Abberline solved the GSG

[Cogidubnus]

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.

I thought sequestration meant to take away. That is they took Lawende away from his work in order to look for Sailor Man. I can think of no reason why the police would want to hide him. Can you? Where would they hide him? And for how long?

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.

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.

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

points

Hello CD. Thanks.

"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."

Quite.

"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."

Precisely.

"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."

Correct again.

"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.

"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."

Alright.

"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."

Well, I certainly have ruled him out.

Thanks again.

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

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.

He said "man" the back of the man. As I have said some posters have used this description to jusify Abberline's stating" only a rear view of the murderer was ever seen."

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.

hahahaha. I suggest you hand out some litmus paper then!

Sequestration means "to hide away".

Example:
[I]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.

I thought sequestration meant to take away. That is they took Lawende away from his work in order to look for Sailor Man. I can think of no reason why the police would want to hide him. Can you? Where would they hide him? And for how long?

[Cogidubnus]

Giving a Frenchie

I don't think oral sex was particularly common or widespead there and then...It wasn't much spoken of even when I was growing up, being looked on as something rather alien and foreign...giving a Frenchie it was called, perhaps because it was one of those things picked up from French prostitutes during one of the world wars?

All the best

Dave

[Observer]

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

That's all fine and good, it's individual interpretation of press reports which stick in my craw.

[c.d.]

I could be wrong but I find it hard to believe that that wasn't a common practice. Therefore, I would guess that the prostitutes found a simple solution to the problem such as carrying a scrap of cloth or something that they could kneel on and then discard at the end of the evening. Where there is a will there is a way.

c.d.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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