How Much Did Jack Have to Fear from Witnesses?

[c.d.]

I am wondering how much Jack had to fear from witnesses or potential witnesses. All the murders were at night. Now factor in the smog and lack of outdoor lighting for the most part. I think that he could be fairly certain that he had not been seen committing the murders. His biggest fear might have been that he had been seen talking to one of the victims. Would the papers have given him a fairly accurate assessment of how much information or any description that the police had?

Could one witness who was not an eye witness to the murder be enough to put his neck in a noose? How about two or three who felt fairly certain that they had seen him talking to a victim or simply putting him in the vicinity and acting somewhat strangely?

Just how much did he have to fear?

c.d.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi c.d.

Part of the problem with the case is that there are too many witness descriptions of men who were suspected to have been the murderer. Men who acted suspicously in one way or another. Not necessarily with a woman who was murdered, but you see what I mean... there was just too much information, and this is one of the things the police were wrestling with. Certainly the murderer would have feared that he might be identified by someone but since nobody did see him commit a murder, he lucked out that he was not, as it were caught "red-handed" either in the act or thereafter.

Chris

[mariag]

Since he wasn't caught in the act he had very little to fear in terms of testimony that could be used against him in court.

On the other hand, lots of men had a lot to fear from the hysteria that was around. An accusation made under the wrong circumstances could result in serious harm if not death-by-mob.

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=mariag;23060]Since he wasn't caught in the act he had very little to fear in terms of testimony that could be used against him in court.

Hi Maria,

Yes, I agree with that. I think that there would have had to have been a positive identification from at least two witnesses along with substantial circumstantial evidence. Even then, with a good lawyer he might have beaten the rap.

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi CD,

He didn't have much to fear from one witness with a vague description/sighting in isolcation, but as you acknowledge, problems would have arisen if an identification from ONE witness led to other witnesses being recalled in attempt to bolster that identification (for example, if Schwartz, Lawende and Mrs Cox picked out the same man). In which case, it would have taKen just one witness description/recognition/identification for some very unfortunate floodgates to open.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Ben,

So I guess he was lucky that Schwartz, Lawende and Mrs Cox were not all sitting in the cop shop with tea and digestives and a pack of cards, waiting for a fourth man to show up and join them for a rubber of bridge, when he decided to waltz in and play his joker.

He'd have needed a dry pair of underpants after those floodgates opened.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

So I guess he was lucky that Schwartz, Lawende and Mrs Cox were not all sitting in the cop shop with tea and digestives and a pack of cards

I'd say it's more the case that he'd be fantastically unlucky if that turned out to be the case. He'd be gambling secure in the knowledge that his opponent was unlikely to be holding the nuts (sticking with the cards analogy )

Best wishes,
Ben