Did Schwartz and Lawende Describe the Same Man?

[Wickerman]

We do not know whether the woman seen by Blenkinsop wore clothes similar to Eddowes'.

We do not know who the man following her was.

If he was a policeman, why did he not pass on his information to his superiors?

If he was not a policeman, why would he have been following the couple?

Whoever he was, why did he not come forward following the murder?

I do not know how Blenkinsop's story first came to light, but if it was important, why is there no record of the police having been interested in it, and why did he not appear as a witness at the inquest?

To ask, "Why, why, why" does not invalidate a story.
Any policeman today will tell you people do not automatically come forward, that most witnesses have to be sought out.
You apparently put faith in Lawende's story, yet he was another witness who, like Blenkingsop's suspect, never came forward. Lawende was discovered after door-to-door enquiries.
So perhaps you think only honest witnesses come forward - was Lawende dishonest?

City Police records were destroyed in WWII, so we cannot say the policeman following the couple through St. James Place did not make a report.

Major Smith, City Commissioner, wrote that his constables were instructed to follow couples, not men, not groups of women, but couples. Which is why Blenkingsop's "people" are likely to have been a "couple". The police were only instructed to follow couples out late at night.

The reason this vague record is important is because it better suits the time window. The couple seen by Lawende are not seen to enter the square, this is only an assumption based on a vague acknowledgement of some dark clothing. Whereas Blenkingsop's story identifies someone entering the square at roughly the same time Watkins was supposed to leave by the Mitre St. exit.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

James Blenkingsop, who was on duty as a watchman in St. James's-place (leading to the square), where some street improvements are taking place, states that about half-past one a respectably-dressed man came up to him and said, "Have you seen a man and a woman go through here?" "I didn't take any notice," returned Blenkingsop. "I have seen some people pass."

(The Star, 1 October 1888)


According to The Star, Blenkinsop did not say that he had seen a man and woman pass by together.

The police evidently decided that the story had nothing to do with the murder.

[DJA]

James Blenkinsop gave his story to The Star,1st October.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

All these women dressed the same, in dark clothes. The police would not allow Lawende to identify the body because he claimed to not see her face, which makes the case for him seeing Eddowes much weaker.
More likely to my mind are the people (couple?) seen passing through St. James Place (Orange Market) about 1:30 by a watchman named Blenkingsop.

We do not know whether the woman seen by Blenkinsop wore clothes similar to Eddowes'.

We do not know who the man following her was.

If he was a policeman, why did he not pass on his information to his superiors?

If he was not a policeman, why would he have been following the couple?

Whoever he was, why did he not come forward following the murder?

I do not know how Blenkinsop's story first came to light, but if it was important, why is there no record of the police having been interested in it, and why did he not appear as a witness at the inquest?

[Wickerman]

The man and woman seen by Lawende had disappeared by the time Harvey arrived about five minutes later and another four minutes later, Watkins found nearby the body of a woman whose clothes, according to Lawende, matched those of the woman he had seen.

That makes a strong case for the man described by Lawende having been the murderer.

All these women dressed the same, in dark clothes. The police would not allow Lawende to identify the body because he claimed to not see her face, which makes the case for him seeing Eddowes much weaker.
More likely to my mind are the people (couple?) seen passing through St. James Place (Orange Market) about 1:30 by a watchman named Blenkingsop.

[FrankO]

That makes a strong case for the man described by Lawende having been the murderer.

While I agree with this, that doesn't tell us how accurate his description was. I'm inclined to put some stock, at least, in the impression the man gave him: that of a shabbily dressed sailor type man.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I agree that these suspect descriptions are not the same man, but neither of these suspects were the killer either, in my opinion.

The man and woman seen by Lawende had disappeared by the time Harvey arrived about five minutes later and another four minutes later, Watkins found nearby the body of a woman whose clothes, according to Lawende, matched those of the woman he had seen.

That makes a strong case for the man described by Lawende having been the murderer.

[John Wheat]

Considering we don't know who did and didn't see Jack and that witness reports are notoriously unreliable. How useful is it to keep going over witness statements?

[Wickerman]

I agree that these suspect descriptions are not the same man, but neither of these suspects were the killer either, in my opinion.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The suspects seen by Schwartz and Lawende were obviously not the same man.

Schwartz's man was not described as shabby.

Lawende's was.

Schwartz's man was described as broad-shouldered and stout.

Lawende's was not, but was described as being of medium build.

Lawende's man was talking quietly to the woman - not throwing her about.

Schwartz's man shouted at a passer-by.

Lawende's man said nothing to them.

Schwartz's man had a brown moustache.

Lawende's man had a fair moustache.

Schwartz's man did not have the appearance of a sailor.

Lawende's did.

[caz]

Hi c.d,

You make a good point that items such as the red neckerchief could be changed.

In fact, one could argue that if the ripper was no fool he would have avoided wearing any kind of distinctive but unnecessary accessory while out on the prowl - unless it could actually serve a purpose. Imagine he started out that night with the red kerchief in his pocket, in case it could help him render a victim senseless, but he came across Liz and she was already wearing a scarf that he was able to pull tight. On his flight to find a second victim to lure to a more suitable location, he could have whipped out his red kerchief and tied it round his own neck before you could say "Jack Ripper" - a quick and useful costume change in case he had to put up with any more nosey parkers like Schwartz, Pipeman and/or Diemschutz. I suspect that if he had the wit to think up a motto it would have been 'confuse the enemy', be they victim, witness or copper.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Most likely Schwartz and Lawende did not describe thet same man, and there is abslolutely no reason to even assume that they did.

Both their statements involve elements that are unreliable (meaning elements that usually are very difficult for any witness to estimate): descriptions height etc. They also contain elements like peaked cap, dark clothes and moustache - all elements that would fit hundreds, if not thousands in East End and therefore are totally useless.
Wearing a peaked cap in those days were incredibly commonplace among the male working class, and don't even get me started on the moustache! Just look at ever bloody photograph from the time period.

Now, the only element that are of ANY IMPORTANCE whatsoever - describing an item that stands out from any general description - is the red neckerchief, which only is worn by Lawende's man. Lawende also speaks of a salt-and-pepper jacker which means a jacket that is made out of speckled material and not black. Now, Lawende, wasn't that close to the pair and he only looked at them briefly, but he still managed to specifically determine a salt-and-papper fabric and not black.

Needöess to say, I have no idea why some people insist on why the witness are describing the same man. Debating such things as height etc. is just silly and anyone who has any experience in witness descriptions would know that estimates as these are extremely.

All the best

Hi Glenn,

I am going to disagree with you completely. I don't know if they were describing the same man or not. They agree on five out of five characteristics. I don't think that is mere coincidence even given characteristics of the general population at the time. Furthermore, they did not disagree on any characteristics, i.e., one saying that he had a scar or had a limp. We have to take that into consideration as well. Items of clothing such as a handkerchief can be changed.

Why are there descriptions any more unreliable than any witness descriptions?

I don't see any suggestion that they saw the same man as being silly as you put it.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

One more before I leave, Ben:

"Given the proximity to the docks, you'd see a heck of a lot more peaked caps and jackets. "

I don´t think that would have ruled out the possibility to describe them as respectably clad, Ben! A peaked cap and a cutaway jacket was exactly what Marshalls "respectable" man was wearing. Like I said, it all boils down to the context offered by the area we are describing!

The best,

Fisherman

[Ben]

My guess is that there were lots of people that were respectably clad in that area, clerks and such

Personally, I'd guess the opposite, Fisherman. I'd say they were pretty rare. Given the proximity to the docks, you'd see a heck of a lot more peaked caps and jackets.

For what it's worth, your suggestion that Stride may have had a "date" in the shape of the clerkly character is perfectly reasonable. I just don't think she was murdered by the man.

...and I have nothing against leaving it at that, to prevent further damage to bored fellow posters.

I'm with ya.

Cheers,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Trying to not be long-winded and reproducing old arguments, I have two things to say:

When it comes to how many respectably clad men as opposed to shabby guys in St Georges-in-the-East, I think that Smiths and Marshalls testimony shows us that the respectable ones were around. My guess is that there were lots of people that were respectably clad in that area, clerks and such. What must also be added here is that the man Marshall described as respectably clad may well have passed for a shabby man in the West End! Don´t forget that each district offered differing contexts!

Next up:

"Yes, but then he leaves her outside Dutfield's Yard some time later, heads north, turns round, goes back down Berner Street and kills Stride where he last left her....according to your theory."

Uhrm, Ben, I think you are offering a little too much on my behalf here when you speak of "my theory".
I have no idea whether he walked round in circles and there is no need to believe that he last left her in Berner Street. I will settle for offering the possibility that Elizabeth Stride may not have set out to solicit on that night. I think that, among other things, her meeting with Marshalls man points to something quite different. And I will also say that since the proceedings between Marshalls man and Stride lends themself very well to an interpretation of affection and/or love, and the fact that we have a man arriving on stage in clothing that COULD be the same type of clothing as Marshalls man, likewise displaying a sturdy bodily stature and engaging in physical violence against Stride may well point to a deed of domestic violence. The same goes for a number of other factors, as described in my dissertation on Stride´s death.
I am not sure that it amounts to a "theory". I prefer to speak about a reasonable suggestion as to what happened to Stride that evening.

...and I have nothing against leaving it at that, to prevent further damage to bored fellow posters.

All the best,

Fisherman