What evidence would it take?

[Lewis C]

Well, Elamarna said that Kosminski / Anderson's suspect would 'probably' have spoken Yiddish with the witness at the alleged identification.

That is stronger than 'may be' or 'might'.

There is no evidence that the alleged identification took place, yet Elamarna claims it is probable that a conversation in Yiddish took place at it between the suspect and witness, with the police presumably standing and watching.

I myself have never said that the Whitechapel Murderer was a sailor, which makes the commotion I mentioned even more puzzling.

Four points about Morris Eagle: first, why would Eagle, having chaired the discussion at the nearby educational club, have later thrown a woman about outside while drunk?

Why would Eagle, being Jewish, and a member of the secular Jewish community, as his participation in the discussion attests, have shouted a well-known anti-Jewish insult as a man of decidedly Jewish appearance passed by?

Why would Schwartz have estimated Eagle's age as 30, when he was about 24?

How could Eagle have been the man seen by Schwartz, when he was in the club continuously from shortly after 12.35 a.m. until about 1 a.m.?

Doesn't Swanson saying that the identification took place qualify as evidence? Not conclusive evidence, but evidence of a sort?

Wescott suggests that whoever BS man was, it could be that he threw Stride down because he didn't like it that she was soliciting in the location that she was.

I don't know if this is Wescott's explanation, but there is a dissertation on this site exploring that possibility that BS man said something that sounded like Lipski rather than Lipski itself.

I don't think the difference between 24 and 30 is that great when it's dark, the glance was quick, and some people look old for their age.

In Wescott's timeline, Morris Eagle returns to the club at 12:38 - 12:40, and Schwartz passes through at 12:41 - 12:45.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Doesn't Swanson saying that the identification took place qualify as evidence? Not conclusive evidence, but evidence of a sort?


I don't think so.

He cannot name the witness; he cannot name a single policeman who accompanied Kosminski to the coast, nor a single policeman who was present at the identification, nor even explain why it would have been staged on the coast when it would have been far easier to stage it in London.

The difficulty Swanson writes of is of his own making.

He cannot cite any incriminating evidence, cannot cite any evidence gleaned from the alleged surveillance, does not back up Anderson's claim that the suspect's relatives were involved, and contradicts Anderson about when the suspect was incarcerated and where he was living at the time of the identification.

It is completely unsupported and unbelievable.


Wescott suggests that whoever BS man was, it could be that he threw Stride down because he didn't like it that she was soliciting in the location that she was.

I don't know if this is Wescott's explanation, but there is a dissertation on this site exploring that possibility that BS man said something that sounded like Lipski rather than Lipski itself.


That may be the suggestion that Schwartz mis-heard 'Lizzy' as 'Lipski'.

There is a big difference between the sound of zz and ps in English, especially as Stride's assailant would almost certainly have turned the p into a kind of glottal stop.

If Eagle resented Stride's presence, why would he have shouted 'Lizzy' or 'Lipski'?


I don't think the difference between 24 and 30 is that great when it's dark, the glance was quick, and some people look old for their age.


I have seen the same written about Kosminski, who had recently turned 23.

Where is the evidence that Eagle and Kosminski both looked six or seven years older than they were, were both stout and broad-shouldered, both prone to displaying drunkenness in public, were both Jewish anti-Semites, and both consorted with prostitutes?


In Wescott's timeline, Morris Eagle returns to the club at 12:38 - 12:40, and Schwartz passes through at 12:41 - 12:45.


I think the evidence is that Eagle entered the club earlier than that and Schwartz arrived on the scene later than that, but even the times you cite preclude Eagle's being the man seen by Schwartz.

[Aethelwulf]

Has that been ridiculed? I thought that the notion that Lawende was the most likely to have seen JtR was a pretty common view. What I would think there might be a question about is how accurate his description was, and even there, the same question could be raised about descriptions by other witnesses.

One of the problems, which applies to other threads where people discuss witness testimony, is that it is taken as black and white by many without any margin for error. For example if Joe sees someone acting sus and says he was so tall, and Bob sees someone who could be the same man but there is a discrpenacy of 4 inches in their height estimates, that means they are defo not the same person. What is quite telling is to look at potential suspects seen by the same person. Levy and Lawende saw the same man. Levy said he was about the same height as the woman (so a short man) but Lawende states taller. Annie Farmer said the man that attacked her had dark facial hair, wheras all the witnesses that saw him leave in broad daylight said he had a slight fair mustache. We know they are all describing the same man as they all cross ref the same details of him coming out, uttering a low curse and then running off. One person described him as short thick fellow, another 5'4", others 5'6" and 5'7".

The reality is that if I was to stand on a street corner at night and you asked passers by to estimate my height and age, some would be spot on, others out by a several inches and years either way, others miles out. The problem is we don't know who is accurate and who is miles out. Some witnesses might have been good on some aspects and not others. Long may have been accurate on height and miles out on age, Lawende may have been good on hair colour and way out on height. Overall it is pretty much impossible to rule people in or out based on these estimates, but suspects fitting various aspects of the descriptions are interesting, especially if they have other plus points as a suspect.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Levy and Lawende saw the same man. Levy said he was about the same height as the woman (so a short man) but Lawende states taller...

Lawende may have been good on hair colour and way out on height.

Lawende was the only one of the three witnesses who both saw the man in Church Passage and was able to give a detailed description of him.

He was the only one who paid him much attention and was able to describe his appearance in detail, including the colour both of his moustache and his neckerchief, as well as of his cap.

Consequently, I suggest that his estimate of the man's height is to be trusted more than Levy's.

The fact that in another case there was a discrepancy about the colour of the suspect's moustache does not mean that Lawende cannot be trusted to describe accurately the colour of the man's moustache any more than that of his neckerchief or cap.

It seems that Lawende did not notice what colour trousers the man was wearing, presumably because he was focusing on the man's face and upper half of his body.

I have never speculated about what colour trousers the man wore, but an esteemed member speculated that he was wearing Jewish religious fringes (such as those worn by Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof), which Lawende did not notice, and a Kippah under his cap, which again was not noticed by Lawende.

I consider such ideas to be unwarranted speculation.

I go by the evidence.

There is not, and never has been, any reason to doubt the accuracy of Lawende's description of the man.

And, as he reported, the man had the appearance of a sailor.

[Aethelwulf]

Back in the real world, witnesses describing the exact same person differently means there is reason for doubt about how accurate anyone was. Levy may not have been paying as much attention but he didn't say 'sorry can't give any details as didn't see'. He said they were the same height, which means he looked at them. Back to Farmer, you have people seeing that man in broad daylight and they say he was a short thick fellow to 5'7". Perhaps Lawende just over estimated. Odd that for all the attention he was paying he didn't notcie the man was appreciably taller. Lawende's taller man and Levy's shorter man is perfectly in line with how people in far better conditions varied their descriptions of Farmer's attacker. Also, that man was wearing dark clothes, hard felt hat and neckerchief, yet one witness said he looked like a sailor - no one else did and he doesn't really.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below:

Levy may not have been paying as much attention but he didn't say 'sorry can't give any details as didn't see'.


He didn't see much:

I did not take any notice of them. I passed on, thinking they were up to no good at so late an hour... I cannot give any further description of them. I went down Duke-street into Aldgate, leaving them still talking together.



He said they were the same height, which means he looked at them.


He did not say that.

He testified:

I should think he was three inches taller than the woman



Perhaps Lawende just over estimated.


He did not estimate the man's height to be six foot.

What reason is there to suppose that he overestimated the man's height?



Odd that for all the attention he was paying he didn't notcie the man was appreciably taller.


It seems that he did.

He testified:

The woman was standing with her face towards the man, and I only saw her back. She had one hand on his breast. He was the taller.


It seems that Lawende was able to see the man's face even while he saw only the woman's back.

He did not say that when he saw the woman's back, he could not see the man, which is what would have happened if the man and woman had, as you say Levy said, been of the same height.

Lawende's testimony is consistent with the woman having been considerably shorter than the man.

[Fiver]

Lawende was the only one of the three witnesses who both saw the man in Church Passage and was able to give a detailed description of him.

He was the only one who paid him much attention and was able to describe his appearance in detail, including the colour both of his moustache and his neckerchief, as well as of his cap.

Consequently, I suggest that his estimate of the man's height is to be trusted more than Levy's.

More detailed does not necessarily mean more accurate. A common reason people dismiss Hutchinson's description is the amount of detail he gives. Yet Hutchinson had a lot more time to observe his suspect than Lawende did.

Whoever Lawende and Levy saw, they saw a stranger for a few moments in poor lighting. YMMV, but in that situation, I'd expect the person who gave less detail to be more accurate in what they did observe. The mind tends to fill in details that we miss and sometimes the details it fills in are wrong. Maybe that's what happened with Lawende. Or maybe Lawende had well above average night vision and observational skills. We don't know.

And we don't know if the man that Lawende and Levy saw was Eddowes' killer.

[Aethelwulf]

I'd expect the person who gave less detail to be more accurate in what they did observe.

From what I can see from various sources, Eddowes was 5 feet tall. Levy at the inquest said:

[Coroner] What height was the man? - I should think he was three inches taller than the woman, who was, perhaps, 5ft high.

So why is Lawende more accurate when Levy has correctly estimated the woman's height, which Lawende does not? If Levy has estimated the woman correctly, his three inches taller is probably good too IMO. Eddowes would have actually been a bit taller than 5 feet as she was wearing a black straw bonnet and mens' boots, so she might have measured 5-2 to 5-3 or so in them. That would put the appearance of the man at around 5-5 to 5-6 also in footwear and hat. Given the circumstances that these estimated were recalled after the fact and at the time the witnesses didn't actually know what they were sseing mattered, it's a pretty good match.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

More detailed does not necessarily mean more accurate. A common reason people dismiss Hutchinson's description is the amount of detail he gives. Yet Hutchinson had a lot more time to observe his suspect than Lawende did.

Whoever Lawende and Levy saw, they saw a stranger for a few moments in poor lighting. YMMV, but in that situation, I'd expect the person who gave less detail to be more accurate in what they did observe. The mind tends to fill in details that we miss and sometimes the details it fills in are wrong. Maybe that's what happened with Lawende. Or maybe Lawende had well above average night vision and observational skills. We don't know.

And we don't know if the man that Lawende and Levy saw was Eddowes' killer.

I do not know how you can possibly consider Levy a more reliable witness than Lawende.

I think your comments about not knowing are irrelevant.

We are dealing with evidence.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

From what I can see from various sources, Eddowes was 5 feet tall. Levy at the inquest said:

[Coroner] What height was the man? - I should think he was three inches taller than the woman, who was, perhaps, 5ft high.

So why is Lawende more accurate when Levy has correctly estimated the woman's height, which Lawende does not? If Levy has estimated the woman correctly, his three inches taller is probably good too IMO. Eddowes would have actually been a bit taller than 5 feet as she was wearing a black straw bonnet and mens' boots, so she might have measured 5-2 to 5-3 or so in them. That would put the appearance of the man at around 5-5 to 5-6 also in footwear and hat. Given the circumstances that these estimated were recalled after the fact and at the time the witnesses didn't actually know what they were sseing mattered, it's a pretty good match.

According to your estimate, the man was about 5 ft 5-6 ins.

According to Lawende, he was 5 ft 7-8 ins.

According to Levy, he was 5 ft 3 ins.

Consequently, according to your estimate, Lawende's estimate was more accurate than Levy's.

[Lewis C]

Replying to this part of #122:

I don't think the difference between 24 and 30 is that great when it's dark, the glance was quick, and some people look old for their age.


I have seen the same written about Kosminski, who had recently turned 23.

Where is the evidence that Eagle and Kosminski both looked six or seven years older than they were, were both stout and broad-shouldered, both prone to displaying drunkenness in public, were both Jewish anti-Semites, and both consorted with prostitutes?

The point isn't that anyone looked 6 or 7 years older than they were, but that we don't know how old they looked, and that a combination of factors - looking older than they were, that the lighting wasn't good, and they weren't viewed for very long - may account for a 23 or 24 year old being described as looking 30.

If we don't know someone's build, we can neither assume that they were stout and broad-shouldered or that they weren't. Same way with displaying drunkenness and being anti-semitic, if we even know that BS man was doing/being that. There wasn't even a claim that Eagle was consorting with a prostitute.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Replying to this part of #122:

The point isn't that anyone looked 6 or 7 years older than they were, but that we don't know how old they looked, and that a combination of factors - looking older than they were, that the lighting wasn't good, and they weren't viewed for very long - may account for a 23 or 24 year old being described as looking 30.

If we don't know someone's build, we can neither assume that they were stout and broad-shouldered or that they weren't. Same way with displaying drunkenness and being anti-semitic, if we even know that BS man was doing/being that. There wasn't even a claim that Eagle was consorting with a prostitute.

We do not know that BS man existed!

We are dealing with evidence of what Schwartz said he saw.

According to the police, he said that the man was broad-shouldered; according to a newspaper interview, he said he was stout.

That description obviously does not fit Aaron Kosminski.

I take your point about consorting with prostitutes, but why would Morris Eagle give a pro-Jewish talk, leave the club, throw a prostitute about in the street and shout out 'Lipski' - a well-known anti-Jewish insult - as a man of Jewish appearance passed by?

It is not believable.

[Aethelwulf]

According to your estimate, the man was about 5 ft 5-6 ins.

According to Lawende, he was 5 ft 7-8 ins.

According to Levy, he was 5 ft 3 ins.

Consequently, according to your estimate, Lawende's estimate was more accurate than Levy's.

My estimate doesn't really matter. What matters is that Lawende's estimate cannot be tested (assuming the man and woman were Eddowes and and JTR) becuase Lawende did not estimate the height of the the woman, who we know was 5ft. Levy did estimate her height at perhaps 5 ft, so we can say he was fairly accuate and is the more likely to be right. For those that believe Long (not you) she was also 5ft and said the man was slightly taller, so simialr to Levy.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

My estimate doesn't really matter. What matters is that Lawende's estimate cannot be tested (assuming the man and woman were Eddowes and and JTR) becuase Lawende did not estimate the height of the the woman, who we know was 5ft. Levy did estimate her height at perhaps 5 ft, so we can say he was fairly accuate and is the more likely to be right. For those that believe Long (not you) she was also 5ft and said the man was slightly taller, so simialr to Levy.

Lawende did not need to estimate the height of the woman.

It was his estimate of the height of the man that interested the police.

How can we say that Levy was fairly accuate and is the more likely to be right when he said he did not take any notice of them and could not describe the man or woman, other than estimate their heights?

---

[Aethelwulf]

Please, see my replies below:

Lawende did not need to estimate the height of the woman.

Or more likely couldn't because he couldn't remember.

How can we say that Levy was fairly accuate and is the more likely to be right when he said he did not take any notice of them and could not describe the man or woman, other than estimate their heights?

Er, becuase he said the woman was 5ft and if that was Eddowes, guess what, she measured 5ft...

There is no way to test what Lawende said, if I say it enough times it might sink in

Er, becuase he said the woman was 5ft and if that was Eddowes, guess what, she measured 5ft...

There is no way to test what Lawende said, if I say it enough times it might sink in

Er, becuase he said the woman was 5ft and if that was Eddowes, guess what, she measured 5ft...

There is no way to test what Lawende said, if I say it enough times it might sink in

Er, becuase he said the woman was 5ft and if that was Eddowes, guess what, she measured 5ft...

There is no way to test what Lawende said, if I say it enough times it might sink in

Er, becuase he said the woman was 5ft and if that was Eddowes, guess what, she measured 5ft...

There is no way to test what Lawende said, if I say it enough times it might sink in

Er, becuase he said the woman was 5ft and if that was Eddowes, guess what, she measured 5ft...

There is no way to test what Lawende said, if I say it enough times it might sink in

---

What's your beef with a shorter sailor anyway - that not allowed in the Nordic Rule Book of Serial Killers?