Tweet
Originally posted by Pirate Jack
I'm not being argumentative but it's obvious that those were two completely different people.
Originally posted by richardnunweek
-
That's just it though, that's a reach in order to try and make them out to be the same man. But they just wasn't.
I'm not being argumentative but it's obvious that those were two completely different people.
That doesn't make sense to me. Again, I don't mean to argue, but why would Jack forcibly kill his victims? That would draw a lot of attention to himself and may even scare the prositute(s) off. The Ripper's M.O. was very much the opposite to the ruffian who assaulted and probably killed Stride. In fact, the way in which Lawende's man operated is exactly how Jack would've ensnared his victims, lulling them into a false sense of security and attacking them offguard. If Jack came across as threatening, then he wouldn't have claimed any lives, not without being caught quickly. -
Schwartz: Aged 30, 5'5", brown haired, fair complexion, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.
Lawende: Aged 30, 5'7", fair complexion, brown moustache, salt-and-pepper coat, red neckerchief, grey peaked cloth cap. Sailor-like.
Excuse if I just use the casebook descriptions. But these two description simply sound like the same person to me?
And if you could find a suspect matching that description you might be getting somewhere.
Pirate
PS. We are looking for someone: Age approx 30, 5' 6'', fair complexion, brown hair/moustache, dark clothes, peak-cap.Last edited by Jeff Leahy; 02-13-2009, 02:22 PM.Comment
-
Okay, those are comparable descriptions. Going by your theory that Schwartz saw the killer in the dark, you've got a good argument. I know I've had this reply box open for longer than necessary to come up with a cocky response against it.
But I'm still not convinced, and I don't know what it is exactly that's keeping me from seeing things from the pro-Stride point of view. It's just, her murder is too different from the others. It doesn't seem very 'Jacky' to me.Comment
-
OK add this description:
Sarah Cox: Short, stout man, shabbily dressed. Billycock hat, blotchy face, carroty moustache, holding quart can of beer.
Thats three people who probably were the last people to see the last three victims alive.
Stride, Eddowes and Kelly.
Now all we need is a key suspect that matches those descriptions.
Pirate
PS i hope you not mind me bouncing this on you chaps, its been keeping me awake all night.Comment
-
Truebluedub asks:
"How reliable is the Star? Did they have a trained interpreter? What purpose did they have in reporting this testimony? Did they in fact speak with Schwartz or speak to a third party who gave a garbled version of what Schwartz said? Don't forget there are significant differences between both his statements."
Whenever I tend to forget such things, there are always people around to remind me, TBD! But the fact of the matter is that the police report tells us nothing, nada, keines, rien du tout of BS mans appearance, whereas the Star DOES. No contradictions involved, thus. Plus it is not hearsay - they had a reporter on place, interwiewing Schwartz, and therefore the only thing we are left with is a statement that BS man was of a respectable appearance.
The best,
FishermanComment
-
But surely respectable appearance is a matter of opinion.
I think i'm of respectable appearance. But my partner is always accusing me of being 'scruffy lookin'
PComment
-
Put like that....BTW,I DO think Stride is Jack's work......it's just the timings in Berners st confuse me.........Originally posted by Pirate Jack View Post
SteveComment
-
Jeff writes:
"surely respectable appearance is a matter of opinion"
It is, Jeff. And I don´t propose that he was a well-tailored gent with a cylinder hat and shining shoes. I don´t think that a description of "respectable" given by an Eastender about a fellow Eastender has to amount to much more that an appearance of everyday cleanliness and unpatched, untorned clothing - such things would probably have led to a verdict of respectability, especially if we allow ourselves to theorize that the reporter may have thought that - given BS mans actions - Schwartz was describing a ruffian, and asked a question like: "Was he a rough character?" and received the answer "Oh, no - he was perfectly respectable".
That is not high society respectability - it´s just ordinary decency and cleanliness. But those features are exactly what Lawendes man seems to lack - nothing respectable about him; Loose, Ill-fitting clothes in an era when tight-fitting jackets were prescribed, combined with shabbyness and a ruffians look, he does NOT come across as somebody who Marshall would have put down as a clerk, does he?
All in all, we are left with descriptions by Schwartz and Marshall that tally down to the overweight and the dark peaked cap, whereas Lawendes man was seemingly made of different stuff altogether. If we want to see all three of them as the same man, we need a large shoehorn and a strong hand - and the ability to walk on aching and blistered feet in ill-fitting shoes. And I like my strolls leisurely.
The best,
FishermanComment
-
INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT
was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder. This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter. He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane. The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police. It is, in fact, to the effect that he
SAW THE WHOLE THING.
It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved. As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb
A SECOND MAN CAME OUT
of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings. He described
THE MAN WITH THE WOMAN
as about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built, and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat. The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red. Both men seem to belong to the same grade of society. 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.
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.
The fact that they contradict basic facts given in official sources which by their nature are more likely to be accurate means the Star account is irrelevant.Comment
-
-
I'd have to agree that the Schwartz and Lawende descriptions are pretty similar, more so than Schwartz and Marshall in my view.
Bear in mind that the Star report contained elements that were in contrast to the Swanson condensed report, as truebluedub points out. If they were capable of changing a man's moustache from brown and red and a peaked cap to a felt hat, it's quite possible that "respectable" was in similar contradiction.
Regards,
BenComment
-
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,
FishermanComment
-
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.Last edited by Jeff Leahy; 02-13-2009, 04:15 PM.Comment
-
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.
FishermanComment
Comment