A Case of Misattribution?

[Tom_Wescott]

Either Swanson was exaggerating or there was another witness we don't know about.

Which do you think is most likely the case?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Project Turdburger

There is sufficient evidence to question why Stride should be a Canonical without relying solely on the lack of mutilations. Her demeanor in death, her loitering near the Mens club for some time without leaving with a man, and a single cut that did not sever both arteries completely allowing for a slower death than the previous women are a few others.

It is abundantly clear that the man that killed both Polly and Annie did so in order to facilitate mutilating them. It would still be clear if 2 separate men did the acts, but the specific nature of those 2 murders sets them apart from any previous stabbing frenzies or later de-engineering, so its highly probable that the first 2 Canonicals were killed by one man with a purpose.

Of course, this completely supports my argument that rational cases for dismissing Stride, based on contemporary evidence and not the above nonsense, or geo profiling voodoo, or interpretations of the attending doctors' times of death, simply do not exist now that research has removed all of the ORIGINAL reasons for dismissing Stride. It comes down to mutilation...Is it more likely that the Ripper - for whatever reason - didn't mutilate Stride, or that two throat-slitters killed prostitutes on the streets of London at roughly the same time? Both scenarios are possible, that I will not argue, but one is more likely than the other.

Having said that, I suppose it's nice that there's at least one thing that the two opposing Cabals as well as the fringe element can agree on. Glad I'm not in that mix.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Rubyretro]

une casquette is a peaked cap in french (baseball or andycap type) hope this helps.

[Cogidubnus]

We have corroboration on two hats,William Marshall and Israel Schwartz both saw someone with a peaked cap. Marshall said "like a sailors" Schwartz nothing I found on a quick look.
Well,it could have been a sailors,or it could have been a kashket, a cap I am reliably informed by wiki of the type worn by poorer Hasidic jews.
Now if Scwartz knew the type of hat but said nowt,does it strengthen the case for him being Andersons witness?

Hi Martin...elementary test...try googling "peaked cap", and you get something with a raised and stiffened peak at the front like a military cap...try googlig kasket (which I think is what you mean) and you get something more akin to the british cloth cap...not that similar I'm afraid.

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

Neither

Swanson stated that the evidence of Anderson’s witness would have been sufficient in itself to secure a conviction. This alone tells us that the witness was privy to more than a mere sighting. In order for Swanson’s observation to hold true, the witness must have seen an actual attack in progress. Thus the witness could not have been Lawende. It must have been Schwartz.

If the evidence of Anderson's witness "would have been sufficient, in itself, to secure a conviction", the witness could not have been Lawende or Schwartz. Either Swanson was exaggerating or there was another witness we don't know about.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wicker

From Anderson(memo recommending Swanson to be put in charge):

"I am convinced the the Whitechapel murder case is one which can be successfully grappled with if it is sytematically taken in hand. I go so far as to say that I could myself in a few days unravel the mystery provided I could spare the time and give undivided attention to it."

Hi Abby.
I thought that quote was attributed to Charles Warren?
"Ultimate", p.110.

And no Garry its not anti-anderson rhetoric. The whole basis of your theory hinges on the credibility/accuracy of those making the statements. I think its clear we need to keep that in mind when we assess what Anderson and his loyal follower Swanson say about it.

Wasn't it Anderson who wrote in October 1888, about there being "five successive murders", in which the police are "not having the slightest clue of any kind".?

Either Anderson's "suspect" surfaced after Kelly's murder, or years later.
Given what we know of how divided the police were after the Kelly murder, this suspect doesn't appear to have surfaced subsequent to those investigations, so when?
The further away we get the less likely this suspect was responsible for the Whitechapel murders.

Jon S.

[Hunter]

Hi Wicker

From Anderson(memo recommending Swanson to be put in charge):

"I am convinced the the Whitechapel murder case is one which can be successfully grappled with if it is sytematically taken in hand. I go so far as to say that I could myself in a few days unravel the mystery provided I could spare the time and give undivided attention to it."

Seems like his hyperbole was also present before-the-fact!

I'm afraid this memo was from Warren, dated Sept. 15, placing Swanson in charge of the case. Anderson had left on the 8th (the day of Chapman's murder) for his vacation.

[Stephen Thomas]

Does misattribution make you go blind?

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

There is sufficient evidence to question why Stride should be a Canonical without relying solely on the lack of mutilations. Her demeanor in death, her loitering near the Mens club for some time without leaving with a man, and a single cut that did not sever both arteries completely allowing for a slower death than the previous women are a few others.

It is abundantly clear that the man that killed both Polly and Annie did so in order to facilitate mutilating them. It would still be clear if 2 separate men did the acts, but the specific nature of those 2 murders sets them apart from any previous stabbing frenzies or later de-engineering, so its highly probable that the first 2 Canonicals were killed by one man with a purpose.

His motive wasnt simply murder....the first step was. And Liz is a one step woman.

Bets regards,

Mike R

[martin wilson]

We have corroboration on two hats,William Marshall and Israel Schwartz both saw someone with a peaked cap. Marshall said "like a sailors" Schwartz nothing I found on a quick look.
Well,it could have been a sailors,or it could have been a kashket, a cap I am reliably informed by wiki of the type worn by poorer Hasidic jews.
Now if Scwartz knew the type of hat but said nowt,does it strengthen the case for him being Andersons witness?
All the best.

[mariab]

Tom,
like you said, the only argument that has some validity for Stride being a "non canonical" is the lack of postmortem mutilations. There are these people who, against all evidence, insist that Stride must have been killed as early as 00.30 and therefore she cannot have been a "Ripper interruptus". All kind of pseudo-evidence is used for this: Mortimer having allegedly spent an entire half hour "in front of" her doorstep, Kozebrodsky stating that Diemschitz called him out to the Yard at 00.40 a.m.. These are the misconceptions that need to be corrected.
But Berner Street continues to be so neglected as a sub-field of Ripperology, that people (and not necessarily newbies!) keep stating the Thomas Coram knife or take Matthew Packer's suspect for granted.

[Tom_Wescott]

What I’m sensing here is the psychological phenomenon known as ‘belief perseverance’ – the tendency to cling to pre-existing convictions even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

This is precisely what I sense whenever I see anyone still arguing that Stride was not a Ripper victim "based on the evidence." Of course, the evidence that has presented over the last few decades to strike Stride from the cannon is 1) Michael Kidney was really her killer (since shown not to be the case, 2) A different knife was used (a mistaken conclusion drawn from evidence about the Coram knife), 3) her killer was left-handed, unlike the Ripper (her killer was not left-handed), ad infinitum. All of us read this stuff in the books over the last few decades, and from it was created a small section of otherwise solid researchers who now have an ingrained belief that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim. Literally every main reason given by authors to dismiss Stride has been proved to be erred or outright wrong, yet in some, there's that 'belief perseverance' which requires more and more imagination to support their argument. But there really just isn't an argument any more except the only legit argument there has ever been - that Stride was not mutilated beyond her throat wound.

One of the more amusing arguments I've read recently has been that Stride couldn't be a Ripper victim because her killer was more capable than the Ripper at cutting throats. I love it! Jack the Ripper, an experienced throat-slitter, couldn't have killed Stride because she was clearly the victim of a more experienced and capable throat-slitter!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Abby Normal]

Which suggests that Anderson's after-the-fact claim was hyperbole.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wicker

From Anderson(memo recommending Swanson to be put in charge):

"I am convinced the the Whitechapel murder case is one which can be successfully grappled with if it is sytematically taken in hand. I go so far as to say that I could myself in a few days unravel the mystery provided I could spare the time and give undivided attention to it."

Seems like his hyperbole was also present before-the-fact!

And no Garry its not anti-anderson rhetoric. The whole basis of your theory hinges on the credibility/accuracy of those making the statements. I think its clear we need to keep that in mind when we assess what Anderson and his loyal follower Swanson say about it.

[Garry Wroe]

One way or another Schwartz wouldn't have been accurately described as someone who got a clear view of the killer.

It was as clear, if not clearer, than that of Lawende, Lechmere.

I think Anderson was making a false self congratulatory statement. However he was dependent on Information coming to him from underlings and the information about Schwartz would at best be inconclusive. So even if he was talking rubbish (which i think he was) I doubt Anderson was even eluding to Schwartz.

Swanson clearly didn’t think that Anderson was blowing hot air, Lechmere. He corroborated Anderson’s claimed identification and went further by stating that the witness’s evidence was such that it would have secured a conviction in its own right. We can either assess the evidence objectively and systematically, or we can disregard it in favour of anti-Anderson rhetoric. At present this thread appears to have lapsed into the latter.

[Garry Wroe]

To get back to the original premise for this thread - we cannot agree that the bs man was the ripper/killer. I think it is fair to say that the police in 1888 did not know whether he was the killer.

The same objection can be applied to both Schwartz and Lawende, Lechmere. It wasn’t about ‘knowing’. It was about likelihood given a specific set of circumstances.

Therefore the police would not have said that Schwartz was the only man to get a clear view of the ripper as they were by no means sure the bs man was the ripper.

There was no guarantee that Church Passage man was the Ripper, but investigators clearly felt that Lawende had sighted Eddowes’ killer. What I’m sensing here is the psychological phenomenon known as ‘belief perseverance’ – the tendency to cling to pre-existing convictions even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Let’s forget the Lawende as stellar witness arguments of old. Swanson stated that the evidence of Anderson’s witness would have been sufficient in itself to secure a conviction. This alone tells us that the witness was privy to more than a mere sighting. In order for Swanson’s observation to hold true, the witness must have seen an actual attack in progress. Thus the witness could not have been Lawende. It must have been Schwartz.