Rating The Suspects.

[GBinOz]

When Lawende and his companions passed the man and woman standing at the Church passage the woman had her back to them and they could see the man's face. I believe this was a different couple. I think Eddowes walked down into Aldgate where she met the Ripper and both of them watched as Watkins left the square, wherein they both entered almost immediately from Mitre Street (as alleged the City Police believed from a newspaper report). When the Ripper was finished with Eddowes, he left via the St. James passage and ran into a P.C. I believe was Watkins at the entrance to the St. James Place (The Orange Market) from PC Langdon's later reminiscences.

Hi Scott,

My recollection is that Lawende did not view the body, basing his observation only on viewing her clothing, and stated that he wouldn't be able to identify the man, so I tend to agree with your hypothesis.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

A relevant question for me Wick is - when did it rain and when did it stop? I’m working from memory here but I believe that the only two people that mentioned rain that night were Lawende and Packer. Packer said that he closed up his shop at 12.30 due to the rain (11.30 was also mentioned though in White’s report to Abberline and Arnold.) Lawende doesn’t mention times in relation to the rain, only that they had intended to leave the club earlier but were prevented by the rain. The two weather reports appear to say that it stopped raining some time after midnight and that any measurement of rain for the Eddowes murder was ‘not applicable,’ suggesting no rain.

Isn't it possible that Lawende had seen rain at around 1.00 and the three went back inside, sat down and continued chatting without realising that the rain had stopped just after 1.00 (or even around 1.00) They then left at just after 1.30.

So was it raining when Eddowes left Bishopsgate Station? If it was then she might (and it’s only a might) have sheltered from the rain. If she hadn’t sheltered from the rain then we have to ask, considering that it was just 400 yards from the station to Mitre Square (a walk of a couple of minutes) why was she still there talking to a man after 1.30?

I think it at least possible Wick that the couple weren’t Eddowes and her killer and that by the time they were spotted Eddowes was already lying dead in Mitre Square.

Id say Near Impossible given the testimony of P.C Watkins .

[Fiver]

When Lawende and his companions passed the man and woman standing at the Church passage the woman had her back to them and they could see the man's face.

Harris completely disagreed with that positioning.

"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." - Evening News, 9 October 1888

[Scott Nelson]

When Lawende and his companions passed the man and woman standing at the Church passage the woman had her back to them and they could see the man's face. I believe this was a different couple. I think Eddowes walked down into Aldgate where she met the Ripper and both of them watched as Watkins left the square, wherein they both entered almost immediately from Mitre Street (as alleged the City Police believed from a newspaper report). When the Ripper was finished with Eddowes, he left via the St. James passage and ran into a P.C. I believe was Watkins at the entrance to the St. James Place (The Orange Market) from PC Langdon's later reminiscences.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The thing about rain is it can be local, it might rain in Berner st., but not in Mitre Sq. or vice versa. We've all driven into a rain shower, and out again. So we all know there is a limit to where it rains and where it doesn't.
When I was a kid I remember standing on one side of the road in sunshine, while a rain shower passed on the other side of the road. So, I don't see how we can use the rain as evidence of anything.



Yes, its possible, and if correct makes a huge difference. The body was already there when Harvey arrived at the end of Church Passage, it was just too dark to see across the square.

Or even that Harvey might have not bothered to go down the passage (something that we can only speculate about of Wick…but, as he was sacked for unknown reasons 6 months later it might have been that he wasn’t the most trustworthy of officers)

I totally accept your point about rain of course but wouldn’t it be interesting if we could find out when it actually stopped raining where Eddowes actually walked? If the ‘sheltering from rain’ reason could be eliminated then we would be left with an important question - why was Eddowes still chatting to someone around 30 minutes after being released at a spot that was only a couple of minutes away?

One if those things that we’re never going to get an answer for Wick.

[Wickerman]

A relevant question for me Wick is - when did it rain and when did it stop? I’m working from memory here but I believe that the only two people that mentioned rain that night were Lawende and Packer. Packer said that he closed up his shop at 12.30 due to the rain (11.30 was also mentioned though in White’s report to Abberline and Arnold.) Lawende doesn’t mention times in relation to the rain, only that they had intended to leave the club earlier but were prevented by the rain. The two weather reports appear to say that it stopped raining some time after midnight and that any measurement of rain for the Eddowes murder was ‘not applicable,’ suggesting no rain.

Isn't it possible that Lawende had seen rain at around 1.00 and the three went back inside, sat down and continued chatting without realising that the rain had stopped just after 1.00 (or even around 1.00) They then left at just after 1.30.

So was it raining when Eddowes left Bishopsgate Station? If it was then she might (and it’s only a might) have sheltered from the rain. If she hadn’t sheltered from the rain then we have to ask, considering that it was just 400 yards from the station to Mitre Square (a walk of a couple of minutes) why was she still there talking to a man after 1.30? . .

The thing about rain is it can be local, it might rain in Berner st., but not in Mitre Sq. or vice versa. We've all driven into a rain shower, and out again. So we all know there is a limit to where it rains and where it doesn't.
When I was a kid I remember standing on one side of the road in sunshine, while a rain shower passed on the other side of the road. So, I don't see how we can use the rain as evidence of anything.

I think it at least possible Wick that the couple weren’t Eddowes and her killer and that by the time they were spotted Eddowes was already lying dead in Mitre Square.

Yes, its possible, and if correct makes a huge difference. The body was already there when Harvey arrived at the end of Church Passage, it was just too dark to see across the square.

[Sunny Delight]

I think Kozminski was an after thought, nothing has survived in the case files to even hint that he was a suspect.
In fact, towards the end of the murders (assuming Kelly was the last), on 23rd Oct. Anderson wrote:

"That a crime of this kind should have been committed without any clue being supplied by the criminal, is unusual, but that five successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique in the annals of crime."

Which is pretty damning against the candidacy of Kozminski.
This remark by Anderson was penned about 2 weeks before the Kelly murder, and surviving records do not indicate Kozminski was in any way suspected of that murder. Also, given the fact he was only 23 yrs old in 1888, and that we have no suspects described so young, just in my opinion adds to the fallacy of any suspicion against him.
As his name is officially recorded, we can only assume suspicion was raised against him long after the murders.
And, what that suspicion was based on is anyone's guess.




Yes, and we know Abberline still suspected Astrachan (on the assumption he was Joseph Isaacs), in the first week of December 1888.
So, it makes it difficult to accept any police officials had Kozminski in mind so late in that year.

The police did not create suspect lists, once they realized the existence of a suspect, they went all out to hunt him down to eliminate him from their enquiries.
Suspicions about Kozminski, and any I.D. parades had to have occurred after the Kelly murder, and probably based more on circumstantial evidence than factual clues.

Kosminski may have been an afterthought or maybe his name was already in Police files as a person of interest, we don't know. The probability is that he came to the attention of Police much later. In saying that did McNaughton take three names from Police files whilst writing his memorandum?

That however does not really matter. Whoever Kosminski was, Aaron or not, he was seen by Robert Anderson as guilty based on the identification described by Swanson. We get bogged down in the intricacies but the two most senior Officers on the case were involved in this idenfifation process. That shows how seriously it was taken.

The fact Kosminski appears in two separate instances- named by two very senior Policemen is not to be dismissed. If it was Aaron much of the case is flimsy in the extreme by today's standards. However both McNaughton and Swanson make errors in regards Aaron Kosminski, if it was him they spoke of. Some fits, others dont so we can't say with certainty if they were right or wrong.

I would imagine the Police had persons of interest, much like today. Not suspects but people they wished to speak with in order to eliminate them from enquiries.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We know Watkins found the body at 1.44 am, having previously been in the square at 1.30.

Harvey told the Inquest he was in church Passage at "20 to 2" (1.40), but he also said he was at the end of Church Passage "at 18 or 19 minutes to 2" (1.42-1.41).

Lawende said "it would be 25 minutes to two o'clock, when we passed the man and woman".

If those times are accurate, there's roughly 6-7 minutes, for the couple to walk down the passage, cross the square, then the woman being murdered, and mutilated.
That is pretty tight considering there had been no rehearsal.

I tend to favor the statement in the press by James Blenkingsop, a nightwatchman in St. James Place, who at 1.30 am., saw some people pass into the square, and was approached by a well-dressed man (detective?), who asked Blenkingsop if he had seen someone pass through?

Which leaves us with a host of questions, but if this encounter has any merit, it would offer a little more time for the murder to take place. Almost 10 minutes, as opposed to 6-7 minutes.
In this scenario, Lawende did not see Eddowes, it must have been some other couple.
Lawende was not allowed to view the body because he said he did not see the face of the victim. He only identified the clothes.

A relevant question for me Wick is - when did it rain and when did it stop? I’m working from memory here but I believe that the only two people that mentioned rain that night were Lawende and Packer. Packer said that he closed up his shop at 12.30 due to the rain (11.30 was also mentioned though in White’s report to Abberline and Arnold.) Lawende doesn’t mention times in relation to the rain, only that they had intended to leave the club earlier but were prevented by the rain. The two weather reports appear to say that it stopped raining some time after midnight and that any measurement of rain for the Eddowes murder was ‘not applicable,’ suggesting no rain.

Isn't it possible that Lawende had seen rain at around 1.00 and the three went back inside, sat down and continued chatting without realising that the rain had stopped just after 1.00 (or even around 1.00) They then left at just after 1.30.

So was it raining when Eddowes left Bishopsgate Station? If it was then she might (and it’s only a might) have sheltered from the rain. If she hadn’t sheltered from the rain then we have to ask, considering that it was just 400 yards from the station to Mitre Square (a walk of a couple of minutes) why was she still there talking to a man after 1.30?

I think it at least possible Wick that the couple weren’t Eddowes and her killer and that by the time they were spotted Eddowes was already lying dead in Mitre Square.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

I'm not sure that we know so much about Chapman's murder. Phillips said that he estimated around 15 minutes to visit the injuries upon Chapman. But he also said that he thought those injuries were inflicted under the cover of darkness. Fifteen minutes is a long time to be exposed in broad daylight subject to an amphitheatre of potential witnesses.

That said, I agree that the time generally supposed for the Eddowes injuries seems to be insufficient. Resort has to be made to either Trevor's theory, to which I am not opposed, or that the perpetrator was skilled and very experienced in dissection procedures. I believe that this level of required competence exceeds that possessed by popular named suspects.

Cheers, George

There is another theory George .Compare Mary Kellys room to Eddows murder scene .

[Wickerman]

. . It seems almost certain that Harvey was pretty much looking straight at the Ripper at the point Harvey was facing down the alley towards the square.

So one must question why the killer didn't flee if there was a policeman directly within his line of sight.

We know Watkins found the body at 1.44 am, having previously been in the square at 1.30.

Harvey told the Inquest he was in church Passage at "20 to 2" (1.40), but he also said he was at the end of Church Passage "at 18 or 19 minutes to 2" (1.42-1.41).

Lawende said "it would be 25 minutes to two o'clock, when we passed the man and woman".

If those times are accurate, there's roughly 6-7 minutes, for the couple to walk down the passage, cross the square, then the woman being murdered, and mutilated.
That is pretty tight considering there had been no rehearsal.

I tend to favor the statement in the press by James Blenkingsop, a nightwatchman in St. James Place, who at 1.30 am., saw some people pass into the square, and was approached by a well-dressed man (detective?), who asked Blenkingsop if he had seen someone pass through?

Which leaves us with a host of questions, but if this encounter has any merit, it would offer a little more time for the murder to take place. Almost 10 minutes, as opposed to 6-7 minutes.
In this scenario, Lawende did not see Eddowes, it must have been some other couple.
Lawende was not allowed to view the body because he said he did not see the face of the victim. He only identified the clothes.

[Wickerman]

There is not one suspect who was named that really has any evidence against them. Robert Anderson was forthright in his opinion that the case was solved to his satisfaction.. .

I think Kozminski was an after thought, nothing has survived in the case files to even hint that he was a suspect.
In fact, towards the end of the murders (assuming Kelly was the last), on 23rd Oct. Anderson wrote:

"That a crime of this kind should have been committed without any clue being supplied by the criminal, is unusual, but that five successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique in the annals of crime."

Which is pretty damning against the candidacy of Kozminski.
This remark by Anderson was penned about 2 weeks before the Kelly murder, and surviving records do not indicate Kozminski was in any way suspected of that murder. Also, given the fact he was only 23 yrs old in 1888, and that we have no suspects described so young, just in my opinion adds to the fallacy of any suspicion against him.
As his name is officially recorded, we can only assume suspicion was raised against him long after the murders.
And, what that suspicion was based on is anyone's guess.

Donald Swanson elaborated that a person was identified by a so far unidentified witness, who did so without hesitation. This suspect was called Kosminski. The finer details we are unsure about, where this took place, who was there, when exactly did it occur and who was the witness.

Yes, and we know Abberline still suspected Astrachan (on the assumption he was Joseph Isaacs), in the first week of December 1888.
So, it makes it difficult to accept any police officials had Kozminski in mind so late in that year.

The police did not create suspect lists, once they realized the existence of a suspect, they went all out to hunt him down to eliminate him from their enquiries.
Suspicions about Kozminski, and any I.D. parades had to have occurred after the Kelly murder, and probably based more on circumstantial evidence than factual clues.

[Sunny Delight]

There is not one suspect who was named that really has any evidence against them. Robert Anderson was forthright in his opinion that the case was solved to his satisfaction. Donald Swanson elaborated that a person was identified by a so far unidentified witness, who did so without hesitation. This suspect was called Kosminski. The finer details we are unsure about, where this took place, who was there, when exactly did it occur and who was the witness.

But we surely have to take the two most senior officers on the case at their word, that this did occur and that whoever the witness was, they had been honest in identifying Kosminski. I think on deeper exploration much of the case falls apart, if it was Aaron. But it may not have been. So this Kosminski person has to be the best suspect by a distance.

Other names I think are pretty much a waste of time. William Bury could possibly be a candidatd but for me the evidence is very weak. George Chapman is in the conversation but again it's a weak case.

[GBinOz]

It seems extremely likely that Lawrende did indeed see Eddowes just a few minutes before she was murdered, and the man with his back to Lawende was the Ripper.

Hi RD,

Once again I beg to differ. Lawende and friends noticed a couple in the street. Not an unusual occurrence, except that it was afterwards discovered that A woman had been murdered nearby. Lawende identified the unexceptional clothing, not the woman. Consider the possibility of "this is all we have, so we'll go with this".

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’d suggest it at least possible that Harvey didn’t bother going to the bottom of Church Passage. He was sacked on July 1st 1889 but we don’t know why but it’s far from impossible that he might have been the kind of officer who cut corners. A second suggestion (and that’s all that it is) is that maybe the killer saw Harvey’s lamp at the top of Church Passage so he walked away and concealed himself somewhere. If the killer knew that Harvey’s beat didn’t include entering the square then he was ok as long as Harvey didn’t spot the body from the passage. If the killer didn’t know Harvey’s beat he may just have walked into Mitre Street then when he’d heard no whistle he’d have known that he was safe to return to the corpse.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Lewis,

I agree. But the obvious dissection technique remains which can only be aided by more time.

Cheers, George

That's the crux of the entire debate surrounding Eddowes murder.

The killer would have needed time to do what he did.

But not too much time.

Otherwise he would have been caught.


It seems almost certain that Harvey was pretty much looking straight at the Ripper at the point Harvey was facing down the alley towards the square.

So one must question why the killer didn't flee if there was a policeman directly within his line of sight.

The answer seems almost too obvious.

How did the killer know that Harvey couldn't see him?

The Ripper had entered the square via the same alley and as he walked with Eddowes, he had observed that nothing and nobody could be seen in the corner.

Hence why he chose that spot to kill Eddowes.

This was the same entrance into the Square that Lawrende saw a man with Eddowes.

It seems extremely likely that Lawrende did indeed see Eddowes just a few minutes before she was murdered, and the man with his back to Lawrende was the Ripper.

The ripper whilst impulsive, was also clever and calculated, and chose his timing carefully.

The killer was then free to have time with Eddowes between Watkins beats.

But one question arises from this...

How did the Ripper know of Watkins beat, both in terms of timings and route?

Well, 2 answers are most likely...

He either somehow physically saw Watkins leave the square when he was standing with Eddowes.

Or...he must have known Watkins beat timings and route in advance.

And that denotes an intelligent killer with both foresight and the ability to calculate and measure risk.

Which doesn't sound like the behaviour of a lunatic who ate from the gutter.

I think that there has always been a focus on whether the killer chose his victims randomly, or in advance, but the more poignant question is... did he choose his locations too?

I think so, based on the murder of Eddowes.