the docks where you couldn't swing an earwig without hitting someone with a "sailor-like" appearance.

Best regards,
Ben

[Jeff Leahy]

The facts are that we have a similar but not identical descriptions. You can ague the ‘toss’ in either direction but you can’t rule out the possibility that they saw the same man. And the police investigating this, particularly Swanson, would have seen and taken the similarities seriously.

Seriously enough to go to a lot of trouble to remove a suspect to a seaside home and have him positively identified.

Pirate

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I'd have to agree that the Schwartz and Lawende descriptions are pretty similar, more so than Schwartz and Marshall in my view."

I know you think so, Ben, and there is no need for you and me to combat over it any further. Let me just add for the rest on the boards that Schwartz´man and BS man wore jackets that may have been exactly the same and were of the same colour, wore caps that may have been exactly the same, wore dark trousers that may have been exactly the same, were both on the overweight side, and were both described as respectably or decent looking.
Lawendes character differs in the respects that he was described as shabbily dressed, wore an illfitting pepper-and-salt coloured jacket, wore a red neckerchief that neither Marshall nor Schwartz spoke of and gave an impression that evidently had Lawendes companion unsettled.
That means that the descriptions of Marshalls man and BS man may well tally to the full, whereas Lawendes man and BS man differ in a number of respects.
As I say, you have interpreted all of this before in a manner that I feel disregards the evidence somewhat, and you are welcome to do so again should you wish to. But it won´t change the facts.

Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

Truebluedub writes:

"OK we only have the Star's word on it that a reporter met Schwartz himself. According to the Star the first man was drunk which does not appear in what the police said, the second man is the one doing the shouting in the Star contradicting the Police version, and the second man's hair colour changes from brown to red.

People suffering from Schizophrenia can appear drunk.

"The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted."

Isnt the logical conclusion that they arrested 'pipeman', who confirmed Schwartz Story?

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Try this one:

On March 28, 1888, while home alone at 19 Maidman Street, Wilson answered a knock at the door to find a man of about 30 years of age, 5ft 6ins in height, with a sunburnt face and a fair moustache. He was wearing a dark coat, light trousers and a wideawake hat. The man forced his way into the room and demanded money, and when she refused he stabbed her twice in the throat and ran, leaving her for dead. It is reported that nearby neighbours almost captured the man, but he found his escape.

Of course I respect fisherman's arguments and position. However for me these four descriptions could possibly be the same man with a different hat. I'm not saying they definitely are the same man. I'm muting it as a possibility.