Ripper Facts

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Craig H;380439]

Hi Pierre

Thanks for your post and ideas. Much appreciated.

There seems agreement that the PC William Smith and Joseph Lawende were the most credible witnesses of seeing the Ripper just prior to the murders; and provide a similar description of :

• 28 - 30 year old
• 5 ft 7 in
• Moustache

Hi Craig,

The statements of Smith and Lawende are not significant if you ask me.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;380445]

Hi Craig,

The statements of Smith and Lawende are not significant if you ask me.

Kind regards, Pierre

Dear Pierre,

Can we safely assume from that, you do not believe either man saw the actual killer?


Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

You might find Gavin Bromley's excellent dissertation on PC Smith's beat of interest. His extremely detailed analysis, considering various scenarios, also supports a later sighting time. See:http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...l?printer=true

John

I see from Gavin’s work, that we still have an issue, if that’s the right word, with how long the beat would take, obviously that is something we cannot be sure about and have to live with 25-30mins.

Time keeping again I see, but taken as a whole it does suggest that it may have been nearer to 12.45 than Smith suggested, but still does not rule out 12.40.

Of course it raises the issue of Schwartz, and gives a very brief window for what he claimed to see, but actually that is all it needs. So case on Schwartz still unresolved using that data.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I just want to make a small comment generally for you discussion here. What you are discussing is taking place before the murders.

We often find this sort of thinking in the discussion about witnesses or even in the discussion about Lechmere. You can follow a small group of people or some individuals to a certain point in time, preferably as close to the postulated TOD as possible. But after that point, which always is hypothetical, there is just a lack of sources.

It strikes me that I have been thinking in an opposite way all along. I have not been thinking pre but post. At least 80 percent of the time.

Now, I do not say that thinking pre murder(s) is wrong. Far from it. I am just saying that there are two aspects of thinking here.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

I have no issues with post at all, 3 times in 24 hours must be a record!

However seriously, I feel both types of thinking are required if one is to attempt to get as fuller view of events as possible.

Steve

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;380445]

Hi Craig,

The statements of Smith and Lawende are not significant if you ask me.

Kind regards, Pierre

I strongly disagree. For me, they are the two best witnesses throughout the entire investigation.

[John G]

John

I see from Gavin’s work, that we still have an issue, if that’s the right word, with how long the beat would take, obviously that is something we cannot be sure about and have to live with 25-30mins.

Time keeping again I see, but taken as a whole it does suggest that it may have been nearer to 12.45 than Smith suggested, but still does not rule out 12.40.

Of course it raises the issue of Schwartz, and gives a very brief window for what he claimed to see, but actually that is all it needs. So case on Schwartz still unresolved using that data.


Steve

Hi Steve,

There are numerous other reasons which cast doubt on Schwartz's evidence. As I replied to Craig, I will post a more detailed analysis at a later time.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

There are numerous other reasons which cast doubt on Schwartz's evidence. As I replied to Craig, I will post a more detailed analysis at a later time.

I will be honest John, Berner Street is not my main area of interest, i do know it is one of yours.

Steve

[Craig H]

[QUOTE=Pierre;380445]

Hi Craig,

The statements of Smith and Lawende are not significant if you ask me.

Kind regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

From a historical source perspective, what would a witness statement need to cover for it to be credible ?

Both Smith and Lawende saw someone with the victims 15 - 30 minutes before their bodies were discovered, and gave a similar description.

All the best

Craig

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=Craig H;380461]

Hi Pierre,

From a historical source perspective, what would a witness statement need to cover for it to be credible ?

Both Smith and Lawende saw someone with the victims 15 - 30 minutes before their bodies were discovered, and gave a similar description.

All the best

Craig

To Craig

Alot can happen in 15-30 minutes though. A prostitute could easily pick up another client in 15-30 minutes.

Cheers John

[Craig H]

Hi John

Yes - that's true.

However when we read the witness statements the client and victim appeared "connected" - in close contact. It seemed they had agreed on the transaction.

These two sightings were also very close to body being discovered

All the best
Craig

[Rosella]

This is indeed an excellent dissertion. I've always thought the PC Smith sighting deserves more prominence. However, how does Schwart's BS man, first seen by him, strolling tipsily up Berner St, fit in? Could Schwart's timing be completely off and the whole incident (involving a completely different man and woman) have occured up to an hour before he said it did?

[Elamarna]

Craig

The interesting thing for me with Pierre's post is exactly what he means by insignificant?

Does he consider the descriptions to be inaccurate, of low reliability or does he not believe the witnesses are talking about the victim and the killer.
Those are two very different interpretations.

Can I suggest we wait and see if Pierre clarifies his position when next he logs on. Am interested to see which view, if either, he is taking.

regards

Steve

[Craig H]

[QUOTE=Pierre;380445]

Hi Craig,

The statements of Smith and Lawende are not significant if you ask me.

Kind regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre

Sorry - but this is not the response expected from you.

Over recent months, you have consistently demonstrated your credibility as a historian, your expertise in source criticism and emphasised the need to go back to primary sources from 1888.

We now present three witnesses - Lawende, PC Smith and Schwartz - who all saw a man with the victim 15 - 30 minutes before the murder; and you dismiss this.

All three were regarded by police at the time as credible, and all have a consistent description on age, height and more.

I think you lose credibility here if you just dismiss these primary data sources without applying some of your source criticism skills. ?

Craig

[Columbo]

[QUOTE=Craig H;380658]

Hi Pierre

Sorry - but this is not the response expected from you.

Over recent months, you have consistently demonstrated your credibility as a historian, your expertise in source criticism and emphasised the need to go back to primary sources from 1888.

We now present three witnesses - Lawende, PC Smith and Schwartz - who all saw a man with the victim 15 - 30 minutes before the murder; and you dismiss this.

All three were regarded by police at the time as credible, and all have a consistent description on age, height and more.

I think you lose credibility here if you just dismiss these primary data sources without applying some of your source criticism skills. ?

Craig

Hi Craig,

It's gotten to the point in Ripperology where some people start to believe the people back in that time were not as "savvy" as we are today. They start second guessing testimony, witnesses etc, making wild accusations, and imposing some silly histrionics that make no sense when you examine it closely. We might as well just scrap all the records and write whatever we want.
The police records are the number one source of historical information for JTR. Then we have to fall to newspapers, memoirs, second hand gossip and the occasional "circumstantial evidence suspect" that almost always falls through.
The witness statements are historical fact and should be taken as such. You either believe them or you don't, but some people are wasting time trying to put some weird sherlock holmes twist on it.

Columbo

[Billiou]

[QUOTE=Columbo;380700]

Hi Craig,

It's gotten to the point in Ripperology where some people start to believe the people back in that time were not as "savvy" as we are today. They start second guessing testimony, witnesses etc, making wild accusations, and imposing some silly histrionics that make no sense when you examine it closely. We might as well just scrap all the records and write whatever we want.
The police records are the number one source of historical information for JTR. Then we have to fall to newspapers, memoirs, second hand gossip and the occasional "circumstantial evidence suspect" that almost always falls through.
The witness statements are historical fact and should be taken as such. You either believe them or you don't, but some people are wasting time trying to put some weird sherlock holmes twist on it.

Columbo

Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing (for some!).