Ripper Facts

[Pierre]

[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,

You do not need to go on about "credibility as an historian". It is sufficient that you ask me for my opinion about the sources.

1. Smith saw a man and woman, later ID:s by him as Stride, at 12.35. There was still time for Strides murderer to show up after that sighting.

2. Schwartz saw two men and a woman 12.45 but his testimony about the appearance of the man did not match the testimony of Smith.

3. Lawende could not ID the man or the woman.

(Original sources in transcription, Evans and Skinner, p. 135-138 and 207).

Conclusion: There are discrepancies in the statements from the three witnesses as to the descriptions of the man/ the men. The man /the men seen with the woman might have be any man/any men and not the murderer of Stride. There is no evidence that Lawende saw Stride or the murderer.

So:

A) The sources are not valid for interpreting the men/man/woman as "the murderer with Elizabeth Stride".

B) And obviously they are not reliable, since they differ.

C) And so they are not significant, i.e. the substantial significance is very low. Not just "for me" but for anyone.

And the lack of significance has nothing to do with Macnaghten. It has to do with the production of the sources.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Dear Pierre

After agreeing with you many times this week, lots I disagree with here

Conclusion: There are discrepancies in the statements from the three witnesses as to the descriptions of the man/ the men. The man /the men seen with the woman might have be any man/any men and not the murderer of Stride. There is no evidence that Lawende saw Stride or the murderer.

I agree with you entirely, because Lawende is not involved in the Stride case, but the Eddowes one.

The addition statement:

A) The sources are not valid for interpreting the men/man/woman as "the murderer with Elizabeth Stride".

Suggest that this is not just a typo, but a genuine lack of understanding of the case.

B) And obviously they are not reliable, since they differ.

Because all three do not agree completely, disregard all.
Simply ignore any similarities, such as age, rough discription, height all within 2 inches.

Amazing. Although truly not surprising.



Steve

[Craig H]

[QUOTE=Pierre;381167]

C) And so they are not significant, i.e. the substantial significance is very low. Not just "for me" but for anyone.

And the lack of significance has nothing to do with Macnaghten. It has to do with the production of the sources.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre

Thanks for your reply.

You have previously emphasised the importance of primary sources, and what people said in 1888.

That makes it surprising when you so quickly dismiss the witness statements.

He identified Eddowes by the clothes she was wearing.

Lawende saw Eddowes with a client shortly before her death. While technically, she may have found another customer, the more likely scenario is she didn't.

Lawende was respected by Police at that time as a credible witness.

I think it's likely that this was an accurate description of the Ripper

All the best

Craig

[Tom_Wescott]

Swanson felt that Lawende was the most likely to have seen the Ripper, but his evidence held little value due to the fact he could not be certain he'd even seen Eddowes and did not get a good look at the man. Schwartz, by contrast, got the best view of his man, but Swanson felt his evidence could not amount to proof of any man's guilt due to the length of time between his witnessing the the supposed time of the murder. Swanson goes on to point out that Schwartz's man and Lawende's man were similar in some respects and so might be the same man, i.e. the Ripper. Smith's man was quite different so (at least as of Oct. 19th, 1888) Swanson indicates he felt it unlikely Smith saw the murderer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Craig H;381220][QUOTE=Pierre;381167]

Hi Pierre

Thanks for your reply.

You have previously emphasised the importance of primary sources, and what people said in 1888.

That makes it surprising when you so quickly dismiss the witness statements.

The reason for dismissing the witness statements are even stronger when you have good sources - you know that the variation in the sources is a variation, and you have a solid reason for dismissing them.

He identified Eddowes by the clothes she was wearing.

Lawende saw Eddowes with a client shortly before her death. While technically, she may have found another customer, the more likely scenario is she didn't.

Lawende was respected by Police at that time as a credible witness.

I think it's likely that this was an accurate description of the Ripper

But respectability does not matter in this case, since we do not know who he saw. And neither did he.

Regards, Pierre

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Pierre;381305][QUOTE=Craig H;381220]

The reason for dismissing the witness statements are even stronger when you have good sources - you know that the variation in the sources is a variation, and you have a solid reason for dismissing them.

[With all due respect Pierre, what does the darkened comment of yours mean? I think it's called a "tautology", like the celebrated line by Gertrude Stein, "A rose is a rose is a rose..." Perhaps that line meant something at the time to the somewhat ditsy Ms Stein, but it's rather irritating to the rest of us.]

[From Craig H.: Lawende was respected at the time as a credible witness.]

But respectability does not matter in this case, since we do not know who he saw. And neither did he.

[No, if he did know who he saw the mystery of who "Jack" was might be solved by now. And the "respectability" you are dismissing is not that Mr. Lawende happened to be a cut above the average person in dress and demeanor, but in how he presented his comments to the police as a witness - which must have appeared to them to be far better than any one else asked.]

Regards, Pierre

Jeff

[Craig H]

Profiling JTR – where did he live ?

As I read more, there appears to be a strong argument that JTR was the man seen by PC William Smith and Lawende.

Smith was confident the woman he saw at 12.30 p.m was Stride. He made a positive ID in the morgue and remembered she wore a flower on her breast. As others have noted, he would have been trained to be observant.

Smith saw Stride less than half an hour before the body was found at 1.00 a.m.

John G recently posted the following link to a detailed analysis on PC Smiths beat.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-smiths-beat.html?printer=true

This suggests Smith may have seen Stride 15 minutes later than he said (so 12.45 p.m and even closer to the murder)

Lawende’s statement of seeing Stride with a man at 12.45 p.m was respected by Police at the time (including Major Smith and Anderson). He was confident about the time as he checked his watch as he left the Club. He was also confident he saw Stride based upon her clothers.

Both Smith and described the man as 28 – 30 y.o, 5 ft 7 inches, pale complexion and clean shaven with a moustache.

I understand experts had previously done profiling on serial murders. Someone had suggested JTR must have lived alone, one profiler used statistical modelling to suggest JTR lived in Flower & Dean Street. What profile do others think apply to JTR ?

If the witness appeared not poor, are there certain parts of London within walking distance from Whitechapel where he may have been likely to live ?

All the best

Craig

[Rosella]

Well of course the Victorians were great walkers weren't they, many all over Britain sometimes walked miles to their work and back home again or walked for pleasure. So, in theory, though I'm not suggesting he lived in Harrow or Windsor, Jack could have walked into Whitechapel from anywhere. The East End's perhaps more likely, Bethnal Green, Wapping, Shadwell.

However, if we're talking of Jack being prosperous (and I don't think he was) not every inhabitant of Whitechapel/Spitalfields was in rags wondering where their next meal was coming from. There would have been reasonably prosperous master craftsmen, shopkeepers, tradesmen etc in the district. Certainly not millionaires, but able to dress themselves and their families decently and go to the West End occasionally to a music hall or theatre, and have a few days holiday a year.

[Abby Normal]

Swanson felt that Lawende was the most likely to have seen the Ripper, but his evidence held little value due to the fact he could not be certain he'd even seen Eddowes and did not get a good look at the man. Schwartz, by contrast, got the best view of his man, but Swanson felt his evidence could not amount to proof of any man's guilt due to the length of time between his witnessing the the supposed time of the murder. Swanson goes on to point out that Schwartz's man and Lawende's man were similar in some respects and so might be the same man, i.e. the Ripper. Smith's man was quite different so (at least as of Oct. 19th, 1888) Swanson indicates he felt it unlikely Smith saw the murderer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thanks for that Tom- very enlightening. I too feel they are the same man-and probably the same as Marshalls man and the anon church street sighting. the common denominator of course is the peaked cap.

[MysterySinger]

What would the peaked cap have looked like?

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

It should be remembered, since it appears to me that more than one here is making a bit of confusion about it, that Lawende's testimony is NOT contested by other witnesses. While Berner Street is really way too much of a mess to be even remotely sure about who saw who, and when, and while doing what.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Craig H;381106]

Hi Columbo

I think you're right.

It's easy to say that anyone could be the Ripper. However, if you start with what the primary sources show - witnesses, evidence at the sites - then you (hopefully) narrow down who it could be.

All the best
Craig

Exactly my point. Instead of using lists of "clues", which are no clues, as frames for selection, one should use primary sources for witnesses and evidence at the sites. One must work inductively and not deductively.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

What would the peaked cap have looked like?

"like something a sailor might wear."

also, both PC smith and long describe the man they saw as wearing a dearstalker. This cap has peak front and back but I believe the back peak can be folded/buttoned up so it looks like it has just the front peak.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;381517]

Exactly my point. Instead of using lists of "clues", which are no clues, as frames for selection, one should use primary sources for witnesses and evidence at the sites. One must work inductively and not deductively.

Kind regards, Pierre

Pierre

Post 151 appears to have dismissed the witness reports at Berner street and Mitre Square , even getting witness's at sites confused with other sites.

Unfortunately with regards to "Evidence" there is little, and what there is is open to some very strange interpretations from some.


And my Friend if you post:


"The person I have found and think was the killer was a police official. I am sorry about this."

And

"The murder dates are connected to his own personal motive"

And

"He wrote to the police"

And


"I think I know that he was well educated and that he lived for a short time in a house that looked a bit like this one:"



(One could go on, but that would indeed be boring.)

They are points which specifically fit the man you think may have been the killer.
Those are clues, to whom you believe the killer was.

To continually say they are not clues is I repeat bizarre

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"- hamlet

(of course in this case it is the man rather than lady).



Steve

[Columbo]

[QUOTE=Pierre;381517]

Exactly my point. Instead of using lists of "clues", which are no clues, as frames for selection, one should use primary sources for witnesses and evidence at the sites. One must work inductively and not deductively.

Kind regards, Pierre

But doesn't trying to work inductively leave your conclusions open to interpretation? Inductive logic by nature is not a certainty.

Of course inductive logic is really all you can use in a 130 year old mystery.


Columbo