A Case of Misattribution?

[Hunter]

It was the Coroner who mentioned the possibility of a copycat killing.
Didnt seem so implausible to him.

Hi Phil,

Yes, and that was the point I raised earlier when Simon asserted that Baxter was a 'double eventer.' Clearly he was not. However, the context in which Baxter made that statement has to be considered. If Kate Eddowes was killed by the same hand that killed Annie Chapman, then his 'Burke and Hare' theory was implausible. He could either admit that he was wrong in his assumption about the Nichols and Chapman murders, or he could separate the Eddowes murder from them to save face. It would have been totally out of character for Wynne Baxter to admit to possibly being mistaken about anything, so he naturally chose the latter course.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Might it not be better to first establish that a seaside ID actually took place?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

My first choice:

George Hutchinson´s suspect. Astrakhan- Man is my witness.

Regards.

This smells like a wind-up line

The witness most certainly was not Hutchinson, he left the scene about 3:00 am, Prater was sure it was "after 4:00 am" when she heard the cry of "murder".

Either Kelly was already dead by 2:00 am (per Bond's report) or, she was murdered around 4:00 am, neither conclusion puts Hutchinson in a position to have been the most likely person to have seen the murderer.
Anything could have happened between the time he left Millers Court at 3:00 and the cry of "murder" after 4:00 am.

No, the witness was not Hutchinson, and if you think Astrachan was the witness, boy have you set a task for yourself

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

shallow

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

I am trying to imagine a thug, hand grasping knife, ready to strike. He hears a noise. He is interrupted. No cutting happens.

Similarly with a cut throat but no mutilations.

But I can't understand how interruption causes a cut to be more shallow.

Cheers.
LC

[S.Brett]

S.Brett, post #85:-


Highly unlikely, SB. To begin with, Lawende saw very little and remembered even less, as a consequence of which he would have been all but useless as a prosecution witness. Additionally,Swanson not only claimed that Kosminski was positively identified at the Seaside Home, he also asserted a prior interest on the part of City investigators, who went so far as to mount a round the clock surveillance operation on Kosminski.

Despite the fact that Major Smith was desperate to lay hands on the Whitechapel Murderer, he later admitted to having had no clue as to his identity. Yet if City detectives had gone to the extreme of mounting a round the clock undercover surveillance operation on Kosminski, it stands to reason that Major Smith not only knew about it, but would have called upon Lawende to view Kosminski, whether in an overt or covert capacity. Either way, Lawende clearly did not identify Kosminski as the man he had seen with Eddowes. He couldn’t have done, otherwise Kosminski would have been arrested by City investigators in connection with the Mitre Square murder. This being the case he couldn’t have been the witness who unhesitatingly identified Kosminski at the Seaside Home shortly thereafter. But this goes without saying, since nothing about Lawende’s testimony could have resulted in a conviction in its own right.

Hello Garry,

everything you say makes sense.

Personally, I think neither Lawende nor Schwartz identified the suspect.

My first choice:

George Hutchinson´s suspect. Astrakhan- Man is my witness.

Regards.