Who really witnessed Jack the Ripper?

[Harry D]

Of all the people allegedly seen with the Ripper victims (or supposed victims, if you're so inclined) shortly before their deaths, which of them do you think is the most likely to have been the killer? No doubt this has been done before, but another head count won't hurt.

Apologies for anyone left out.

[pinkmoon]

The best witness was the one who never came forward some one must have seen something but never came forward I think of all the known witnesses I think p.c smith is the best.

[GUT]

Of all the people allegedly seen with the Ripper victims (or supposed victims, if you're so inclined) shortly before their deaths, which of them do you think is the most likely to have been the killer? No doubt this has been done before, but another head count won't hurt.

Apologies for anyone left out.

G'day Harry

Personally I have little confidence that any of those were the killer, in some cases there are real doubts if it was even the victim that was reported.

[lynn cates]

F L M

Hello Harry. Thanks for starting this poll.

Put me down for Mrs. Long's "foreign looking" man.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

I think in the case of who may have seen the Ripper, it comes down to whom you believe he killed and how strongly you believe the related witnesses. In my case, I would vote for Cadosche as the person most likely to have been in extremely close proximity to the "Ripper".... while he killed.

I think if Sailor Man killed Kate, then that's the best sighting by a witness.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Harry. Thanks for starting this poll.

Put me down for Mrs. Long's "foreign looking" man.

Cheers.
LC

As for the poll question.....Ill have what Lynn is having.

Cheers

[TomTomKent]

Of those Lipsky seems the most likely, but most likely of an unlikely bunch. Certainly many of those witnessed would b useful witnesses themselves.

[Patrick S]

I tend to discount Elizabeth Long. Perhaps unfairly, but I cannot shake my first reeaction upon reading her account of events on 8 September 1888 - some 25 years ago. One thing struck me as unusual. It continues leap off the page at me, even today. Long states that it was not unusual to see men and women together at that place and time of day. Yet Observing the couple before dawn, she was able to note the following:

- the woman she saw was Annie Chapman;
- the man (whose face she did not see) was "dark";
- the man wore a dark coat (although, of this she was uncertain);
- the man wore a brown deer stalker hat;
- the man "looked to be" over 40;
- the man was "a little" taller than Chapman;
- the man had a "shabby genteel" appearance;
- they both appeared sober;
- the man asked."Will you?";
- the woman replied, "Yes".

She states that this was a somewhat normal occurance for her, on that spot, in the early hours: seeing a man and woman in conversation. Yet she is able to provide such detail. Did she see other men and women talking together that morning? Did she hear snippets of their conversations, as well? Did she remember of the details of their appearance as vividly? For me, it's hard to believe.

Albert Cadosh is another matter entirely.

In my opinion, Chapman's murder occured around 5:15 am. I believe Cadosh had the timing right. I suspect he heard the murder actually occur ("No!" - 5:15 am), and the murderer alone with the body in the backyard of number 29Hanbury (something "touched/fell against" the fence - 5:20ish am). I trust the time he gives for his leaving the house as 5:32 am. Therefore, I'd agree with the previous poster. Cadosh was in close proximity to the murderer as he went about his business.

If an ear witness can be counted, he's my pick.

[Jon Guy]

She states that this was a somewhat normal occurance for her, on that spot, in the early hours: seeing a man and woman in conversation. Yet she is able to provide such detail. Did she see other men and women talking together that morning? Did she hear snippets of their conversations, as well? Did she remember of the details of their appearance as vividly? For me, it's hard to believe.

Mrs Long would have heard about the murder and all it`s lurid details within an hour of her passing down Hanbury Street.
Considering, she had just walked past the scene of the murder, the details of what she saw remained with her.

[John G]

I would really like to say Israel Schwartz as he at least witnessed an assault and appears to have been believed by the police. However, there are some issues with timings and it is by no means certain that Stride was a Ripper Victim. I'll therefore go with Elizabeth Long, although I don't believe Jack was over 40, however, as she hardly saw the man's face I believe this is an excusable mistake.

[Patrick S]

I would really like to say Israel Schwartz as he at least witnessed an assault and appears to have been believed by the police. However, there are some issues with timings and it is by no means certain that Stride was a Ripper Victim. I'll therefore go with Elizabeth Long, although I don't believe Jack was over 40, however, as she hardly saw the man's face I believe this is an excusable mistake.

I include Stride as a Ripper victim, for too many reasons to list here. Thus, I think Schwartz is a good choice. I agree with what Rob House suggests in 'Prime Suspect': that it was actually Schwartz himself that interrupted Stride's murder.

Schwartz discribes the attacker as 5'5", around 30, fair complexion, dark hair and (small) mustache, full face, broad shoulders, dark trousers and jacket, wearing a black cap with a peak.

If we accept Stride as a Ripper victim and we accept that Schwartz saw the Ripper in the act of killing Stride, then we must accept Schwartz's description.

But then we have Josephy Lawende.

It's generally accepted without much debate that Eddowes was a victim of Jack the Ripper (i.e. the same man who killed Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly - at minimum). Lawende saw a man with Stride just outside Church passage which lead to Mitre Square (where Eddowes' body would be found at 1:45am)at around 1:35am, about 50 minutes after Schwartz saw the man he described attacking Stride.

Joseph Lawende described the man as around 30, 5'7" or 5'8", fair complexion, fair mustache, salt and pepper jacket, grey cloth cap with peak, red(ish) handkerchief tied in knot around his neck, with the appearance of a sailor.

Could they have seen the same man? The biggest discrepencies are with respect to height (Schwartz: 5'5" and Lawende: 5'7" or 5'8") and hair color (Schwartz: dark and Lawende: fair). Schwartz says the man wore a dark coat and hat. Lawende saw his man wearing a salt and pepper coat and grey hat (these descriptions are not so radically different they they could be describing the same coat and hat).

I've kicked this around for years now. If one believes in the 'Double Event', then one has to believe that Lawende and Schwartz are describing the same man. Of course, many things can inform an individuals ability to judge things like height, indivdual ability to recall details, lighting conditions, persepctive, and their own personal biases (i.e. what they may notice vs. what someone else might notice). For instance, Lawende saw a red handkerchief. Schwartz did not. Perhaps the killer was wearing the handkerchief both during his attack on Stride and during his conversation with Eddowes. But only one man, Lawende, saw it and remembered it, for whatever reason.

Then we can go in another direction. Could the killer have gone somewhere and changed his clothes after the murder of Stride? Could he have grabbed a red hankerchief, a new coat (salt and pepper) and hat (grey) and headed back out onto the streets? Its worth considering in that we know that the killer, upon leaving Mitre Square, headed back toward Berner Street (where Stride was killed), leaving a piece of Eddowes apron in Goulston street. Was he headed back to the same spot that afforded him a few moments of security and a place to wash up and grab some fresh clothes after he dealt with Stride?

The answer is simple!......I have no idea.

[John G]

Hi Patrick,

Yes, I would tend to agree that Stride is a Ripper victim. I also agree that Schwartz's and Lawende's suspect could be the same man. I don't think the height discrepancy is necessarily a problem: some people are not very good at estimating such things and both Schwartz and Lawende were trying to recall information from memory some time later.

Regarding dress. It is surely possible that the killer could have had a change of clothing after the Stride murder. Perhaps he decided to alter his appearance, fearing a police manhunt- maybe equipped with Schwartz's description- and attacking his next victim in a different jurisdiction was a further strategy to throw the police of the scent.

However, although I largely believe Schwartz's account I wonder whether Lawende may have embellished or exaggerated what he saw.which might explain the red handkerchief , for example. Thus, the Evening News of 9 October, 1888, quotes Harry Harris opining that neither Lawende or Levy saw any more than he did- and he, of course, appears to have seen very little. And, of course, it was Levy who took an initial interest in the couple, not Lawende, but he doesn't seem to have noticed much either.

In my opinion, Lawende may have been someone who was eager to please and who might have had a natural deference to authority. Or perhaps he was someone who liked to be the center of attention, which subsequent developments might imply: of course, many believe he subsequently identified Kosminski as the man he saw and, apparently, he also may have identified Grant Grainger as well! All this despite the fact that at the time, years earlier, he said he doubted if he would recognize the man again!

I think by this time he was reveling in his status as the police's prime witness, if that's what he was, with his credibility totally undermined.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Patrick,

Yes, I would tend to agree that Stride is a Ripper victim. I also agree that Schwartz's and Lawende's suspect could be the same man. I don't think the height discrepancy is necessarily a problem: some people are not very good at estimating such things and both Schwartz and Lawende were trying to recall information from memory some time later.

Regarding dress. It is surely possible that the killer could have had a change of clothing after the Stride murder. Perhaps he decided to alter his appearance, fearing a police manhunt- maybe equipped with Schwartz's description- and attacking his next victim in a different jurisdiction was a further strategy to throw the police of the scent.

However, although I largely believe Schwartz's account I wonder whether Lawende may have embellished or exaggerated what he saw.which might explain the red handkerchief , for example. Thus, the Evening News of 9 October, 1888, quotes Harry Harris opining that neither Lawende or Levy saw any more than he did- and he, of course, appears to have seen very little. And, of course, it was Levy who took an initial interest in the couple, not Lawende, but he doesn't seem to have noticed much either.

In my opinion, Lawende may have been someone who was eager to please and who might have had a natural deference to authority. Or perhaps he was someone who liked to be the center of attention, which subsequent developments might imply: of course, many believe he subsequently identified Kosminski as the man he saw and, apparently, he also may have identified Grant Grainger as well! All this despite the fact that at the time, years earlier, he said he doubted if he would recognize the man again!

I think by this time he was reveling in his status as the police's prime witness, if that's what he was, with his credibility totally undermined.

Hi John and Patrick
Good posts. witness descriptions are notoriously sketchy. However, on the night of the double event not only Schwartz and Lawende but Marshall and PC smith all describe a man with a peaked cap. while things like height and hair color, type of jacket etc can be easily mistaken, the common denominator in all of them is a peaked cap, which I think would be harder to mistake and the easiest to remember. add that to the chances of four solid witnesses all saying they saw a man with a peaked cap-what are the chances they mistakenly describe the same specific thing or that its several different men/suspects all just happen to be wearing a peaked cap? add to that there was newspaper report of a man in church street at the approx. same time acting suspiciously who was also described wearing a peaked/sailors cap. This story came out before any of the other witness descriptions were published!

To me its pretty overwhelming that the ripper was wearing a peaked cap that night and clears up a lot of sub mysteries, mainly:

stride was a ripper victim
scwhartz was telling the truth and saw strides killer
Marshall,lawende and probably smith all saw the ripper.

If the similar circumstances happened today and instead of a peaked cap, or salors cap, a baseball cap was described, which I am sure is at least as common today, then I am pretty sure the detectives would probably conclude that the killer was wearing a baseball cap.

[Harry D]

I'm not convinced "Lipski" was our man. Would the Ripper really have accosted a woman in plain sight like that? In the view of not one, but two possible witnesses? And wasn't "Lipski" trying to pull Stride AWAY from the gateway, not into it? It's conceivable that Pipeman might have been in on it, but there's no real evidence outside of this to suggest that the Ripper had an accomplice.

I'm sure it's been suggested before, but what if "Lipski" had roughed Stride up and left her in the street, then Pipeman swooped in and killed her, but not before making sure Schwartz was off the scene?

[Dr. John Watson]

I'll go along with Israel Schwartz as the best witness, having actually witnessed an assault on a known victim within 15 minutes of her death. His description is close to that of the man Joseph Lawende saw an hour later, in conversation with Eddowes only minutes before her murder. The best suspect would be the man (men) seen by these two witnesses.

Dr. John