Why is Lawende definitely Anderson's Witness?

[Observer]

Hi Mort B

Think about where this information came from; if you were a man and saw a woman assaulted who screamed out for help, who you ignored, and was dead the next morning, wouldn't you downplay how much she screamed?

The police at the time seemed unequivacol about Stride being a Ripper victim, I don't think Shwartz had in mind the scores of Ripperolgists debating it on the net a century later.

Liz Stride was a prostitute, it could well be that BS man was no more than a very peeved, very tipsy, local laddo returning from a night out on the drink who was a bit put out at Ms Stride propositioning him. Pipeman was his freind. BS man did try to pull Stride into the street, suggesting that he intended to run her out of the street. Now would Stride yell her lungs out attracting the nearest bobby and in all probability resulting in her arrest? Probably not. Thing is Liz Stride is found with her throat cut very shortly after this event, I'm pretty certain that BS man is not JTR, but it is possible that another more deadly individual approached, inveigled, and murdered Stride after BS man vacated the scene.

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

As I mentioned earlier on in this thread, I feel the above stretches a coincidence to breaking point. Israel Schwartz saw a woman identified as the victim being attacked at around 12:45am, the time suggested as the likely time of death by the first doctor on the scene. Setting aside all "Jack"-related preconceptions, the logical commonsense conclusion is that she was killed by the broad-shouldered man, unless Schwartz lied or was wildly awry is his estimation of the time. Positing the existence of an isecond attacker who targetted Liz just moments after the first attack and in the same location just isn't a credible proposition, unless Liz's nickname was Job.

Best regards,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hi Mort,

Your point may be valid, but then why admit that you ran off in the first place? Schwartz testified that Liz gave three small screams. I don't see any reason to doubt him. That is a very slippery slope.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Observer,

As I mentioned earlier on in this thread, I feel the above stretches a coincidence to breaking point. Israel Schwartz saw a woman identified as the victim being attacked at around 12:45am, the time suggested as the likely time of death by the first doctor on the scene. Setting aside all "Jack"-related preconceptions, the logical commonsense conclusion is that she was killed by the broad-shouldered man, unless Schwartz lied or was wildly awry is his estimation of the time. Positing the existence of an isecond attacker who targetted Liz just moments after the first attack and in the same location just isn't a credible proposition, unless Liz's nickname was Job.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Schwartz never mentioned an "attack." He said he saw a woman being thrown to the ground. "Attack" is a pretty loaded word.

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi CD,

A defenseless woman was aggressively manhandled by a man against her wishes. Regardless of how loaded the term may be, it was what happened.

She was attacked.

Best regards,
Ben

[Observer]

Hi Ben

What if Blackwell was wrong? There is evidence that liquid blood was still issuing from Liz Strides neck at 1 05 a.m.

all the best

Observer

[Chris]

What if Blackwell was wrong? There is evidence that liquid blood was still issuing from Liz Strides neck at 1 05 a.m.

Actually, Blackwell didn't suggest 12.45 as the "likely time" of Stride's death - it was the very earliest he thought she could have died.

[tnb]

This may be a little off-topic, and I did wonder about putting it up as a new thread, but thought it probably didn't warrant it. Move it if you must, mods.

So...if Anderson's witness- and I agree with the consensus on here that is most likely Lawende- was, in Anderson's opinion at least, 'the only witness to get a clear look at the killer' (paraphrased from memory, sorry if it's a bit out) then do we assume that Anderson completely dismissed Hutchinson's 'Astrakhan Man' as either a complete figment of Hutchinson's (likely mercenary) imagination, or alternatively as real but definitively not Jack?

On an aside, I find the wording a little curious- the way Anderson adds the caveat 'clearly' (and isn't there something about it being a clear look at his face in one version?)- I am likely reading WAY too much into it here but that can be read to suggest he believes there were *other* witnesses who got a look at 'Jack' but not a 'clear' one?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ben,

Positing the existence of a second attacker who targetted Liz just moments after the first attack and in the same location just isn't a credible proposition, unless Liz's nickname was Job.

I agree with you, but have a look at what Swanson wrote in an effort to square the timing of Schwartz's encounter and Stride's death—

"At the same time account must be taken of the fact that the throat only of the victim was cut in this instance which measured by time, considering meeting (if with a man other than Schwartz saw) the time for the agreement of the murderous action would I think be a question of so many minutes, five at least, ten at most, so that I respectfully submit it is not clearly proved that the man that Schwartz saw is the murderer although it is clearly the more probable of the two."

Regards,

Simon

[Ben]

Hi Simon,

Thanks for that. Swanson was, of course, quite correct to observe that it was "not clearly proved" - that much is true, but the likelihood of such an occurance must be considered very slim.

Actually, Blackwell didn't suggest 12.45 as the "likely time" of Stride's death

True, Chris. I should have said that the likely time-frame of death suggested by Dr. Blackwell encompassed 12:45.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

I think it's rather obvious why a murderer would have been taking a much bigger risk than someone perpetrating a casual assault. He would have been risking his life.

Hi Chris,

My mistake. I wrongly thought you were suggesting it would have been a huge risk for the ripper (let’s call this scenario one) to have been seen assaulting a victim, but a lesser risk for a one-off killer (scenario two). Obviously the man in either case would have been risking his life - but rather more recklessly if, for instance, he was known to the victim personally or to anyone connected with the club.

For completeness I included scenario three (which you indicate above) whereby the man seen with Liz around 12.45 moved on, unaware that an unseen assassin - the ripper - would move in before the hour was up. While the first man would obviously not have thought he was risking his neck at the time, I dare say he’d have thought twice in future about casually assaulting a woman in front of witnesses, as soon as he learned the full story and realised he could have found himself wrongfully arrested in connection with Liz’s murder - and possibly others - as a result of Schwartz’s account. I certainly wouldn’t like to have been in his shoes, having to argue the toss with Ben over how credible it was that he hadn’t killed anyone.

Actually, Blackwell didn't suggest 12.45 as the "likely time" of Stride's death - it was the very earliest he thought she could have died.

You took the words right out of my mouth on this one.

I don’t actually think we had much to disagree about here, Chris.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

I dare say he’d have thought twice in future about casually assaulting a woman in front of witnesses, as soon as he learned the full story and realised he could have found himself wrongfully arrested in connection with Liz’s murder

That would amount to one heck of an unusual lesson to learn, though, wouldn't it? "Hey, I'd better not be seen physically manhandling that prostitute, just in case someone else arrives on the scene a few minutes after I leave and decides to physically manhandle her even more (i.e. to the point of murdering her) in precisely the same location. That's what happened last time!".

I think it's fair to include all possible scenarios for the sake of "completeness", but in terms of likelihood, "scenario three" must realistically be consigned to the bottom of the pile, in my view.

All the best,
Ben

[Chris]

My mistake. I wrongly thought you were suggesting it would have been a huge risk for the ripper (let’s call this scenario one) to have been seen assaulting a victim, but a lesser risk for a one-off killer (scenario two). Obviously the man in either case would have been risking his life - but rather more recklessly if, for instance, he was known to the victim personally or to anyone connected with the club.

Well, it would have been a huge risk for anyone to attack a women in front of witnesses with the intention of killing her, though if it wasn't the Ripper it's wouldn't be so clear that he did necessarily have the intention of killing her when he attacked her.

But the other point is that some murderers are reckless, sometimes to a remarkable degree. I suppose it really boils down to whether you think the Ripper would have displayed the degree of recklessness described in Schwartz's account. That's what I am sceptical about.

[celee]

Hi,

I feel that Stride might have brought on her troubles. She was scared by all accounts and she may have been on edge. She may have been frightend by a sudden movement or a strange look causing her to take action against a man who may not have meant to do her harm.

If she was killed by the Ripper her actions may have caused him to attack her before he was ready.

Your friend, Brad