Abberline solved the GSG

[Wickerman]

I must admit I'd always looked on this particular sequestration in the meaning/context quoted by Observer. Even sequestered juries still appear in court...so they're not really hidden away.

The point is to do with avoiding interference not avoiding their duty to participate in a public trial.

Schwartz on the other hand, seems to disappear...Sorry Jon, but it still seems to me that Schwartz has more to offer an attempted ID than Lawende, and as such, might well get the Met's star treatment...even if it subsequently turned out they were mistaken.

Oh certainly I don't doubt Schwartz saw more than Lawende had, but again, that still does not mean he witnessed a murder. If you could establish what the star treatment by the Met. consisted of, that would help.
By that I mean, lets not invent a scenario that never happened and then call it "The Met's star treatment". An example from another case would help your view immensely.

[lynn cates]

Beauty is truth.

Hello David. Thanks.

"Obviously no ancient Greek pottery has ever reached the shores of America."

Someday it will. And that will be when "Old age shall this generation waste."

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

The difference is the "wo" was missed in the type set, thats all.

The alternative is what, to label the witness or the reporter as liars?
Just a simple type-set error.

"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 woman. Mr. Joseph Levy is absolutely obstinate and refuses to give us the slightest information."

The context does not change, the statement remains perfectly true.

Typo eh? I doubt it. You miss my point yet again though. The words used were "back of the man" . Again, some poster's have in the past used this report to shamefully suggest that Abberline was in fact correct when he stated that only a rear view was obtained of the murderer. I have forwarded them some litmus paper.

It means to isolate, to avoid outside interference, to hide away, etc. Thats what they do with a jury, no different to what was done to Lawende, apparently.

Ok, would you care to elaborate? Why would they wish to hide him? You are saying that a twenty four hour watch was made upon him? Presumably he slept at a police station, a safe hous. Which do you suggest?

Regards

Observer

[Wickerman]

Typo eh? I doubt it. You miss my point yet again though. The words used were "back of the man" . Again, some poster's have in the past used this report to shamefully suggest that Abberline was in fact correct when he stated that only a rear view was obtained of the murderer. I have forwarded them some litmus paper.

I have read your point, about how this line has been used by some. They were wrong, plain and simple.

Ok, would you care to elaborate? Why would they wish to hide him? You are saying that a twenty four hour watch was made upon him? Presumably he slept at a police station, a safe hous. Which do you suggest?

This sequestering of Lawende was reported on the 9th, he was not due to give testimony at the inquest until the 11th. So possibly, since the police located him soon after the murder until he gave his testimony they had him under watch at a location unspecified.
How can we determine anything more than that?

[Observer]

This sequestering of Lawende was reported on the 9th, he was not due to give testimony at the inquest until the 11th. So possibly, since the police located him soon after the murder until he gave his testimony they had him under watch at a location unspecified.
How can we determine anything more than that?

So if this is the case an important witness. In the eyes of the police a very important witness. And yet you consider it a possibility that Lawende did not in fact see Eddowes that night. Have you ran a litmus test over that one? I havn't, my money's on the police. What makes you think it might not have been Eddowes that Lawende, Harris, and Levy saw that night?

[Wickerman]

So if this is the case an important witness. In the eyes of the police a very important witness.

Yes, the police appear to have more faith in Lawende than he had in himself.

However, all parties; the witness (Lawende), the City (McWiliam) and the Met. (Swanson) appear to agree on one thing, that the dead woman was only tentatively recognised by her clothes, and the man could not be recognised again, then the detailed description of this man, which incidentally evolved over time, may not be as sound as everyone thought.

[Observer]

Yes, the police appear to have more faith in Lawende than he had in himself.

We don't know that. My opinion is that Lawende regretted the the whole affair, it was a huge inconvienience to him, as it would be to anyone.

A freind of mine, whilst I was in the army, was a witness at the Black Panther trial. His house was located not far from the drain where Leslie Whittle was eventually found. I forget the whole story, (a lesson in trying to remember the facts many years after the event, I'm thinking Abberline, Dew, et al here) but I believe my freind was walking his dog, although I'm not sure, when he saw Neilson hanging around that area. To cut a long story short my freind revealed to me that he'd wished he'd never saw Neilson that day, he was forever being interviewed by various police officers.

Perhaps Lawende felt something similar to my freind, and played down his worth to the inquiry to get some peace. I have no doubts he got a decent look at the man he saw talking to Kate Eddowes.

However, all parties; the witness (Lawende), the City (McWiliam) and the Met. (Swanson) appear to agree on one thing, that the dead woman was only tentatively recognised by her clothes, and the man could not be recognised again, then the detailed description of this man, which incidentally evolved over time, may not be as sound as everyone thought.

But recognised nevertheless. It would take a huge leap of faith, certainly one I would fail to take, to even contemplate that it was anyone other than Kate Eddowes and her killer whom Lawende, Harris, and Levy saw that night. I honestly do not know where you are coming from in suggesting anything to the contrary. Who else could it have been?

[c.d.]

"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."

Well, she simmered down quickly from her fracas to have accepted a client. And, if the latter, there would have been traces.

Hello Lynn,

I think the whole BS man incident was so relatively minor that she simply shook it off. If she were soliciting, I don't think that it would have dissuaded her from accepting a client shortly afterwards.

If she were killed before any type of sex took place (oral or otherwise) then there would be no traces of semen.

Now if she were visibly upset by the BS man incident, as you seem to suggest, I can see Jack in the role of consoler. "Are you okay, Miss? I saw what happened. You're shaking. I'll bet you could use a drink. I have a bottle with me. Let's step back into the yard in case that guy comes back."

c.d.

[Wickerman]

... I forget the whole story, (a lesson in trying to remember the facts many years after the event, I'm thinking Abberline, Dew, et al here)

Anderson, Swanson, etc. yes, I get it, and I agree.

But recognised nevertheless.

Only her clothes were acknowledged to have been similar, given these women all dressed alike anyway, and it was only a fleeting rear view of her, more caution should have been expressed.
In fact I might be able to find where Swanson expressed his opinion that Lawende's failure to identify her face is a serious drawback (I think it was Swanson).

It would take a huge leap of faith, certainly one I would fail to take, to even contemplate that it was anyone other than Kate Eddowes and her killer whom Lawende, Harris, and Levy saw that night. I honestly do not know where you are coming from in suggesting anything to the contrary. Who else could it have been?

Prostitute central was just a few hundred yards down at the corner, its not as if the streets were empty of people. Given the time allotted for this couple to saunter down Church Passage, across the square and the attack to commence, followed by mutilations, some have rightly questioned the total allowance of nine minutes (1:35am Lawende - 1:44 am Watkins), for the whole escapade to unfold.

It is very possibly that Eddowes and her killer were already in the Square when Lawende & Co. exited the Club.
At the very least, I have yet to see an argument which suggests it is unlikely.

[lynn cates]

lurking

Hello CD. Thanks.

"If she were killed before any type of sex took place (oral or otherwise) then there would be no traces of semen."

Quite. So, no sex that night? Agreed.

"Now if she were visibly upset by the BS man incident, as you seem to suggest, I can see Jack in the role of consoler. "Are you okay, Miss? I saw what happened. You're shaking. I'll bet you could use a drink. I have a bottle with me. Let's step back into the yard in case that guy comes back.""

Alright. So, where do you think "Jack" was whilst:

1. Schwartz passed by,

2. BS assaulted Liz,

3. Pipe man watched, then went after BSM?

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

It seems like you are trying to connect Jack with the BS man incident. Jack would have had no control over what took place before he arrived on the scene. Obviously, I don't know where Jack was. He might have missed the whole BS man incident which would rule out him offering consolation. He might have been walking down the street arriving a few minutes after the BS man left and approached Liz thinking she was soliciting. Why are you having such a hard time putting Jack on the scene? He did frequent the streets of Whitechapel did he not? If you can imagine anybody appearing after the BS man left, why could it not have been Jack?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Lynn,

It seems like you are trying to connect Jack with the BS man incident. Jack would have had no control over what took place before he arrived on the scene. Obviously, I don't know where Jack was. He might have missed the whole BS man incident which would rule out him offering consolation. He might have been walking down the street arriving a few minutes after the BS man left and approached Liz thinking she was soliciting. Why are you having such a hard time putting Jack on the scene? He did frequent the streets of Whitechapel did he not? If you can imagine anybody appearing after the BS man left, why could it not have been Jack?

c.d.

cd, you seem to miss the critical point within that argument.....IF the BSM incident did happen as it was described by Israel Schwartz then that man is almost certainly also her killer.....and by implication when later linked with Mitre Square,...Jack. There is no time, as youve suggested, for this Jack fellow to arrive after BSM and Pipeman...for one thing we have no idea when BSM, or if BSM, left that location or Liz's side. We dont even know if he exists as well...but that another argument. We do know the claim is that the altercation happened at 12:45 according to the witness and we know that Liz may have been cut as early as 12:46 by Blackwell's estimates.

Face it...if you want to proclaim this murder a Ripper murder, you are almost forced to accept that the killer, and Ripper, is BSM. By the fact he is already with the victim and displaying some form of physical abuse to her very near the time of her death, and the fact that there is very little time left for Liz Stride after that alleged altercation. And according to Israel...she isnt even at the spot she is killed yet.

Cheers cd

[c.d.]

Michael,

I don't think I missed anything. As always, you insist that all times are written in stone. I mean to the second and even the nanosecond. You need them to be that way for your argument to hold water. The reality is that there was plenty of time for Liz's killer (be it Jack or otherwise) to appear after the BS man left. The BS man as Liz's killer has way too many red flags associated with it. As for "physical abuse" all he did was push her. And Liz is still alive after Schwartz leaves the scene.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

Newton

Hello CD. Thanks.

"Why are you having such a hard time putting Jack on the scene?"

Because there is no evidence for his being there. And that with respect to whichever witness/es you choose to accept.

"He did frequent the streets of Whitechapel did he not?"

Umm, no. As you recall, I believe that's all nonsense.

"If you can imagine anybody appearing after the BS man left . . ."

Well, if BS was doing his thing at 12.45 and Liz was cut between 12.46 and 12.56 . . .

". . . why could it not have been Jack?"

Don't know the bloke's name. But I have never been inspired by deus ex machina arguments--and all to save some silly theory.

Let me put it another way. If I can explain why a stone falls to the ground based on Sir Isaac's theory of universal gravitation, why must I go back and interpolate a "stone spirit"?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

red flags

Hello (again) CD.

"The BS man as Liz's killer has way too many red flags associated with it."

I would go further--it has too many red flags to be other than a story.

Cheers.
LC