A general consensus as to what the Ripper may have looked like?

[Abby Normal]

Yes of course Phil, that's the sine qua none condition for the man seen by the jewish men to be the Ripper, WAS it Eddowes or just another street walker. When asked to identify the corpse as the one of the woman at the morgue, he seemed pretty sure it was the same woman.

Hi Sister
If I am not mistaken, Lawende never identified or even saw the body. Only identified the clothing as being like he saw the women wearing when he saw them outside mitre square.

I have always had my doubts if lawende and company saw the ripper with Eddowes. He was the only witness to describe a "suspect" with fair hair.

[Bridewell]

There is reasonable consistency in the descriptions from the night of the "double event" if the term "middle-aged" is properly interpreted. To the modern mind this suggests a man in his 40's or 50's; however, in the 19th century even a prosperous man would have no great expectation of living much beyond his 50th birthday. A man of 28-30 could be seen as "middle-aged" in that context. The best estimate would have to be - tentatively - white male, 28-30 years of age, 5' 7", medium to plump build with light brown moustache, but otherwise clean-shaven. Even that is no more than a best guess, based on the information available.

[Sister Hyde]

Hi Sister
If I am not mistaken, Lawende never identified or even saw the body. Only identified the clothing as being like he saw the women wearing when he saw them outside mitre square.

I have always had my doubts if lawende and company saw the ripper with Eddowes. He was the only witness to describe a "suspect" with fair hair.

Hi Mister Normal!

Yes that's more like it, that why I answered Phil "I thought he recognized her not only at the face of the woman but at the clothing."
I can't pretend to know that Lawende saw Eddowes with our man for sure, since he could have been mistaken on the woman, but honestly, even if he did, he can't have had such a good sight at the man in such a short time. My few escapades in and around Mitre Square taught me that if it is very tricky NOW with the light and the larger space of church passage (starting to walk from the point where the club was on Duke street and passing Chruch passage with standing at this corner somebody + an old schoolmate of mine who I've known for over 10 years and who I could recognize from far very easily was already a problem), so it must have been a serious challenge in 1888 with no or very little light and a much narrower passage (especially if they were standing at the corner which would have probably been in complete shadow). I think he might have seen "something" if he walked close and on the same side of the street, but definitely not enough to judge specific features in the man's face or anything.

Cam

[curious4]

Foreigner?

Can I throw a new variable into the mix by questioning the use and meaning of the word "foreigner"? Used, of course, to define a person from outside the country, but can/could also be used in the context of someone from outside the area. See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/foreigner

Cheers,
C4

[Sister Hyde]

Can I throw a new variable into the mix by questioning the use and meaning of the word "foreigner"? Used, of course, to define a person from outside the country, but can/could also be used in the context of someone from outside the area. See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/foreigner

Cheers,
C4

Hi Curious,

Now that's a good one too! Of course, I think when people were saying "he looked like a foreigner", it was meant in a pejorative way, or at least in a cliché way, unless what they meant was that he "sounded" foreigner, because of an accent or so, because otherwise, unless you are swarthy or show "exotic" features, your nationality isn't written on your forehead.
For the option of the word "foreigner" being employed about someone from outside the "area", I don't know how that could be judged, clothing maybe? clothing indicating either the trade or the class of the person?

Cam

[Phil H]

To the modern mind this suggests a man in his 40's or 50's; however, in the 19th century even a prosperous man would have no great expectation of living much beyond his 50th birthday. A man of 28-30 could be seen as "middle-aged" in that context.

On what is this statement based? I would agree that life expectancy has increased markedly between 1888 and now, but in the average was always impacted by high child mortality - at least in part. I would agree that illnesses now survivable would then have been fatal in many cases and that there were class differences (higher mortality rates at younger ages for the poorer classes). But I would have thought that the "average" man or woman could expect to live longer than 50 and I very much doubt that 28-30 was regarded as middle-aged.

I stand to be proved wrong.

Can I throw a new variable into the mix by questioning the use and meaning of the word "foreigner"? Used, of course, to define a person from outside the country, but can/could also be used in the context of someone from outside the area.

I can well appreciate that "foreigner" has several meanings , and in some areas, "furriner" (spoken in dialect) might well have meant "stranger", and still could. Nevertheless, I think in 1888 London, "foreigner" was a synonym for "Jewish" and was recognised as such.

Phil

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

How much did Lawende see, even if the man was "Jack"?

Enough to give a good description and one that was circulated by Swanson (along with someone else's description, which presumably was Harris's).

[Errata]

Cam

I see that there is another current thread in which the description of Lawende and his companions are discussed and contrasted. It brings out that even betwen the three of them there were differences, especially of height - and asks the question, how was a concensus arrived at when one description said 5'3" and another 5'7"?? How do you chose?

Highly pertinent questions, I think, to what is being discussed here.

Phil

I think height is always kind of tough thing to nail down for people, because typically it is at such a distance that it is a purely referential guess. If I see a guy 10 ft. away, that's close enough for me to guess based on my own height. I could say he was about 5'9 because he was about my own height.

Farther away from that, and your reference has to be something you are probably quite a bit less sure of. And this starts treading into an area where women tend to be better at this than men. If you see a man standing next to a woman about 50 ft. away, say against a wall, there are no external references for height. Some people would assume that since he was a head taller than her, and the average woman is 5'3, that makes him about 6'1. Some would say he looked about average height for a guy, and place him at about 5'10. And someone could look at the guy and be reminded of their cousin Murray because of the facial hair, and since cousin Murray is 5'6, therefore the man is 5'6.

Women tend to be better at proportions, but are less likely to describe someone based on their height. When pressed, they are more likely to say they don't know, which is not precisely true. A woman can typically look at a man standing near a fire hydrant and see that the man is three and a half fire hydrants tall. Or that he is standing on the second step down one handspan from the top of the door. Or his height was twice the length of his distance from the sidewalk. Not that men can't do this, but they typically don't look at proportion that way. But a woman is not going to tell a cop that the man they saw was three and a half fire hydrants tall. Even though the cops could easily measure the fire hydrant and get an exact height.

I always thought the best question a cop could ask a witness who had just given him a height would be "why do you think he's 5'9?". If the witness shrugs and says he kinda looked average height, then his 5'9 might not bear up if another witness said he was 5'3 because he noticed the man came up to his shoulder as he walked past. I would go for heights with a reference over heights that don't have one. But I would go for a woman's proportional reference over a man's assertion of height.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Sister
If I am not mistaken, Lawende never identified or even saw the body. Only identified the clothing as being like he saw the women wearing when he saw them outside mitre square.

I have always had my doubts if lawende and company saw the ripper with Eddowes. He was the only witness to describe a "suspect" with fair hair.

I have no problem with the 'fair' description, and I do believe Blotchy was less than dark.

Anyway, I have a different problem with Lawende's couple as follows:

The doctor on the scene puts the murder at 1.35am earliest.

I will assume they were punter/whore as there is no sign or noise of anyone being dragged into a corner.

Watkins has passed at 1.30am.

Assuming this is punter/whore, they have met elsewhere and gone to that spot. Eddowes has ample time to pass Church Passage.

It's often being said that whores knew the police beats and how long they had.

So, whore taking a punter into the corner of a square. Eddowes knows Watkins has passed at 1.30am and will be back 1.45amish.

Why are the couple still talking at 1.35am? Why do they not make for the square at 1.31 am knowing the coast is clear and they have little time?

[GregBaron]

Age is relative...

To the modern mind this suggests a man in his 40's or 50's; however, in the 19th century even a prosperous man would have no great expectation of living much beyond his 50th birthday. A man of 28-30 could be seen as "middle-aged" in that context.

I think this statement is basically true Phil. And I’m not sure that infant mortality is counted in average age of adult death but I could be wrong. I just watched one of those Youtube documentaries on Whitechapel and if I’m not mistaken it said the average adult death was at 25 and 1 in 5 children died before the age of 5. Again, my memory could be wrong here but I was astounded by the numbers.

Anyway, I don’t agree that 28-30 would be considered middle aged but few in Whitechapel would have lived to ripe old age, the West End would have fared better but nothing like today. I remember reading somewhere that the average age of death in America in the 19th century was about 45.

I expect one of our expert statisticians may be able to come to the rescue here.

On other topics, I agree with those who say none of the witnesses may have seen the fiend. Lawende, obviously, is the hardest to discount but he may have seen another couple.

Not sure where Errata gets her male/female dichotomies in height estimation but I agree with her general thesis that without a reference point we have no idea how tall people are.

To Fleetwood Mac, maybe they were negotiating price, position or the plethora of services offered.

Greg

[Fleetwood Mac]

To Fleetwood Mac, maybe they were negotiating price, position or the plethora of services offered.

Greg

Wouldn't that have been done at the meeting spot? "What you after love?", "this and that", "fine, let's go".

Otherwise, Eddowes could have been wasting her time going to a spot only to find out that it was a non starter.

From what I have seen on the television, which presumably is realistic, the details are organised on meeting, and then they go to a spot.

[GregBaron]

Meet you at Church passage...

Wouldn't that have been done at the meeting spot? "What you after love?", "this and that", "fine, let's go".

Otherwise, Eddowes could have been wasting her time going to a spot only to find out that it was a non starter.

From what I have seen on the television, which presumably is realistic, the details are organised on meeting, and then they go to a spot.

Why can't Church passage be the meeting spot Fleetwood? Maybe somebody was passing through Mitre Square and they were just waiting their turn?

And don't worry, you don't have to use a television reference, your secret is safe with me...

Greg

[Fleetwood Mac]

Why can't Church passage be the meeting spot Fleetwood? Maybe somebody was passing through Mitre Square and they were just waiting their turn?

And don't worry, you don't have to use a television reference, your secret is safe with me...

Greg

Of course they could.

I personally favour one of the known pick up spots. Seems easiest, seems the usual prostitute practice (I mean, how many purveyors of anything stand around where there are unlikely to be customers) and provides some sort of explanation as to why in Eddowes was let out of the police station 1 ish before been seen 1.30ish not too far away from the police station.

Edited to add:

Not my style, mate. I'm usually out on Clapham Common at 1.30 in the morning.

[Sister Hyde]

Of course they could.

I personally favour one of the known pick up spots. Seems easiest, seems the usual prostitute practice (I mean, how many purveyors of anything stand around where there are unlikely to be customers) and provides some sort of explanation as to why in Eddowes was let out of the police station 1 ish before been seen 1.30ish not too far away from the police station.

I have always tried to considerate the impact of the general "ripper scare" in the district too, which diod affect the prostitutes, and thus it's very very possible that the prostitutes only went solliciting in known or usual areas which they were used to and felt safe.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I have always tried to considerate the impact of the general "ripper scare" in the district too, which diod affect the prostitutes, and thus it's very very possible that the prostitutes only went solliciting in known or usual areas which they were used to and felt safe.

Must seem I'm the contrary type, SH.

But,

I don't go along with the idea there was hysteria in Whitechapel.

I think prostitutes would have gone anywhere providing the prospective punter had a few bob on him - and it seems prostitutes did.

We know MJK took at least 1 person to her home.