Assignation of Victims to a single killer

[Monty]

I'm sorry, but the police individually were horribly underinformed, so it's impossible to fathom that the two competing forces shared and shared alike. Sure, they did to a certain extent, for appearances, but that's as far as it went.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

No it isnt.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm sorry, but the police individually were horribly underinformed, so it's impossible to fathom that the two competing forces shared and shared alike. Sure, they did to a certain extent, for appearances, but that's as far as it went.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

October 1888.

Hi Michael.

The remaining enquiries of the City Police are merged into those of the Metropolitan Police, each force cordially communicating to the other daily the nature and subject of their enquiries.

Donald S. Swanson, Ch Inspector
Scotland Yard.


Oct. 27 1888.

This department is co-operating with the Metropolitan Police in the matter, and Chief Inspector Swanson and I meet daily and confer on the subject.

Sgd Jas. McWilliam
Inspector.
City Police

Regards, Jon S.

Sorry Hunter (Chris), I had not seen your reply.

[Hunter]

From HO report submitted by Insp. James McWilliam, City Police, Oct. 27:

"This department is co-operating with the Metropolitan Police in the matter, and Chief Inspector Swanson and I meet daily and confer on the subject."

From HO report submitted by Chief Insp. Swanson, Metropolitan Police, Nov. 6:

"The remaining inquiries of the City Police are merged into those of the Metropolitan Police, each force cordially communicating with the other daily the nature and subject of their enquiries."

From an article in the City Press, dated January 7, 1905, referring to Inspector Robert Sager, City Police:

"He was deputed to represent the City Police force to conference with the detective heads of the Metropolitan Police force nightly at the Leman St. Police Station during the period covered by those ghastly murders."

Also, it should be added that Dr. Phillips, police surgeon, H Division, Metropolitan Police, worked with Dr. Brown, police surgeon, City Police, at the preliminary examination and post-mortem of Catherine Eddowes and both submitted reports of their findings. Brown worked with Phillips at one examination of Elizabeth Stride and the post-mortems of Mary Kelly and Alice McKenzie.

[Michael W Richards]

And of course, the two police forces liased with each other.


Roy

It would seem that you believe that the Met and City worked the cases co-operatively Roy, do you have any hard evidence for that belief?

Many people assume that the forces "liaised" with each other over these crimes, since the Met had jurisdiction on only one case assumed to be a Ripper kill, assumptions like that could be misleading.

Cheers

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi again Rivkah,

You made a series of posts in which you postulate the police were manipulating the two descriptions, changing them, playing mix and match, etc. The descriptions given by Israel Schwartz in the Stride case, and by Joseph Lawende in the Eddowes case.

I think the police prompted the descriptions toward more similar words ...

You realize these were not the same police taking statements. These were two independent interviews of two different witnesses. There was the Metropolitan Police on the one hand, and the City of London police on the the other.

if the first witness says the suspect is 5'10, and is very sure, and the second witness, talking to the same officer says the suspect is "tall," the officer may prompt for something

the second witness, talking to the same officer

You realize that didn't happen. The two witnesses didn't speak to the same officer. They spoke to officers from two separate police departments.

when an interpreter, or person with tenuous grasp of English was involved, the police seem to have taken extra liberties to make the language line up--

They didn't do that either. Again, these two descriptions were taken separately.

the police manipulated the descriptions to overplay similarities

if the officer taking descriptions crosses off absolutely incompatible items, and tries to roll similar things into one

the officer taking descriptions may not have thought it through.

Again, these were separate interviews of separate witnesses conducted by separate police forces.

You don't think one is aware of the notes taken by the other?

No, not when the interviews were being conducted. Only afterwards were the results compared. In a summary report prepared almost 3 weeks later. A report in the existing Scotland Yard (Met) Police files. There are no files surviving for the City of London police pertaining to the investigation.

I hope this is helpful.

Roy

[RivkahChaya]

The two witnesses were in two different murder cases which occurred in separate legal jurisdictions, and were interviewed by separate police forces.

You don't think one is aware of the notes taken by the other? Maybe not, since it was Stride and Eddowes, I hadn't thought about that.

I worked for many years as a sign language interpreter, and whenever I did court work of any kind, we always had a second interpreter watching, as a double-check, sometimes offering immediate feedback, and sometimes just making notes. In criminal cases, the defense would usually have their own interpreter making notes, as well. It's partly because there are regionalisms and partly just to be as accurate as possible, but also because you are not even aware of the extent to which your own ideas color your word choices.

Of course, the fact that I worked as an interpreter, and that I know lots of Yiddish speakers, probably has me overthinking this point.

But do you think ordinary people think in those terms?
Isn't it more likely that the witness wouldn't have a clue about a suspects height?, the heights we are given would come from the interviewing officer.

The officer would ask, "how tall did he look?"
Witness: "not sure"
Officer:, "well, was he shorter or taller than me?"
Witness: "a little shorter perhaps".
Officer: "so about 5' 6" or 7", I'm 5' 9".
Witness: "yes I suppose so".

And that's how we end up with a suspects height "written in stone" so to speak. Yet in reality the witness had no clue.

Well, yeah; your examples are much better.

[Wickerman]

You know, if you tell the patrolmen, "He was either 5'7, or 6', so look for both,...

But do you think ordinary people think in those terms?
Isn't it more likely that the witness wouldn't have a clue about a suspects height?, the heights we are given would come from the interviewing officer.

The officer would ask, "how tall did he look?"
Witness: "not sure"
Officer:, "well, was he shorter or taller than me?"
Witness: "a little shorter perhaps".
Officer: "so about 5' 6" or 7", I'm 5' 9".
Witness: "yes I suppose so".

And that's how we end up with a suspects height "written in stone" so to speak. Yet in reality the witness had no clue.

Yes, I realize that results in them looking for someone who does not exist, but the officer taking descriptions may not have thought it through.

The police were likely more frustrated by witnesses who could not say for certain what they saw, yet the officer is required to try make sense of it.

Regards, Jon S.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good afternoon Rivkah,

The two witnesses were in two different murder cases which occurred in separate legal jurisdictions, and were interviewed by separate police forces. Israel Schwartz was the witness who came forward to the Metropolitan Police in the Elizabeth Stride case, and Joseph Lawende was the witness cited in the Eddowes case, handled by the City of London Police.

And of course, the two police forces liased with each other.

In his summary report, Met Police Chief Inspector Swanson put those two witness descriptions side by side and remarked that the Lawende description was closer to the Schwartz description than it was to another description in the Stride case, that given by one of his patrolmen, Constable Smith.

So no, he didn't manipulate anything.

Roy

[RivkahChaya]

Ive been thinking that even if I conceded the point that its possible that the descriptions, being close in many respects, were slightly manipulated and as such the small variances are less significant, that does not lead to a conclusion that they are in fact the same man.

No, no. I think they are not the same man, and the police manipulated the descriptions to overplay similarities.

Maybe it wasn't even a desire to have one suspect, so much as to come up with a list of descriptive items that were common to both witnesses, to give patrolmen something to look for.

You know, if you tell the patrolmen, "He was either 5'7, or 6', so look for both, and either swarthy, or blotchy, so look for both, and either blond or red-haired, so look for both," the patrolmen are going to roll their eyes. On the other hand, if the officer taking descriptions crosses off absolutely incompatible items, and tries to roll similar things into one, like "5'7, or 6'" into "tall," he can give patrolmen something to work with, that won't exasperate them.

Yes, I realize that results in them looking for someone who does not exist, but the officer taking descriptions may not have thought it through. Or it may even have been a sort of ouija board kind of act.

[Michael W Richards]

Ive been thinking that even if I conceded the point that its possible that the descriptions, being close in many respects, were slightly manipulated and as such the small variances are less significant, that does not lead to a conclusion that they are in fact the same man.

Considering the number of men in that area at that time who were legitimately out on the streets due to work schedules or homelessness, and the similarity of the manner of dress throughout the East End at the time, it wouldnt narrow a suspect search much even making that concession.

Which Im not.

Cheers

[RivkahChaya]

What's in a description?

All the best

Dave

Well, yeah...except here, I'm adding the point that when an interpreter, or person with tenuous grasp of English was involved, the police seem to have taken extra liberties to make the language line up-- and probably thought that was a good thing, don't misunderstand.

[Cogidubnus]

One man's meat

All these things are subjective...My missus of the last 25 years or so is always spoken of by me as shortarse...she's a fraction under 5 ft 10 inches as opposed to my 6 feet (or 5 ft 11 1/2" as the hospital measured last time!)....

My first wife was a mere 5ft 0 1/2" - but with a usual tariff exceeding 14 stone and a top fighting weight of 16 stone I wouldn't dare call her stout - in fact, and in truth, I honestly didn't at the time actually think of her as anything but chubby...

What's in a description?

All the best

Dave

[DVV]

That's right, Rivkah.
Same thing with "medium built" and "rather stoutly built".
Could really be the same man in this respect.

[RivkahChaya]

We're pretty much making the same point. I think the police prompted the descriptions toward more similar words, but probably not intentionally; maybe because of an assumption that they were talking about the same man, or maybe just because the police use a certain vocabulary. I suggesting that the dissimilarities ought to be given a lot of weight, and similarities can possibly be accounted for by police prompting, and language difficulties.

For example (and I'm not this this exactly happened; this is just an example of the kind of thing that could have happened): if the first witness says the suspect is 5'10, and is very sure, and the second witness, talking to the same officer says the suspect is "tall," the officer may prompt for something more exact, and when the witness hesitates, may say "Over 6 feet, or under?" then if the witness says "Under 6 feet," the officer might say, "So, about 5'10," and if the witness agrees, the officer writes down "5'10." If the witness had said "Over 6 feet," the officer might have said "Are you certain?" causing the witness to backtrack, and say "Well, maybe right around 6 even." Then the officer would ask "Are you sure it's six feet exactly?" and eventually write down "5'10 - 6' tall." Then the suspect the police end up looking for is described as "5'10, or possibly a little taller."

In fact, "tall" could have meant a lot of things, and if the witness himself was over 6 feet," it was unlikely that "tall" meant "5'10" to that particular witness.

It's like the Mary Kelly thing. She's described as both "5'7" and "tall." A lot of men in the early 21st century don't realize that "5'7" was very tall for a lower class woman in 1888. It's still taller than average now, even though it isn't remarkably tall.