Abberline solved the GSG

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[lynn cates]

when and why

Hello CD. Thanks.

"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."

OK. When is your best guess about when and why the cachous came out?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

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.

Yes I've noticed that but doesn't it look like "back of the man" is a typeset error for "back of the woman"?
He did not see the man, only the back of the woman?

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

99% of the written word we possess on the case is from press reports, throw them away and that would be the end of Ripperological studies.

What is important is not believing every word you read, but assess what you read in combination with other sources, even other press reports.
There is no general solution, one global statement about the believability of the press as a whole does not account for all stories we read.

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.

Thats a distinctly odd interpretation. What that line says to me is that when Lawende had to go out, it was only in the company of detectives.
The police appear to have been concerned about the killer getting to him, not for him to disappear from the face of the earth.

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Jon.

"99% of the written word we possess on the case is from press reports, throw them away and that would be the end of Ripperological studies.

What is important is not believing every word you read, but assess what you read in combination with other sources, even other press reports.
There is no general solution, one global statement about the believability of the press as a whole does not account for all stories we read."

Precisely.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=lynn cates;262168]Hello CD. Thanks.

"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."

OK. When is your best guess about when and why the cachous came out?

Cheers.
LC[/

I think the cachous are extremely important because to me they indicate that she did not have them in her hand when thrown to the ground by the BS man, otherwise it is most likely that they would have been scattered. So it is hard to believe that as she was being dragged back into the yard by the BS man and knowing that her time was up she decided to go through the Pearly Gates with fresh breath.

To me, the cachous indicate that Liz was at ease in her situation which I just can't see if the BS man were still present. My best guess is that she was with a client and that she either wanted to have fresh breath for him (maybe she was self conscious of having bad teeth and bad breath) or they came out in preparation for dealing with the results of oral sex.

Another possibility is that she was waiting for her date and she intended to pop one in her mouth when she saw him approaching. An argument soon ensued however and she was killed. The problem with that though is that no one heard any argument and the police couldn't identify anybody in her life who might have a motive. I assume they ruled out Kidney.

c.d.

[GregBaron]

19th century Altoids...

My best guess is that she was with a client and that she either wanted to have fresh breath for him (maybe she was self conscious of having bad teeth and bad breath) or they came out in preparation for dealing with the results of oral sex.

I don't know this for a fact but I'm skeptical that these LVP street hookers went to their knees in the rain and the muck to service filthy street blokes.

I could be wrong but I doubt it was a common practice...else perhaps some of our victims might have mud and muck in the middle of their skirts.....

Stride may have been a cachous kind of girl. Perhaps she often used breath mints just as we see Tic Tac heads today...It doesn't necessarily mean she was preparing to meet Prince Charming...


Greg

[Observer]

Yes I've noticed that but doesn't it look like "back of the man" is a typeset error for "back of the woman"?
He did not see the man, only the back of the woman?

Come off it.

Again

" 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."

99% of the written word we possess on the case is from press reports, throw them away and that would be the end of Ripperological studies.

What I intended to convey is that I only take notice of what was said at inquest, as reported in the press. Everything else, forget it.

What you failed to address is the practise of some poster's, should it suit their particular theory, who argue that black is white on the back of patently errenous reports in the press.

Thats a distinctly odd interpretation. What that line says to me is that when Lawende had to go out, it was only in the company of detectives.
The police appear to have been concerned about the killer getting to him, not for him to disappear from the face of the earth.

No it's not. Ok let's have look at what was said. Dave asked

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

you quoted the following to refute it

"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."

Where does it imply they hid Lawende away? Do you mean in a safe house, the police station? It seems to me they are taking him about during his working hour's and paying for the expenses lost in work. It does not say they had him hidden away somewhere. To what ends would they hide him away?

[Wickerman]

" 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."

I arrived at that conclusion because I have seen so many small errors in newspapers, and there is no reason to think Levy alone was passing behind the couple when his friends all passed on the other side.
Therefore a misprint "man" for "woman" is the path of least resistance.

What I intended to convey is that I only take notice of what was said at inquest, as reported in the press. Everything else, forget it.

No comment

What you failed to address is the practise of some poster's, should it suit their particular theory, who argue that black is white on the back of patently errenous reports in the press.

Par for the course I'm afraid, but news articles are a necessary evil. Even the police at the time used them for information. So long as we apply a litmus test before digging our heels firmly in the ground soley on the strength of one contrary news article, and apply caution, then I see nothing wrong with taking account of what the reporters claim to have found.

Where does it imply they hid Lawende away? Do you mean in a safe house, the police station? It seems to me they are taking him about during his working hour's and paying for the expenses lost in work. It does not say they had him hidden away somewhere. To what ends would they hide him away?

Sequestration means "to hide away".

Example:
Jury sequestration is the isolation of a jury to avoid accidental or deliberate tainting. Although sequestration is rare, publicity surrounding a trial and interested parties may interfere with juror objectivity; a judge may order that a jury be sequestered in order to prevent others from tampering with members of the jury through undue persuasion, threats, or bribes.

[Wickerman]

I could be wrong but I doubt it was a common practice...else perhaps some of our victims might have mud and muck in the middle of their skirts.....

Exactly, and there's no mention of mud on Stride's knees.

[c.d.]

Yes, but it is possible that the victims were killed before it ever got to that stage. Perhaps as money was being exchanged.

c.d.