Why Didn’t They Catch Him?

[The Baron]

But I'm not sure who the witness was. Maybe Levy.

Not Levy, Levy knew the Kosminskis, He didn't need to confront him in order to identify him.


Not Levy at all in my opinion.

Not sure who the witness was either, but from the named ones I choose Schwatz.



The Baron

[Trevor Marriott]

No, they likely used a witness in the Eddowes murder. Smith interviewed Lawende to see if it was worthwhile proceeding with the identification. Evidently, Smith didn't think the identification was going to be very productive, but I think, he sanctioned it anyway because of pressure from the MET. I think years later, after publication of Anderson's TLSOMOL and Smith's "From Constable to Commissioner...", Anderson was able to convince Smith of the suspect's guilt from circumstantial evidence the MET gathered after the murders that Anderson subsequently shared with Smith.

But I'm not sure who the witness was. Maybe Levy.

No one ever saw any of the murders taking place, or any suspect with any of the victims prior to them being killed

So playing devils advocate if a witness was to make a positive identification of someone seen in close proximity to a crime scene what would the evidential value be, would it be enough to convict?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[paul g]

R.E The murder sites and who chose them.
If anyone knew the patrols of the police and safe sites at any given time of the night it would of been the victims, street smart so to speak.
However it is plausible to think at the height of a murder spree they would of been wary of who they actually done business with, so maybe “Jack” was a regular known to most.
Or possible he could of done business with the girls one time previously to gain there trust see where he was taken and how secure safe the location was.
Not sure how many of the favoured suspects are proven to use that type of service .

[Doctored Whatsit]

No one ever saw any of the murders taking place, or any suspect with any of the victims prior to them being killed

So playing devils advocate if a witness was to make a positive identification of someone seen in close proximity to a crime scene what would the evidential value be, would it be enough to convict?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A very important and painfully obvious point. What value could the Jewish witness really have been, whoever he was?

Lawende only saw the back of a woman and only believed it might have been Eddowes because of the clothes she was wearing. He expressed doubt that he would recognise the man again. No chance of a conviction from that statement!

Levy says he saw a man and a woman, took no real notice of them, and couldn't give a description of either of them. No witness value there!

Schwartz identified Stride, gave a detailed description of BS man, and probably could have identified him again, but his statement is about a man who pulled the woman away from the gates, not someone who took her inside the yard. That makes him the only Jewish witness who appears to be able to identify the two parties involved, but he may not have witnessed the actual murderer. He would seem to be a potentially useful witness, but probably not enough to convict. Was Pipeman identified, and was he also a Jew perhaps?

[jason_c]

That was all true of why they didn't catch him in the act, of course.

In terms of after the event, I assume he:

6) Lived alone or with one or more people who would not find his movements strange (senile parent or what have you)
7) Absolutely never talked about his crimes even under the influence of drink
8) Never acted suspiciously at any time
9) Possibly did not live permanently in Whitechapel but had a temporary base there (hotel, room, etc.)

I'm sure I'll think of a tenth!

Ike

I strongly agree with point 6. I am not one for saying its definitively this or that reason he wasn't caught but him living alone seems highly likely. I assume age related senility was less of a thing back then so its less likely to be that particular scenario.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No one ever saw any of the murders taking place, or any suspect with any of the victims prior to them being killed

So playing devils advocate if a witness was to make a positive identification of someone seen in close proximity to a crime scene what would the evidential value be, would it be enough to convict?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No certainties of course Trevor but there were potential sightings. Lawende, Schwartz (if Stride was a ripper victim of course) Hutchinson, Long etc. As you say, an identification wouldn’t have guaranteed a conviction but Lawende for example would have been at least suggestive as you often correctly point out how tight the time frame was. Some might slightly disagree with you in the case of Stride and BS man and cite this as potentially the beginning of a confrontation which led to murder seconds later. I have doubts myself but it’s a point for another thread. Certainly none of the named suspects can be placed at the scenes though with the exception of Lechmere and Hutchinson.

[Mark J D]

... Certainly none of the named suspects can be placed at the scenes though with the exception of Lechmere and Hutchinson...

In which context it is amusing to remember the report that "... Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far..." What this reported action does is take Pipeman/Knifeman just about as far as Lechmere's mother's house...

M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In which context it is amusing to remember the report that "... Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far..." What this reported action does is take Pipeman/Knifeman just about as far as Lechmere's mother's house...

M.

Maybe, but I can’t see any relevance to these geographical points. Serial killers don’t kill in areas of personal interest or connection and this was a confined area so any local is likely to have some kind of ‘connection’ near to a murder location. It’s a case of how far can we stretch things. It’s being stated that he’d have passed directly past Dorset Street which clearly isn’t the case. Likewise Mitre Square which Lechmere might not have even been aware of the existence of. Others disagree of course but the geographical stuff is a non-starter for me as far as connecting Lech to the murders.

Gary B challenged me on this point and I fully accept that I can’t prove it but I still feel that if we knew as much about all other individuals as we know about Lechmere i’m convinced that we would find numerous other men with ‘connections’ however tenuous to all of the murder locations.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The question of local knowledge is one that’s often been discussed and it’s a very fair point but is there a case against the killer being a local? And before anyone says anything I’m not, I repeat not, making this point in an attempt to shoehorn Druitt as it applies to a lengthy list of other suspects too and I’m not suggesting this point as any kind of certainty. Although local knowledge might certainly have been an advantage mightn’t it also have been a disadvantage? In those pre-cctv days they were reliant on descriptions, often inaccurate and taken from a distance in poor lighting, but wouldn’t the danger be that a local might actually have been recognised rather than simply described? Accepted that in the early hours the killer might have considered himself unlucky to have been seen by someone that knew him but it’s not at all impossible. Consider a local exiting Miller’s Court with even a few of the locals still loitering around? Or a local seen walking along Hanbury Street. So might it not have been advantageous for the killer to have dipped in and out of an area where no one or very few people knew him? Man, around 35, about 5’7” medium build, moustache is a bit safer than “oh, I’m sure that I saw Frank Smith walking along Dorset Street looking a bit shifty.”

[MrBarnett]

Maybe, but I can’t see any relevance to these geographical points. Serial killers don’t kill in areas of personal interest or connection and this was a confined area so any local is likely to have some kind of ‘connection’ near to a murder location. It’s a case of how far can we stretch things. It’s being stated that he’d have passed directly past Dorset Street which clearly isn’t the case. Likewise Mitre Square which Lechmere might not have even been aware of the existence of. Others disagree of course but the geographical stuff is a non-starter for me as far as connecting Lech to the murders.

Gary B challenged me on this point and I fully accept that I can’t prove it but I still feel that if we knew as much about all other individuals as we know about Lechmere i’m convinced that we would find numerous other men with ‘connections’ however tenuous to all of the murder locations.

Just for the record, Haydon Square was a short distance from Mitre Square. When Lechmere started working for Pickfords, they operated from there.

As for the geographical connections, I can link my own family to George Yard Buildings, Angel Alley, Berner Street, Hanbury Street, Breezers Hill, Winthrop Street, Pinchin Street, and (possibly) Dorset Street. (The Dorset Street possibility is on the basis of the fairly uncommon name of Brandum/Brandrum, all the others, plus many more in Whitechapel, Spitalfields, SGE, Wapping, Limehouse and Shadwell, are certain.)

Those old Eastenders moved about quite a bit it would seem, so Mike has a point. For me, Pinchin Street is perhaps the most significant. If (and it is just an if) the torso was carried manually to the arch, then whoever deposited it must have premises of some kind very near by. Somewhere he could store a body for a few days. The Backchurch Lane cats meat sheds couldn’t have been any more suitable.

[MrBarnett]

The question of local knowledge is one that’s often been discussed and it’s a very fair point but is there a case against the killer being a local? And before anyone says anything I’m not, I repeat not, making this point in an attempt to shoehorn Druitt as it applies to a lengthy list of other suspects too and I’m not suggesting this point as any kind of certainty. Although local knowledge might certainly have been an advantage mightn’t it also have been a disadvantage? In those pre-cctv days they were reliant on descriptions, often inaccurate and taken from a distance in poor lighting, but wouldn’t the danger be that a local might actually have been recognised rather than simply described? Accepted that in the early hours the killer might have considered himself unlucky to have been seen by someone that knew him but it’s not at all impossible. Consider a local exiting Miller’s Court with even a few of the locals still loitering around? Or a local seen walking along Hanbury Street. So might it not have been advantageous for the killer to have dipped in and out of an area where no one or very few people knew him? Man, around 35, about 5’7” medium build, moustache is a bit safer than “oh, I’m sure that I saw Frank Smith walking along Dorset Street looking a bit shifty.”

I would have thought that knowingly killing someone on Jack McCarthy’s doorstep might have put many off.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would have thought that knowingly killing someone on Jack McCarthy’s doorstep might have put many off.

Like crapping on Don Corleone’s lawn.

[MrBarnett]

Like crapping on Don Corleone’s lawn.

Sort of!

That said, there are examples of thugs like ‘Squibby’ and others taking on the Dorset Street mafia.

I ask myself how Chapman’s killer would have left the scene if he was a local or a relative stranger and I come up with same answer: exit into Hanbury Street, look surreptitiously right and left, take the quieter looking option, and after a few more left/rights he’d have been pretty much scot free. If he’d lived in Spitalfields all his life or he’d just been dropped in the yard from a space ship, how else would he have acted?

[caz]

Jack killed in a very small area which , by the end of the murders was teeming with police, vigilance committee/s and people just on the lookout.
Why stay in Whitechapel ? Particularly with Mary ? Why take that chance, if he wasn't local but frequented the area now and again ?
Why not move to another area if he could get about ?
Seems to me Jack was local and stayed in the only area he knew and perhaps couldn't leave IE Work commitments maybe, and of being of the poorer class

Regards Darryl

Ps I also agree with Wick, once he turned that corner he was just another face in the crowd with normal working class clothes, possibly a long jacket with inside pockets and a cap on .

Hi Darryl,

If the killer was so compelled to carry on, even when everyone was on the lookout for him, then his compulsions could have included picking similarly vulnerable victims, who were to be found in the same few streets - regardless of whether or not he lived or worked on one of those streets. Assuming his feet were not nailed to the floor, he could have gone further afield to escape the heat, local or not, but he'd have been starting afresh in a new hunting ground, and losing the advantage of his familiarity with this one. We just don't know how important it was to him to dominate the streets as well as his victims. Would he have seen it as losing face to shift his operations? Was he like a dictator dominating his own territory, or one who wanted to take over and terrorise another?

A local man, committing his first ever murder, would have been as unfamiliar with that process as anyone coming in from outside. Having said that, I suspect he was used to engaging with Spitalfields unfortunates before he graduated to killing them, and in that regard the main difference would be that only one would walk away from the latter experience. If the vast majority of men who routinely used prostitutes had no fear of ever being identified, I can see how one of them, turned killer, had little to fear either, once he had turned into the next street to disappear in plain sight.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

No certainties of course Trevor but there were potential sightings. Lawende, Schwartz (if Stride was a ripper victim of course) Hutchinson, Long etc. As you say, an identification wouldn’t have guaranteed a conviction but Lawende for example would have been at least suggestive as you often correctly point out how tight the time frame was. Some might slightly disagree with you in the case of Stride and BS man and cite this as potentially the beginning of a confrontation which led to murder seconds later. I have doubts myself but it’s a point for another thread. Certainly none of the named suspects can be placed at the scenes though with the exception of Lechmere and Hutchinson.

I suppose the police could have had their breakthrough if Mrs Long, Schwartz, Lawende and Mrs Cox [or George Hutchinson] had all picked out the same man from an identity parade!

This is one problem I have with all the named suspects. Which one would come anywhere close to matching more than one of the various descriptions given by those who saw a victim with her potential killer?

Blotchy is the one who interests me, but he has no name.

Love,

Caz
X