Kłosowski's appearance

[Sam Flynn]

HI Sam
but if he looked the same in 1902 than he did in his earlier years, dosnt that mean he looked older than he was in his earlier years?

Wolff Levisohn was commenting on Kłosowski's general appearance in order to confirm his identification of the defendant; he wasn't saying that he hadn't aged. Besides, a 22 year-old is still in the flush of youth; he's not going to look like a man in 30s, like the majority of Ripper witnesses reported seeing, and none - as far as I recall - reported seeing a man in his early twenties. Furthermore, "broad-shouldered" is "broad-shouldered", "medium build" is "medium build", and "stout" is "stout". Whoever Long, Schwartz, Brown, Lawende, Lewis et al saw on those fateful nights, it wasn't Seweryn Kłosowski, we can be fairly certain about that.

Heck, we don't know for sure that he even lived in the area at the time.

[Batman]

Age is probably the least reliable component of any offender description.

You even demonstrated this when you said...

Long (about 40), Schwartz (30-35), Lawende (30-35), Hutchinson (34-35).

That's a variation of 10 years. 30-40.

What it tells us is that there was a lot of variation in estimating his age. Which is to be expected.

[Sam Flynn]

You can't tell by his 'build'.

I think we can. He certainly doesn't look like the type to have been a "stout" person at any time in his life. And, certainly, his shoulders would not have shrunk since 1888, nor would he have appeared to be in his 30s during that year.

By the way, you have found a source that seems to claim that he looked the same in 1902 as he did in earlier years.

It comes from the account of the Southwark Police Court hearing published in HL Adam's Trial of George Chapman.

"The witness [Levisohn] ceased to see the accused from 1890 until 1894, when he saw him as an assistant at 5 West Green Road, South Tottenham. [...] The witness lost sight of him for some little time, and next saw him at a shop opposite Bruce Grove Station. This was his [Kłosowski's] own shop. [...] When at Tottenham the accused could talk a little English.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sydney: 'You saw him at Tottenham. What sort of man was [he]?'

Levisohn: 'He was la de da, then; with black coat, patent boots, and high hat. There he sits. He has not changed a bit...'

Stanislaus Rauch/Baderski [Kłosowski's brother-in-law] testified as follows: "He had not seen the accused from [1892/93] until he saw him in the dock; an interval of ten years. The accused had not changed in appearance"

So why didn't you mention that when discussing how we have no idea what he was wearing in '1888'. Does your source specifically say they are just addressing his physique?

I never claimed they were just addressing his physique, but it's quite clear that his overall appearance had changed very little.

Note the bit in red, by the way. Levisohn said that Kłosowski could "talk a little English" in 1894, which implies that when they first met (probably 1889/90) Kłosowski's grasp of English was cruder still, if not non-existent. How far do we think Jack the Ripper would have got in terms of duping a potential victim in 1888, if he could only manage a little English six years later? And, before someone comes up with the counter-argument that it doesn't take much to signify one's intentions to an "unfortunate", JTR certainly seems to have engaged both Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes in some sort of conversation before luring them to their deaths and, if Hutchinson can be trusted, the same would apply in spades to Mary Kelly's killer.

[Sam Flynn]

That's a variation of 10 years. 30-40.

What it tells us is that there was a lot of variation in estimating his age. Which is to be expected.

Anyone should have been able to easily distinguish a 21 year-old youth from someone who, in Victorian terms, was practically middle-aged.

[Jon Guy]

Note the bit in red, by the way. Levisohn said that Kłosowski could "talk a little English" in 1894, which implies that when they first met (probably 1889/90) Kłosowski's grasp of English was cruder still, if not non-existent. How far do we think Jack the Ripper would have got in terms of duping a potential victim in 1888, if he could only manage a little English six years later? And, before someone comes up with the counter-argument that it doesn't take much to signify one's intentions to an "unfortunate", JTR certainly seems to have engaged both Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes in some sort of conversation before luring them to their deaths and, if Hutchinson can be trusted, the same would apply in spades to Mary Kelly's killer.

Will you ?

[Sam Flynn]

Will you ?

I hardly think that's all that was said. What else passed between the man and Annie Chapman before and after Mrs Long walked by? What else passed between them if, as is possible, he didn't happen to pick her up right outside #29 but elsewhere? And, if #29 happened to be the only pick-up point, are we to believe that JTR simply loomed up on Dark Annie and uttered just two syllables, before heading out back and killing her?

[Jon Guy]

I hardly think that's all that was said. What else passed between the man and Annie Chapman before and after Mrs Long walked by? What else passed between them if, as is possible, he didn't miraculously happen to pick her up right outside #29 but elsewhere? And, if this happened to be the only pick-up point, are we to believe that JTR loomed up on Dark Annie and uttered just two syllables, before heading out back and killing her?

Possibly, but that`s all the witness heard, and it would have been suffice.
Man with limited English walks up to woman and says will you ?

According to Mrs Long, the woman approached the man outside No. 29

[Sam Flynn]

Possibly, but that`s all the witness heard, and it would have been suffice.

The witness was walking past, and wasn't she also on a bit of a mission? Be that as it may, there's nothing odd about the suggestion that what Mrs Long heard was a mere fragment of a conversation. "Will you?" on its own seems somewhat minimalist, to put it mildly. And, let's not forget, Long thought the man she saw was 40 or older.

Which two syllables came from the lips of the 30-35 year old man on whose chest Eddowes' rested her hand, I wonder, before, during and after Lawende and company walked by?

[Jon Guy]

Be that as it may, there's nothing odd about the suggestion that what Mrs Long heard was a mere fragment of a conversation. "Will you?"

No, but we were talking about a man with limited English, and Mrs Long didn`t hear anymore conversation. For the sake of accuracy why create more from this encounter ?

on its own seems somewhat minimalist, to put it mildly. And, let's not forget, Long thought the man she saw was 40 or older.

Yes, she saw the back of his neck.

Which two syllables came from the lips of the 30-35 year old man on whose chest Eddowes' rested her hand, I wonder, before, during and after Lawende and company walked by?

Again Will you ? would have been enough for Eddowes to understand.
Some people just don`t talk much.

[John G]

I have a question regarding Mrs Long's suspect. She, of course, described him as being over 40 (although she also says she didn't see is face but noticed he was "dark", which strikes me as a bit odd). Now, of course today that would be tantamount to saying the man was middle aged. However, in 1888 40 would have been around someone's life expectancy, so could she feasibly have been suggesting that the man was aged?

That said, I suspect that the high level of infant mortality had a major effect on life expectancies. Moreover, Coroner Baxter asked if he looked like a dock labourer or workman, so I doubt he had the impression the man was old and decrepit!

By the way, Colin Roberts produced some intetesting statistics on life expectancies of the period: https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=10764

[Sam Flynn]

Again Will you ? would have been enough for Eddowes to understand.
Some people just don`t talk much.

We don't know how long that encounter lasted, but the chances that it only took place just as Long was passing by would be rather unlikely. Let's say that, between the time Long first saw "Annie" (if it was she), passed by and went on her way, "Annie" and "JTR" were together for 20 seconds. Did they stare into each others eyes for the duration, punctuated only by a "Will you?" and a solitary "Yes"? What of Eddowes outside Church Passage? Stride and her drinking buddy or BSM? Kelly and Blotchy or Astrakhan?

Perhaps Jack was a very taciturn Ripper, but I doubt very much that a killer as audacious and elusive as he was could have got by without a reasonably good grasp of the vernacular, if only enough to put his victims at their ease when so much popular suspicion was aimed at "foreigners".

[Batman]

Imagine a suspect is pulled in for being the ripper.

They can't speak English or their English is really bad. Does that mean they are exonerated because of lack of English speaking skills?

What if they are under 30? Does that mean they are exonerated because they are not between 30 and 40?

[Sam Flynn]

They can't speak English or their English is really bad. Does that mean they are exonerated because of lack of English speaking skills?

Not on its own, because it's just possible that we've got a grunting, miming, monosyllabic killer on our hands. That said, I would count his poor English as a slight mark against him.

What if they are under 30?

Not just "under 30", but twenty one, for goodness' sake!

[John G]

Imagine a suspect is pulled in for being the ripper.

They can't speak English or their English is really bad. Does that mean they are exonerated because of lack of English speaking skills?

What if they are under 30? Does that mean they are exonerated because they are not between 30 and 40?

No. I think as regards English, The Ripper would only need to have a rudementary grasp of the language-the odd word/phrase. As for how old a supect may have been, some people are just terrible at estimating ages. And that includes me! The other day, for instance, I underestimated someone's age by over 10 years, and that's someone I know well. I've been known to overestimate by a similar amount as well. And if I only got a glimpse of someone in poor light I could be way out with my estimate!

I would also note that Lawende estimated his suspect to be around 30, but then apparently identified Kosminski, even though he would have been only 23-24 at the time.

[Batman]

No. I think as regards English, The Ripper would only need to have a rudementary grasp of the language-the odd word/phrase. As for how old a supect may have been, some people are just terrible at estimating ages. And that includes me! The other day, for instance, I underestimated someone's age by over 10 years, and that's someone I know well. I've been known to overestimate by a similar amount as well. And if I only got a glimpse of someone in poor light I could be way out with my estimate!

In short, you don't disqualify them because of age estimates. This is because in biology age is just revolutions around the sun and has ZERO bearing on biological development in humans beyond getting sunlight and night (and supporting the ecosystem).

Maturation in developmental biology is mostly genetic. There are some environmental influences, but basically, teenagers can have a full mustache, some even have beards and for others, they won't get a good shaggy look until they are in their 20s and some never at all. Then we have just environmental influences on top of it, such as nutrition at a young age, throughout life, how much wind or sun roasted their faces working on ships or in the fields or not, etc, etc.

Whitechapel was a hard area. Nearly everyone there looks ten years old than what they should be anyway. Just look at the photographs.

That's all before we have a person getting a casual glance at someone who may or may not be JtR and then is recalling it from .... yeah... human memory.

So yeah, of course, we should just turn away suspects who don't meet the age criteria or can't speak the language. A sure way to help narrow down that pool of suspects right?