Abberline solved the GSG

[Observer]

Hi Wick

As I've been saying all along take press reports with a very large pinch of salt. Your post reveals another example of either the witness being mistaken, or the reporter embeleshing the witnesses statement.

Levy is reported as saying that he only saw the back of the individual( Jack The Ripper)talking with Catherine Eddowes in Duke Street on the night in question. This is at odds with Lawende who stated at inquest that the man whom he saw in Duke Street on the night in question was facing him.

"The woman was standing with her face towards the man, and I only saw her back"

Here's Lawende's description of the man

"age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair fair moustache, medium built, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor."

Now it's patently obvious from that description that Lawende was correct in stating that the man faced him.

Where does that leave us regarding press reports?

Well, as I said earlier, either Levy was mistaken or the reporter embelished Levy's statement. The thing is, some time back, one (or more if my memory serves me) poster used Levy's statement to corroborate Abberline's assertion that only a rear view was ever obtained of the murderer. Not true. Abberline was mistaken. Either that or the reporter mis-quoted him haha!

Too much is made of press reports, far far too much. We have posters who base 99 percent of their theories on press reports.

And again Wick we have a point of conflict where you believe that Lawende was hidden away. If you look at the press report you provide, it's the opposite in fact.Lawende, far from being hidden away, was paraded around the streets with two detective's in tow.

Press reports, take them with a very large pinch of salt.

Regards

Observer

[DVV]

But your post does put you firmly in one camo as opposed to another Jon, and it's no use protesting it doesn't...and why should we disbelieve Schwartz more than we disbelieve any witness Jon? Schwartz came forward and was apparently honest enough to describe only what he knew Jon...Dave

An excellent and unanswered question, Dave.

I believe JtR has been seen by several witnesses. But these days, the tendancy is to disbelieve all of them - "nobody ever saw the Whitechapel Murderer", as one doddering memorialist dared to write. Indeed, nobody saw the Invisible Man.

I may be more doddering, after all, as I tend to believe that more than a handful of witnesses actually saw the murderer.

Here is my list, just for jolly :

Rose Bierman
Patrick Mulshaw
Elizabeth Long
William Marschall
Israel Schwartz
Joseph Lawende
Harry Harris
Joseph Hyam Levy
Sarah Lewis

As for PC Smith, Matthew Packer and James Brown, I need more time to think it through.

[Wickerman]

Hi Dave.

But your post does put you firmly in one camo as opposed to another Jon, and it's no use protesting it doesn't...and why should we disbelieve Schwartz more than we disbelieve any witness Jon? Schwartz came forward and was apparently honest enough to describe only what he knew Jon...an assault...but that doesn't preclude what he saw as actually being the murder.

I post points, concerns, and objections from both sides of the fence, this is one murder where I feel there are no clear solutions one way or the other.

They hid Lawende away? For a fact? Not being funny but where is this Jon, because I must've missed it somewhere.

A fact?, I can't say that but, judge for yourself.

And on the first blush of it the fact is borne out by the police having taken exclusive care of Mr. Joseph Levander, to a certain extent having sequestrated him and having imposed a pledge on him of secrecy. They are paying all his expenses, and one if not two detectives are taking him about. One of the two detectives is Foster. Mr. Henry Harris, of the two gentlemen our representative interviewed, is the more communicative. He is of opinion that neither Mr. Levander nor Mr. Levy saw anything more than he did, and that was only the back of the man. Mr. Joseph Levy is absolutely obstinate and refuses to give us the slightest information. He leaves one to infer that he knows something, but that he is afraid to be called on the inquest. Hence he assumes a knowing air.
Evening News, 9 Oct. 1888.

[c.d.]

Hello (again) CD.

"However, an argument could have escalated once in the yard and he killed her on the spur of the moment."

Now THAT is perfectly plausible. Slight problem--would she take out the cachous in the midst of a heated argument?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

I only mentioned that in an attempt to cover all the bases. In the midst of an argument? Probably not. Before the argument began? Certainly a possibility. But no one heard any arguing post Schwartz which is one of the many reasons that I don't believe the BS man was her killer.

c.d.

P.S. And go easy with those kisses. I have my reputation to think of.

[Cogidubnus]

Performing eviscerations in the backyard of a house full of sleeping tenants is not the same as in front of one standing watching you. And I would not put too many 'eggs in the basket' of the couple seen in Duke St. apparently Lawende was not as sure as many others seem to think he was.

Last time I heard it explained on here, it was the appearance of somebody who put Jack off eviscerating Liz Stride...he was disturbed they say...yes - but perhaps by the appearance of Schwartz and Pipeman...

In summary, the Whitechapel Murderer operated incognito, no-one saw anything, witnesses are either present or absent, there is no 'close'. And in all other cases they were absent.

And yet the police apparently had an eyewitness they thought could hang JtR - I put no faith in Lawende - he admitted he couldn't identify the man he saw...but Schwartz on the other hand...

I wouldn't put myself firmly in either camp, but even if we accept without question that Schwartz told the truth about what he saw, this still does not mean he saw a murder. Schwartz only saw an assault, what happened after he left is conjecture.

But your post does put you firmly in one camo as opposed to another Jon, and it's no use protesting it doesn't...and why should we disbelieve Schwartz more than we disbelieve any witness Jon? Schwartz came forward and was apparently honest enough to describe only what he knew Jon...an assault...but that doesn't preclude what he saw as actually being the murder.

They also hid Lawende away, but his testimony was still part of the public record, so I'm afraid that proposition doesn't fly Dave, sorry.

They hid Lawende away? For a fact? Not being funny but where is this Jon, because I must've missed it somewhere.

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Jack did not perform for an audience...oh Jon! For such a shy retiring individual he certainly took some bloody chances...Narrowly missing the carmen with Nicholls, narrowly missing everyone at No 29 with Chapman, narrowly missing the coppers with Eddowes, not to mention McKenzie and Coles if he did them too...So logic dictates that it'd hardly be surprising, if, on just one of his outings, he misjudged slightly and was (briefly) seen...

Dave, have you not heard, a near miss only counts with horse shoes and hand grenades.

Performing eviscerations in the backyard of a house full of sleeping tenants is not the same as in front of one standing watching you. And I would not put too many 'eggs in the basket' of the couple seen in Duke St. apparently Lawende was not as sure as many others seem to think he was.

In summary, the Whitechapel Murderer operated incognito, no-one saw anything, witnesses are either present or absent, there is no 'close'. And in all other cases they were absent.

Think I'm reluctantly coming round to a Garry Wroe-type belief in Schwartz...I started off rather cynically disbelieving in him, in part because of his sudden disappearance from the scene ... one press statement, no inquest and he's gone...

I wouldn't put myself firmly in either camp, but even if we accept without question that Schwartz told the truth about what he saw, this still does not mean he saw a murder. Schwartz only saw an assault, what happened after he left is conjecture.

Now those same "facts" seem to play differently...what if the police actually realised what a star witness they really had...a man who witnessed a JtR murder, and hid him away...away from the inquest, and subsequently (apart from the Seaside Home?) away from the world? An early form of witness protection...

They also hid Lawende away, but his testimony was still part of the public record, so I'm afraid that proposition doesn't fly Dave, sorry.

All the best...

[Cogidubnus]

Many thanks, Dave.

Au contraire, merci beaucoup...

Dave

[lynn cates]

argument

Hello (again) CD.

"However, an argument could have escalated once in the yard and he killed her on the spur of the moment."

Now THAT is perfectly plausible. Slight problem--would she take out the cachous in the midst of a heated argument?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

fistful of cachous?

Hello Jon.

"She could have made fist around them to defend herself and could easily have used a fist to break her fall."

But:

1. They were NOT in her fist. They were between thumb and forefinger.

2. If she had broken her fall with her fist, her wrist should have been bruised.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

spot on

Hello CD.

"And then of course, there is always the cachous question. Why didn't they spill out when she was pushed to the ground?"

Thanks for remembering that. I could kiss you. Well, maybe not.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

ins and outs

Hello Jon.

"The not very loud screams could have been because her windpipe was severed."

So she was killed OUTSIDE the yard?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

violent

Hello Damaso.

"with minimal violence"

Then why were Polly and Annie bruised so badly?

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Many thanks, Dave.

[Cogidubnus]

Had to do a second one...It's the Jews' fault...they ain't to blame for nothing

And the most important question would be, "was this 'Jack'?" - and the answer would be a resounding "No!"

'Jack' did not perform for an audience.

Jack did not perform for an audience...oh Jon! For such a shy retiring individual he certainly took some bloody chances...Narrowly missing the carmen with Nicholls, narrowly missing everyone at No 29 with Chapman, narrowly missing the coppers with Eddowes, not to mention McKenzie and Coles if he did them too...So logic dictates that it'd hardly be surprising, if, on just one of his outings, he misjudged slightly and was (briefly) seen...

Think I'm reluctantly coming round to a Garry Wroe-type belief in Schwartz...I started off rather cynically disbelieving in him, in part because of his sudden disappearance from the scene ... one press statement, no inquest and he's gone...

Now those same "facts" seem to play differently...what if the police actually realised what a star witness they really had...a man who witnessed a JtR murder, and hid him away...away from the inquest, and subsequently (apart from the Seaside Home?) away from the world? An early form of witness protection...

So just possibly that could make sense...And if JtR thought he'd been spotted by two jews...Lipski and GSG...Nice one DVV/Abby...Not saying you're right but as a theory it's got a lot more legs than much I've read on here!

All the best

Dave

[c.d.]

Thought this was a GSG thread ?

I was just following the crowd.

c.d.