A Case of Misattribution?

[Abby Normal]

I’m not sure that I follow you, Abby. Whereas Anderson stated that the witness identified the suspect ‘unhesitatingly’ the moment he was presented with him, Swanson confirmed the identification and further stated that it took place at the Seaside Home. There was absolute consistency between the two men in this context.


The witness wasn’t named, Abby. Swanson stated that the witness’s evidence would ‘convict the suspect’, and confirmed his intended meaning beyond any shadow of doubt when declaring that he ‘would be the means of the murderer being hanged’.

We know that the witness was male, Jewish, had no prior knowledge that the suspect was a fellow Jew, and that, according to Anderson, he was the ‘only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’. From this we can be certain that the witness was either Lawende or Schwartz. Swanson, however, provided critical additional information when asserting that the witness’s evidence alone would have been sufficient to have secured a murder conviction. This could mean only one thing: the witness had seen an actual attack taking place. No other sighting would have been sufficient in itself to have secured a conviction. Thus the witness must have been Schwartz. It could have been no-one else.

What I am saying is that the witness was Lawende and just as they misremembered (perhaps wishfully)that the Seaside ID was so positive so they misremembered that Lawendes first sighting was so positive. Its really as simple as that.

[robhouse]

A knife murder, Lechmere, that exhibited not a single one of those features which appeared consistently across the four definitely attributable Ripper killings.

I am sorry, but I do not agree with this. The cut to Stride's throat is entirely consistent with the throat cuts to the other victims. They are all made from left to right, commencing under the angle of the left jaw. The cut to Eddowes throat likewise severed the vessels on the left side of the throat, but only partly cut the vessels on the right... just like Stride. Granted, in some of the other cases, the vessels on both sides were severed, but in the Stride case, we are under the assumption that the killer was interrupted, so did not perform any mutilations. And the attempt to sever the head, which is evident in the Chapman murder for example, should fall under the category of mutilation.

RH

[lynn cates]

interruption

Hello Rob. I appreciate your recognising that Eddowes cut throat was not as deep as Nichols and Chapman's and that Liz's was less deep still.

It is frequently urged that Stride's killer was interrupted. Whether one believes that or not, it COULD account for the lack of mutilations. But I'm not sure how that would account for the less deep throat cutting?

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Rob. I appreciate your recognising that Eddowes cut throat was not as deep as Nichols and Chapman's and that Liz's was less deep still.

It is frequently urged that Stride's killer was interrupted. Whether one believes that or not, it COULD account for the lack of mutilations. But I'm not sure how that would account for the less deep throat cutting?

Cheers.
LC

I think that one should not forget that in Victorian times the most accepted method of despatching someone to the afterlife was to cut their throats.

So therefore linking all the murders together on the basis of the throat cutting is unsafe.

As far as Stride is concerned in addittion to the different knife wound to the throat you have to consider as has been mentioned there were no other wounds.

If the killer had time to cut her throat he had time to carry out wounds to other parts of the body, how much time does it take to wield a knife several times into someones abdomen.

As has also been pointed out the time and the locations are totally different from the other murders. In reality everything abut her murder points to another killer.

For those who suggest it was to much of a coincidence well coincidences do happen.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

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

Regards,

Simon

[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.

[Bridewell]

A Fellow-Jew

Originally Posted by Garry Wroe

We know that the witness was male, Jewish, had no prior knowledge that the suspect was a fellow Jew.

This is interesting of itself because it means that a Jewish witness, who supposedly got a good enough view to be able to make a positive identification, didn't recognise a fellow-Jew. Therefore, if there's anything to this story at all, the suspect was a Jew who was not easily recognisable as such.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

It doesnt !

[robhouse]

Hello Rob. I appreciate your recognising that Eddowes cut throat was not as deep as Nichols and Chapman's and that Liz's was less deep still.

It is frequently urged that Stride's killer was interrupted. Whether one believes that or not, it COULD account for the lack of mutilations. But I'm not sure how that would account for the less deep throat cutting?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I would guess that the killer dispatched Stride rather quickly, then ran out of there. I assume that he was afraid of being caught, so he would have been more hasty than in other murders.

Some of the other murders, most notably the Chapman murder, indicate an attempt to behead the victim, and so obviously the throat cut will be deeper. And in comparison to Eddowes, Stride's throat was only slightly less deeply cut.

In Stride's case:
"The incision in the neck commenced on the left side, 2 inches below the angle of the jaw, and almost in a direct line with it, nearly severing the vessels on that side, cutting the windpipe completely in two, and terminating on the opposite side 1 inch below the angle of the right jaw, but without severing the vessels on that side."

In Eddowes case:

The large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed. The larynx was severed below the vocal chord. All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking intervertebral cartilages. The sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened. The carotid artery [on the right side] had a fine hole opening, the internal jugular vein was opened about an inch and a half -- not divided.

So clearly in both cases, the cut commences on the left side, cuts through the vessels on the left side, and partially cuts through the vessels on the right side. Yes, Stride's cut was less deep, but the similarities between the two, and indeed with the other victims, is obvious, and easily explained by the fact that the killer was scared of being caught, and hence in a hurry.

Incidentally, this would also explain why the position of the body in this case is different. In the other cases, the victim is clearly posed by the killer, with the legs drawn up at the knees and spread apart. In Stride's case, I suggest he just killed her and left. She apparently did not die immediately, and I imagine she may have curled up in a sort of fetal position on her side.

RH

[Monty]

I think that one should not forget that in Victorian times the most accepted method of despatching someone to the afterlife was to cut their throats.

So therefore linking all the murders together on the basis of the throat cutting is unsafe.

As far as Stride is concerned in addittion to the different knife wound to the throat you have to consider as has been mentioned there were no other wounds.

If the killer had time to cut her throat he had time to carry out wounds to other parts of the body, how much time does it take to wield a knife several times into someones abdomen.

As has also been pointed out the time and the locations are totally different from the other murders. In reality everything abut her murder points to another killer.

For those who suggest it was to much of a coincidence well coincidences do happen.

Present, on JtR forums site by that great Statistic colllator Colin Roberts on 22 July 2010.

"In Accordance with the Fifty First Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England, 1888:

England

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 55
Ages 5 - 9: 2
Ages 10 - 14: 2
Ages 15 - 19: 2
Ages 20 - 24: 5
Ages 25 - 34: 3
Ages 35 - 44: 2
Ages 45 - 54: 7
Ages 55 - 64: 2
Ages 65 - 74: 3
Ages 75 - 84: 1
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 84

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 48
Ages 5 - 9: 3
Ages 10 - 14: 2
Ages 15 - 19: 2
Ages 20 - 24: 8
Ages 25 - 34: 12
Ages 35 - 44: 17
Ages 45 - 54: 11
Ages 55 - 64: 1
Ages 65 - 74: 6
Ages 75 - 84: 1
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 111

---

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Manslaughter', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 10
Ages 5 - 9: 2
Ages 10 - 14: 5
Ages 15 - 19: 4
Ages 20 - 24: 4
Ages 25 - 34: 18
Ages 35 - 44: 8
Ages 45 - 54: 9
Ages 55 - 64: 5
Ages 65 - 74: 5
Ages 75 - 84: 1
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 71

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Manslaughter', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 12
Ages 5 - 9: 1
Ages 10 - 14: 1
Ages 15 - 19: 1
Ages 20 - 24: 1
Ages 25 - 34: 4
Ages 35 - 44: 6
Ages 45 - 54: 3
Ages 55 - 64: 2
Ages 65 - 74: 2
Ages 75 - 84: 2
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 35

---

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Homicide', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 65
Ages 5 - 9: 4
Ages 10 - 14: 7
Ages 15 - 19: 6
Ages 20 - 24: 9
Ages 25 - 34: 21
Ages 35 - 44: 10
Ages 45 - 54: 16
Ages 55 - 64: 7
Ages 65 - 74: 8
Ages 75 - 84: 2
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 155

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Homicide', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 60
Ages 5 - 9: 4
Ages 10 - 14: 3
Ages 15 - 19: 3
Ages 20 - 24: 9
Ages 25 - 34: 16
Ages 35 - 44: 23
Ages 45 - 54: 14
Ages 55 - 64: 3
Ages 65 - 74: 8
Ages 75 - 84: 3
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 146

---------

London

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Homicide', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 21
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 2
Ages 25 - 34: 2
Ages 35 - 44: 3
Ages 45 - 54: 1
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 1
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 30

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Homicide', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 17
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 2
Ages 25 - 34: 2
Ages 35 - 44: 7
Ages 45 - 54: 7
Ages 55 - 64: 1
Ages 65 - 74: 3
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 39

The available data for London is unfortunately not expressed in any finer detail; i.e. in terms of 'Murder' and 'Manslaughter' being subsets of 'Homicide'.

It should be noted, however, that the total number of registered deaths, involving the 'murder' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout England, i.e. 56, represents 73.68% of the total number of registered deaths, involving the 'homicide' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout the same. It is reasonable, therefore, to estimate that 73.68% of the total number of registered deaths, involving the 'homicide' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout London, in 1888, i.e. 22, involved specifically 'murder'.

In other words: It is reasonable to estimate that approximately 16 of the registered deaths, involving the 'homicide' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout London, in 1888, were classified as 'murder'.

Put more simply: Approximately 16 women were murdered in London's metropolis, in 1888.

---------

England

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Weapons and Implements', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 5
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 2
Ages 25 - 34: 1
Ages 35 - 44: 1
Ages 45 - 54: 3
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 1
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 13

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Weapons and Implements', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 4
Ages 5 - 9: 2
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 6
Ages 25 - 34: 3
Ages 35 - 44: 5
Ages 45 - 54: 8
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 28

---

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Gun-Shot', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 0
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 2
Ages 25 - 34: 0
Ages 35 - 44: 1
Ages 45 - 54: 3
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 1
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 7

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Gun-Shot', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 0
Ages 5 - 9: 1
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 3
Ages 25 - 34: 0
Ages 35 - 44: 1
Ages 45 - 54: 1
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 6

---

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut'/'Stab', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 2
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 0
Ages 25 - 34: 1
Ages 35 - 44: 0
Ages 45 - 54: 0
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 3

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut'/'Stab', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 2
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 0
Ages 25 - 34: 0
Ages 35 - 44: 1
Ages 45 - 54: 1
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 4

---

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 3
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 0
Ages 25 - 34: 0
Ages 35 - 44: 0
Ages 45 - 54: 0
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 3

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 2
Ages 5 - 9: 1
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 3
Ages 25 - 34: 3
Ages 35 - 44: 3
Ages 45 - 54: 6
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 18

---

So, a grand total of 15 of the registered deaths, involving the 'murder' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout England, in 1888, involved specifically 'murder' by way of 'cut throat'.

Fifteen; throughout the whole of England!

---

In accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891 ...

Total Population, England: 27,482,104

Total Population, London*: 4,231,431

*As Defined by the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works, i.e. the Administrative County of London

---

I will provide similar data, in accordance with the Annual Reports of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England; 1886, 1887, 1889, and 1890, upon my return from vacation, in early August.

But, for now ...

1886 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 3

1887 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 9

1888 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 15

1889 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 6

1890 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 7 "


Now, with that in mind, was throat cutting THAT common?

Monty

[Wickerman]

If there was indeed any evidence of strangulation, or suffocation, with Stride then I'd be inclined to have reservations, but as it stands with what we know about the Stride murder, it is in the same class as those of McKenzie & Coles.
And McKenzie even had the same collarbone bruises, but so did Chapman so that only levels the playing field.
Maybe those bruises were a result of being a prostitute rather than a victim of JtR.

Regards, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Ah, statistics!

Kill me now.

Regards,

Simon