Probability of Double Event

[c.d.]

C.D. : Sugden indicates the knife used on 'Long Liz' had rounded point, whereas the knife used in the other killings had sharp point..Two different knives? Two different killers?
Why the one knife on Stride and then within an hour, go back to the same knife for Eddowes...

I will have to go back and reread what Sugden wrote. His conclusion of course is that Jack killed Liz in all probability.

c.d.

[macknnc]

Yeah I know that...and basically I agree, though the available evidence leaves me no choice but to continue my mental placing of a small question mark by Stride's name.

[c.d.]

Hi Mack,

Even Sugden says that there will always be questions surrounding her murder.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Out in the street, Tom, those were the only parametres offered. The rest you have on Le Grand is not related to the description of Pipeman.

I don't want to turn this into a Le Grand thread, but his close resemblance to Pipeman (6ft, fair haired, 35 yo) is central here, but also I pointed out that between 12-12:30am, Le Grand would have been exiting 74 Mile End Rd, only a straight mile away (not a square mile), which places him near the area of Berner Street at the perfect. There could only have been so many men fitting Pipeman's description in that area at that time. And only ONE of those showed up later inducing people to lie to the police and press about who killed Stride. If you don't find that compelling, then your mind is not as open as you claim it to be.

Actually, Tom, I was first pointed to this obvious likeness by another participator on the boards, Jon Guy, so unless he is dead, there are two of us, believe it or not.

It does not surprise me that Jon Guy would think this, considering how he's behaved and what he has had to say on Stride threads before. You're doing your idea no favors here.

But it seems you are now ready to dispell this fatal error of ours, and I am much intrigued as to how you are going to go about it. How did they differ, Tom?

Well, for starters, one was young and the other was middle-aged, and two they weren't dressed the same, and three, Stride was seen spending constant and quality time with one, the other merely came upon her on the sidewalk and was otherwise not in her presence. If you'd like, you could post the detailed descriptions of both here, as it's been a while since I've read either. But don't forget that William Marshall was 52, so when he identifies the man as 'middle-aged', he's referring to someone around his own age group, and in witness identifications, the most accurate are when someone is viewing someone of their own age group. Only in the absolute most generic sense could you argue they were the same man.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

C.D. : Sugden indicates the knife used on 'Long Liz' had rounded point, whereas the knife used in the other killings had sharp point..Two different knives? Two different killers?
Why the one knife on Stride and then within an hour, go back to the same knife for Eddowes...

Sugden was wrong. The Ripper book that gets the Stride murder correct has yet to be written.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Right, since we have Tom Wescott telling us that the man William Marshall saw at 11.45 and BS man were “in no way similar, short of being male humans”, I think we need to take a look at how truthful this Wescottism is.

For simplicity´s sake, I will take it detail for detail, naming Israel Schwartz´description of BS man as “IS” and William Marshall´s ditto of his man as “WM”. The descriptions made are all from the inquest or the police report/the Star article on Schwartz:

Height:
IS: 5 foot 5 inches
WM: 5 foot 6 inches

Built:
IS: Broad-shouldered, rather stoutly built
WM: Rather stout

Age:
IS: About 30 years of age
WM: Middle-aged

Jacket:
IS: Dark jacket
WM: A small black coat, a black cutaway coat

Trousers:
IS: Dark
WM: Dark

General appearance:
IS: Dressed respectably
WM: Decently dressed, had more the appearance of a clerk than anything else

Headgear:
IS: Black cap with peak
WM: A round cap, with a small peak …something like what a sailor would wear

Face:
IS: Full face, small brown moustache
WM: I could not see the man's face. From what I saw of his face I do not think he had (whiskers)

Belongings:
IS: Nothing in his hands
WM: He had nothing in his hands that I am aware of

These are the details listed. Now it is up to anybody to decide whether I and Jon Guy are to remain the only people alive that fail to realize that these descriptions are “in no way similar”. Or could it be that Tom Wescott is the only existing soul that fails to recognize it?

It´s anybody´s choice.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"don't forget that William Marshall was 52, so when he identifies the man as 'middle-aged', he's referring to someone around his own age group"

I am sorry, Tom, but you are forcing me to dub this stupid. And annoying, but I can live with that. To Marshall, as well as to anybody else in the kingdom of Britain, middle-age would not have been confined to the age of 52! It is a SPAN of ages that stretches over DECADES, and although it does not fit your reasoning, there is patently little you can do about it.

"Stride was seen spending constant and quality time with one, the other merely came upon her on the sidewalk and was otherwise not in her presence"

You are right. That IS a difference. Not that it enters the discussion, but still, a difference.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Calm down, Fish. Think of your blood pressure. Different dress, different ages, and you can't ignore the circumstances under which each were observed. Marshall's man was clearly older and better dressed. I take it that you don't think Marshall's man was one and the same as Best and Gardner's?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Roy Corduroy]

Good afternoon Tom,

Correct me if I have misunderstood you, but at various times you have proposed that -

(a) LeGrand was Pipeman
(b) Schwartz lied on behalf of the club

You do realize those two things cannot both be true.

Roy

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"Calm down, Fish."

I am perfectly calm, Tom. I can point somebody´s faulty suggestions out as stupid without having any blood pressure problems.

"Different dress"

Dark trousers, dark jacket, peaked cap. Where is the difference?

"Different ages"

Oh, please, Tom, don´t do this to yourself - you have no idea whatsoever what Marshall would pin down as middle-aged, but the rest of the world knows that 30-something absolutely belongs to that definition.

"You can't ignore the circumstances under which each were observed."

No? Watch me. They make no change at all to the descriptions - that tally perfectly.

"Marshall's man was clearly older and better dressed."

"Dressed respectably" and "decently dressed" seem to tell another story altogether, Tom. And don´t use the word "clearly" when you are doing your best to mud the waters.

"I take it that you don't think Marshall's man was one and the same as Best and Gardner's?"

I may discuss that with you at a later stage. First, you are going to have to reconcile your assertion that the two men we are speaking of were "in no way similar" with the fact that they had:
The same body-built
The same headgear
The same trousers
The same dark jacket
The same height
The same age
The same air of decency and respectability

Please, Tom, explain to me how this adds up to no similarity at all - none whatsoever. And while you are at it, throw in an explanation about what you think that this suggestion of yours is going to do to your credibility fortwith.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Good afternoon Tom,

Correct me if I have misunderstood you, but at various times you have proposed that -

(a) LeGrand was Pipeman
(b) Schwartz lied on behalf of the club

You do realize those two things cannot both be true.

Well, technically both could be true to the extent that Schwartz could have lied, but Le Grand could have THOUGHT that he was seen, due to the similar description. But realistically, that's not likely. And yes, I'm not ashamed to say that I consider literally every angle and possibility and am always willing to change my mind on a matter. I can argue against myself better than anyone.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"I consider literally every angle and possibility and am always willing to change my mind on a matter."

Fine. Then read the list I wrote once more, and make good on this assertion.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

To Fisherman

I don't see how a 'dark jacket' and a 'black cutaway coat' are the same thing at all. And when a 52 year old man says 'middle-aged', he is not referring to a 30 year old, who by any account would be thought of as young or youngish. Marshall's man was older and better dressed than BS Man, plain and simple. Yes, there are similar characteristics, but these would fit literally every member of the Berner Street club and probably 75% of the men in the area. The differences are what is significant here, not the generic similarities. And you are being very rude, by the way. You must have gotten that from Jon Guy as well.

And please answer my question as to whether or not you feel Marshall's man was one and the same as the man witnessed by Best and Gardner.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"I don't see how a 'dark jacket' and a 'black cutaway coat' are the same thing at all."

How much read up are you on the 1880:s fashions, Tom? Back then, smallish, tight-fitting cutaway jackets became popular. Cutaways were named cutaways because there was a portion of the garment cut away on each side of the front of it, furthest down. Such a garment could easily be described as a "small coat", just as Marshall did. And Schwartz´s description only stretches to "dark jacket", giving quite little away. it may of course well have ben a cutaway jacket. We don´t know, since he never expanded on it. And jackets can be thin and they can be thick, making them more "coatish".

"And when a 52 year old man says 'middle-aged', he is not referring to a 30 year old, who by any account would be thought of as young or youngish."

Prove. Substantiate. 30 is middle-age today, and it certainly was back then, given the lower lifetime average. So don´t try and "by any account" me, Tom - this is your account only.

"Marshall's man was older and better dressed than BS Man, plain and simple."

If that is as plain and simple as you say, then you should have no problems PROVING it. It will be a tough task, given that the testimony flies in the face of what you are saying.

"Yes, there are similar characteristics"

Well, waddayouknow? Suddenly there ARE similarities. Suddenly the two men are NOT totally different in every respect. One has to wonder, Tom, why you tried your original approach?

"these would fit literally every member of the Berner Street club and probably 75% of the men in the area."

Who all gave a respectable appearance? Who all were stout? Who all used peaked caps? Who all were 5 foot 5 - 5 foot 6? Who all were 52 years old? Or were they middle-aged, Tom?
You know that this is not correct, Tom. Everybody does.

"The differences are what is significant here, not the generic similarities."

But there ARE no differences, Tom, save for the ones you have thought up: Marshalls man being significantly older and better dressed. None of these parametres finds ANY substantiation at all in the material. Not a scrap of it. Nothing, nada, silch, rien, keines. It is all your suggestion, from beginning to end, is it not? You "feel" that Marshall would only have named people of his own age "middle-aged", you "feel" that the descriptions "decently dressed, clerk-like" and "respectably clad" must point to a very significant difference in wealth, whereas most people would be baffled by such a suggestion.

"And you are being very rude, by the way."

I would not say that. Of course, it does not improve on my mood when somebody expects me to accept private musings as facts. Least of all when that somebody is a researcher that has a proven capacity that normally stretches a long way beyond such antics (there, I complimented you, Tom - sort of).
By the bye, you were not exactly polite towards Jon Guy, were you? And he is, as far as I can tell, one of the nicest, mildest and mannerwise correct people I have come across on these boards.

"please answer my question as to whether or not you feel Marshall's man was one and the same as the man witnessed by Best and Gardner."

Maybe. Maybe not. Best and Gardner were not called to the inquest, and that may tell us that the police did not rank their testimony very highly.
I myself think that they leave a few things to be wished for in their description of Stride. But IF it was Stride they saw, then the man they spoke of was not totally irreconcilable with Marshalls man/BS man, the way I see things. I have seen descriptions made by totally rational witnesses that differ a lot more inbetween them - although they describe the same person observed in good conditions. Witness psychology often surprises you.
Which is why I am very impressed by the testimony presented by Schwartz and Marshall - only the fewest witnesses come that close to each other in their descriptions, especially when their observations are made under circumstances as those attaching to the Stride killing.

There you go, Tom. Your turn now: Can you really and truly deny that Marshall could have described his man as middle-aged if he was in his thirties? Remember that he never saw his face, and he may well have judged him to be 30, 35 or 40. Middle-aged is all he says.

And can you really and truly deny that Schwartz´s and Marshalls wordings - decently dressed/respectably clad - could point to the same man? Must you be correct in your assumption that Marshall´s man was much better dressed, in spite of the likeness in wording on this detail inbetween Marshall and Schwartz?

I am not speaking of your personal convictions, gut feelings or general inclintions here - I am speaking of the testified material only. Does that material in any way hinder my assumption that the two may very well have been one and the same?

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

How much read up are you on the 1880:s fashions, Tom? Back then, smallish, tight-fitting cutaway jackets became popular. Cutaways were named cutaways because there was a portion of the garment cut away on each side of the front of it, furthest down. Such a garment could easily be described a a "small coat", just as Marshall did. And Schwartz´s description only stretches to "dark jacket", giving quite little away.

That's my point, a cutaway coat, which was popular with men who had money, would not be described as a 'dark jacket'.

30 is middle-age today.

Maybe in Sweden, where everyone dies at 50, but not in the rest of the world, and a 52 year old man would certainly not think so.

But there ARE no differences, Tom, save for the ones you have thought up

It's this kind of approach you take that makes debate pointless. I'll say it again that yes, both of these men share certain similar characteristics in build, and they share them with Edmund Reid, also known to have work a dark jacket, but like Edmund Reid, there's nothing in the action or movements of the two men that suggest they were one and the same. For this reason, they must be thought of as two distinct individuals, regardless of whatever havoc that reaks on your 'Liz had a secret boyfriend' theory, which I seem to remember was 'Kidney killed Liz' until I proved to your satisfaction that Kidney did not kill Liz. I'm still reeling at how I was able to win you over on that one.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. I just noticed that while I was typing this, you edited and made your long post even longer, so I'll have to see what else you've found wrong with my simple and logical assessment of the evidence.