Jack the Ripper At Last? by Helena Wojtczak

[Abby Normal]

I have posted this before, but here is a test for anyone reading this... on the reliability of witness statements and estimating ages. Here are some photos from the City of London Police museum...

If people want to guess the ages of the following people, then afterwards I will post the correct answers.

Rob H

I'll try!
1. 22
2. 14
3. 36
4. 19

[robhouse]

George Chapman was only 23 years old in 1888.

Only if we believe that not one single witness truly saw the killer, not Mrs Long, not Lawende, not Schwartz, can we begin to accept that a young 23 year old killer was on the loose.
Which then begs the question, why bother trying to find parallels between any witness sighting and George Chapman - they are all irrelevant.

Kozminski suffers from the same problem, in my opinion, he was also only 23 years old in 1888.

For those who prefer to accept that age can be deceptive it may be of consequence to note that when the victims were found and still lay unidentified they were all assumed to look younger than they actually were.
Yes, age was deceptive, but in the wrong direction.

If all the witnesses saw a suspect who looked variously between 28 and about 40 yrs old, then judging by the erroneous estimates of the victims, the killer was likely older than he appeared, not younger.
To accept otherwise is to adopt a view which contradicts the only examples we are able to use as a measure.

Call me a party pooper.

I have posted this before, but here is a test for anyone reading this... on the reliability of witness statements and estimating ages. Here are some photos from the City of London Police museum...

If people want to guess the ages of the following people, then afterwards I will post the correct answers.

Rob H

[Abby Normal]

George Chapman was only 23 years old in 1888.

Only if we believe that not one single witness truly saw the killer, not Mrs Long, not Lawende, not Schwartz, can we begin to accept that a young 23 year old killer was on the loose.
Which then begs the question, why bother trying to find parallels between any witness sighting and George Chapman - they are all irrelevant.

Kozminski suffers from the same problem, in my opinion, he was also only 23 years old in 1888.

For those who prefer to accept that age can be deceptive it may be of consequence to note that when the victims were found and still lay unidentified they were all assumed to look younger than they actually were.
Yes, age was deceptive, but in the wrong direction.

If all the witnesses saw a suspect who looked variously between 28 and about 40 yrs old, then judging by the erroneous estimates of the victims, the killer was likely older than he appeared, not younger.
To accept otherwise is to adopt a view which contradicts the only examples we are able to use as a measure.

Call me a party pooper.

Hi Wick
Maybe he simply looked older than he was.

The main problem for me with the witness decriptions are that none describe a man with an accent, which chapman surely had.

[Observer]

Evening Amanda,I personally have never taken any of the so called eyewitnesses seriously when we consider the lighting conditions and fleeting glimpses and doubts if the right people were been observed we can't take any of them seriously.I'm not saying that no one saw our killer I think someone must have but didn't come forward.

Hi Pinkmoon

Considering you comments, surely, if someone did see the killer and did not report it, then their description would be as worthless as the witnesses who did come forward? Considering of course the poor lighting conditions, and fleeting glimpses, you allude to.

Observer

[Observer]

I think that there are many plausible candidates for Jack the Ripper, some more than others, but proving that any of them was him is the problem. I agree that the families can be confident that that is not going to happen but it would be interesting to find out what their reactions would be if ever it did.

Hi Amanda. That of course open to speculation. How would you react?

Observer

[Amanda Sumner]

What you prefer to believe, apparently, is that in gaslight women looked younger, but men looked older?
OK

Hurray for gaslight then.

Did I say that? I said it would be difficult to say, precisely, how old someone was at night, by gas light, seen briefly from any distance and one could only guess at someone's age in that situation. Someone of 23 could look older as well as someone described to be around 40 could actually be in his 30's..
Anyone who has died often looks younger than their years because the facial muscles relax. At least the victims were studied and seen in daylight, but as you, yourself, say the ages were still estimated wrongly.
I think it's more important to note that Chapman does not fit with most of the descriptions witness's gave. Of course, there is no certainty that anyone actually saw Jack the Ripper. It's all a matter of opinion, really.

Pinkmoon: I read that your high ranking policeman got his information either from the family or the rumour started because of the timing of his suicide. I can't think why the family would do that, so I think it had more to do with the latter, but as you say it is odd.

[Hunter]

Call me a party pooper.

You're a party pooper.

If Francis Tumblety can be Jack the Ripper, despite witness statements and the caveats that have been well noted, anybody can. Throw the witness statements out, or minimalize them, or make excuses... whatever's necessary unless your suspect might fit in. Then go for it whole hog. Or even better, make the witness out as Jack the Ripper. That's how Ripperology works.

Just make a freakin' murderer out of somebody.

[Sam Flynn]

if we are talking about Chapman, as an example, his looks did not change much between 1888 and 1903, according to witness testimony at his trial.

Whilst he overall appearance may not have changed, Amanda, the witness was probably not commenting about how old he looked in 1888.

[Wickerman]

I'm not sure that I agree with you there, Wickerman, because, if we are talking about Chapman, as an example, his looks did not change much between 1888 and 1903, according to witness testimony at his trial. I think it must have been very difficult to give an age anyway, late at night with only street light to see.

What you prefer to believe, apparently, is that in gaslight women looked younger, but men looked older?
OK

Hurray for gaslight then.

[pinkmoon]

Pinkmoon: I've never really considered Druit to be a serious suspect. Mainly because there is nothing, really, to make him one. As Bridewell pointed out, quite rightly,that unless he was our killer he was just a barrister and schoolmaster who, in my opinion, had quite a few problems of his own! I'm not sure why anyone thought up that he could be our Jack, perhaps because of the timing of his suicide? He left a note to say that he was worried about going mad, and there was mental illness in his family, so it is feasible that he ended his life because of that. In those days mental illness was greatly feared because no one understood it and his mother was in an asylum at the time. If he was, indeed, a homosexual then that would have further convinced him that he was depraved. The rumours your family heard may have stemmed from this incident or it was just a rumour that had circulated as, I'm sure, there were a lot of rumours then about who Jack the Ripper was , as there is now.
Chapman, on the other-hand, is a much stronger suspect, although I don't think he was our killer either. He did live locally, he was 'a nasty piece of work', had some medical training and quite capable of killing women, as he proved later on his life. Levy is another strong suspect and in my opinion, a better one but proving it was him, or anyone is impossible!
This is one of the reasons why I am looking forward to reading Helena's book, apart from my own personal ones, she is a historian and will only deal with facts. I'm sure that she may form her own opinions while researching those facts but at least she will not go into flights of fantasy as some books that have been written, do.

The most puzzling thing about druitt is macnaughton who named him.Mr Mac seems to be a descent well respected high ranking police officer for him to name druitt without any sort of proof seems strange.

[pinkmoon]

I'm not sure that I agree with you there, Wickerman, because, if we are talking about Chapman, as an example, his looks did not change much between 1888 and 1903, according to witness testimony at his trial. I think it must have been very difficult to give an age anyway, late at night with only street light to see. Especially men with facial hair that hides part of the face. From a distance one would not have seen age lines or wrinkles and, of course, some witness's only got a glimpse.
As for the victims, before they were identified, were dead so facial muscles would have been relaxed and therefore looked younger than they actually were. If one sees anyone asleep, they generally look younger for the same reason.
Whatever else witness statements said, I think the given ages were only estimates and not to be taken as seriously as hair colour, build and what clothes they wore, in my opinion.

Evening Amanda,I personally have never taken any of the so called eyewitnesses seriously when we consider the lighting conditions and fleeting glimpses and doubts if the right people were been observed we can't take any of them seriously.I'm not saying that no one saw our killer I think someone must have but didn't come forward.

[Amanda Sumner]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;
If all the witnesses saw a suspect who looked variously between 28 and about 40 yrs old, then judging by the erroneous estimates of the victims, the killer was likely older than he appeared, not younger[/QUOTE]


I'm not sure that I agree with you there, Wickerman, because, if we are talking about Chapman, as an example, his looks did not change much between 1888 and 1903, according to witness testimony at his trial. I think it must have been very difficult to give an age anyway, late at night with only street light to see. Especially men with facial hair that hides part of the face. From a distance one would not have seen age lines or wrinkles and, of course, some witness's only got a glimpse.
As for the victims, before they were identified, were dead so facial muscles would have been relaxed and therefore looked younger than they actually were. If one sees anyone asleep, they generally look younger for the same reason.
Whatever else witness statements said, I think the given ages were only estimates and not to be taken as seriously as hair colour, build and what clothes they wore, in my opinion.

[Wickerman]

George Chapman was only 23 years old in 1888.

Only if we believe that not one single witness truly saw the killer, not Mrs Long, not Lawende, not Schwartz, can we begin to accept that a young 23 year old killer was on the loose.
Which then begs the question, why bother trying to find parallels between any witness sighting and George Chapman - they are all irrelevant.

Kozminski suffers from the same problem, in my opinion, he was also only 23 years old in 1888.

For those who prefer to accept that age can be deceptive it may be of consequence to note that when the victims were found and still lay unidentified they were all assumed to look younger than they actually were.
Yes, age was deceptive, but in the wrong direction.

If all the witnesses saw a suspect who looked variously between 28 and about 40 yrs old, then judging by the erroneous estimates of the victims, the killer was likely older than he appeared, not younger.
To accept otherwise is to adopt a view which contradicts the only examples we are able to use as a measure.

Call me a party pooper.

[Amanda Sumner]

Further to your mention of the attack on Stride. Jack may have lived locally or further away but, to him, being interrupted was unfinished business. I think the attacks were sexually motivated and therefore he was not satiated enough so attacked again. In other words he was in mid frenzy so whether he was local or had a train to catch mattered not a jot, in my opinion, but you may be right that if he lived further away, it may not have been possible to return the following night. We will never know, but one thing, for sure, he was not afraid of risk or being seen, particularly, when one considers that some victims were found just minutes after they were killed.

[Amanda Sumner]

Pinkmoon: I've never really considered Druit to be a serious suspect. Mainly because there is nothing, really, to make him one. As Bridewell pointed out, quite rightly,that unless he was our killer he was just a barrister and schoolmaster who, in my opinion, had quite a few problems of his own! I'm not sure why anyone thought up that he could be our Jack, perhaps because of the timing of his suicide? He left a note to say that he was worried about going mad, and there was mental illness in his family, so it is feasible that he ended his life because of that. In those days mental illness was greatly feared because no one understood it and his mother was in an asylum at the time. If he was, indeed, a homosexual then that would have further convinced him that he was depraved. The rumours your family heard may have stemmed from this incident or it was just a rumour that had circulated as, I'm sure, there were a lot of rumours then about who Jack the Ripper was , as there is now.
Chapman, on the other-hand, is a much stronger suspect, although I don't think he was our killer either. He did live locally, he was 'a nasty piece of work', had some medical training and quite capable of killing women, as he proved later on his life. Levy is another strong suspect and in my opinion, a better one but proving it was him, or anyone is impossible!
This is one of the reasons why I am looking forward to reading Helena's book, apart from my own personal ones, she is a historian and will only deal with facts. I'm sure that she may form her own opinions while researching those facts but at least she will not go into flights of fantasy as some books that have been written, do.