Who were they?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What causes you to believe that Swanson's version is the definitive one?

It is reported that substantially the same description was published in the Police Gazette.

I think Swanson's version is more reliable than the others because it describes the man's build, his jacket, mentions the neckerchief being tied in a knot, and mentions his having the appearance of a sailor.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In answer to Iconoclast's # 495:

I go by the evidence.

Someone here suggested that Lawende's suspect may have been wearing Jewish religious garb and that Lawende did not notice it.

Naturally, his suspect is Jewish.

If the man seen by Lawende had a fair moustache then he is much more likely to have been German than Jewish.

If he was a sailor, then he is much, much more likely to have been German than Jewish.

If the writer of the graffito was Jewish, he could reasonably be expected to spell 'Jews' correctly.

If he were German, he might have been influenced by the German spelling, which begins 'Ju'.

We do not have certainty but we do have evidence.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Yes, this is obviously true, but also evidence of nothing at all. A foreign butcher may have visited four times and then stopped visiting. That butcher may have - on one occasion - worn attire that looked vaguely (to the human eye, en passant) like that commonly worn by sailors (or, perhaps, commonly worn in our stereotypes of sailors).


I think that Lawende's description of the man has been neglected by researchers, often because it does not accord with their choice of suspect.

I think Lawende knew how to recognise a sailor, even when he was out of uniform, and if he had not been able to do so, he would not have said what he did.



The Goulston Street graffito has been done somewhat to death over the years.


I do not think it has been analysed sufficiently.



There is no guarantee that it was ever intended to make any sense at all, never mind that it contains syntactic clues as to the author's country of origin.


It was taken at the time to be a crude attempt to blame the Jews for the murders.

That makes sense.

There is no guarantee that I am right, but literary analysis has its merits.

It is well-known that foreigners have a tendency to translate from their own language into English.



Your suggestion that it possibly indicates a Germanic source might have value if we knew with confidence that no German immigrants lived in Whitechapel in 1888, but I suspect that someone would disprove that notion very very quickly indeed.


I do not see why that would make any difference.



It is the unreliability of your evidence source which causes me to use the term 'weakness of evidence'. It is evidence, but it is incredibly weak evidence because the alternative interpretations are bountiful (pardon the pun).


You are entitled to your opinion.

[Iconoclast]

I think that record is the definitive one.

What causes you to believe that Swanson's version is the definitive one?

[Iconoclast]

I had read that post by Jeff.

And yet still you put your faith in eyewitness testimony?

I knew I had forgotten something and it is that Lawende's suspect had a fair moustache, which fits the signs that the murderer's first language was Germanic.

It is possible that all Germans have fair moustaches, but that does not mean that all men with fair moustaches are German.

For the record, I do not believe that the colour of one's facial hair is adequate to separate the Teutons from any other group of europeans but I'm happy to be corrected.

I do not see any reason to doubt the accuracy of Lawende's description of him.

Well, if you want your analysis and conclusions to be balanced (therefore credible) you need to present more reliable sources of evidence.

I do not, for example, seriously consider the possibility that his suspect had a dark moustache, did not have the appearance of a sailor, but was of Jewish appearance, was five feet tall, and smartly dressed.

Well you should have done because eyewitness testimony analysis tells us that eyewitnesses are genuinely that unreliable.

Can I just add here that I would love it - love it! - if we knew with any sort of certainty that Lawende's Jack (assuming that Jack it was) had a fair moustache for reasons that I assume are obvious to everyone who knows my choice for Jack.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I think you know what's coming here. On what grounds do you favour Swanson over any other source?

I think that record is the definitive one.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I would draw your attention to this post by Jeff Hamm:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/general-suspect-discussion/766224-ok-whos-your-favored-suspect-s-and-why?p=811064#post811064

It seems that eyewitness testimony is an extremely (and dangerously) imprecise science. I'm sure we all knew that, but the evidence certainly also points us to that conclusion rather firmly.

I had read that post by Jeff.

I knew I had forgotten to mention something, and it is that Lawende's suspect had a fair moustache, which fits the signs that the murderer's first language was Germanic.

I do not see any reason to doubt the accuracy of Lawende's description of him.

I do not, for example, seriously consider the possibility that his suspect had a dark moustache, did not have the appearance of a sailor, but was of Jewish appearance, was five feet tall, and smartly dressed.

[Iconoclast]

Please see my replies below.
1) There are multiple accounts which claim to be Lavende’s description. Some reports mention the look of a sailor. Some mention he looks respectable. Some say he looked shabby. Some say he was 5ft 7ins. Some say he was 5ft 9ins. Some say salt and pepper jacket. All apparently from the same source.
I base my opinion on the description recorded by Swanson.

I think you know what's coming here. On what grounds do you favour Swanson over any other source?

[Iconoclast]

I think that if you accept, as the City Police did, that Lawende was a reliable witness, then, bearing in mind that he was able to give a fairly full description of the suspect and that he presumably was able to recognise sailors by their appearance, his eyewitness evidence is important.
It does not prove that the suspect was a sailor, but it is evidence that he may well have been.
Since the graffito was considered to be the only message left by the murderer, it is also important evidence.
It is a matter of opinion, but I believe there are signs that the writer's first language was German or another Germanic language, because an Englishman would have been unlikely to write the message in the way he did.
There has to be some explanation for the murders starting and stopping and never starting again.
A foreign sailor choosing to stay in London for several weeks and then deciding to take his leave would explain that.
I cannot make a judgment about my own opinion.
I don't know what you mean by weakness of evidence.
I said my opinion is based on circumstantial and eyewitness evidence, supplemented by analysis of the graffito.
I can only give my own interpretation of the evidence.

All of the analysis of eyewitness testimony that I have ever seen has pointed very strongly to the inability of the human eye to detect detail accurately so I personally steer well clear of eyewitness statements (or, at least, I hope I do - I'm sure I'll be corrected very quickly if I have not).

A foreign sailor choosing to stay in London for several weeks and then deciding to take his leave would explain that.

Yes, this is obviously true, but also evidence of nothing at all. A foreign butcher may have visited four times and then stopped visiting. That butcher may have - on one occasion - worn attire that looked vaguely (to the human eye, en passant) like that commonly worn by sailors (or, perhaps, commonly worn in our stereotypes of sailors).

The Goulston Street graffito has been done somewhat to death over the years. There is no guarantee that it was ever intended to make any sense at all, never mind that it contains syntactic clues as to the author's country of origin. Your suggestion that it possibly indicates a Germanic source might have value if we knew with confidence that no German immigrants lived in Whitechapel in 1888, but I suspect that someone would disprove that notion very very quickly indeed.

It is the unreliability of your evidence source which causes me to use the term 'weakness of evidence'. It is evidence, but it is incredibly weak evidence because the alternative interpretations are bountiful (pardon the pun).

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

You are at it again. This time I will be polite.

You are welcome to be polite.


1) There are multiple accounts which claim to be Lavende’s description. Some reports mention the look of a sailor. Some mention he looks respectable. Some say he looked shabby. Some say he was 5ft 7ins. Some say he was 5ft 9ins. Some say salt and pepper jacket. All apparently from the same source.

I base my opinion on the description recorded by Swanson.


You cannot state this is absolute fact that he was a sailor.

I never have.


2) Where is there any proof of German used?

I have never claimed that the graffito contained any German words.


3) A hundred reasons why the murders stopped. Including imprisonment and death.


Why should the murderer suddenly die or be imprisoned before he could commit another murder?

I should correct what I wrote about why the murders stopped.

What I meant is that having decided that the murder of Kelly would be his last in London, the murderer took his leave the way he had come.

If Lawende saw the murderer, he was about 30 years old.

Why should he die at the age of 30?

Having done such a splendid job of avoiding being arrested, why should the murderer have been arrested?



Your final conclusion is based on a very sludgy foundation. You have no right to claim fact on any of it.


I never have.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Okay, I see you have your reasons.

Would you at least concur with me if I said that they were all 1) rather weak as evidence, and 2) interpretable in some other way?

I think that if you accept, as the City Police did, that Lawende was a reliable witness, then, bearing in mind that he was able to give a fairly full description of the suspect and that he presumably was able to recognise sailors by their appearance, his eyewitness evidence is important.

It does not prove that the suspect was a sailor, but it is evidence that he may well have been.

Since the graffito was considered to be the only message left by the murderer, it is also important evidence.

It is a matter of opinion, but I believe there are signs that the writer's first language was German or another Germanic language, because an Englishman would have been unlikely to write the message in the way he did.

There has to be some explanation for the murders starting and stopping and never starting again.
A foreign sailor choosing to stay in London for several weeks and then deciding to take his leave would explain that.

I cannot make a judgment about my own opinion.

I don't know what you mean by weakness of evidence.

I said my opinion is based on circumstantial and eyewitness evidence, supplemented by analysis of the graffito.

I can only give my own interpretation of the evidence.

[Iconoclast]

(1) Lawende described the suspect seen with Eddowes as having the appearance of a sailor - and the Whitechapel area abounded with foreign sailors

I would draw your attention to this post by Jeff Hamm:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/general-suspect-discussion/766224-ok-whos-your-favored-suspect-s-and-why?p=811064#post811064

It seems that eyewitness testimony is an extremely (and dangerously) imprecise science. I'm sure we all knew that, but the evidence certainly also points us to that conclusion rather firmly.

[Iconoclast]

That's right.

It came from three considerations:

(1) Lawende described the suspect seen with Eddowes as having the appearance of a sailor - and the Whitechapel area abounded with foreign sailors

(2) I think that there are indications in the graffito that the writer's first language was not English but German

(3) The murders stopping as suddenly as they started could be due to the murderer's leaving the way he came - via the nearby port

Okay, I see you have your reasons.

Would you at least concur with me if I said that they were all 1) rather weak as evidence, and 2) interpretable in some other way?

[erobitha]

That's right.

It came from three considerations:

(1) Lawende described the suspect seen with Eddowes as having the appearance of a sailor - and the Whitechapel area abounded with foreign sailors

(2) I think that there are indications in the graffito that the writer's first language was not English but German

(3) The murders stopping as suddenly as they started could be due to the murderer's leaving the way he came - via the nearby port

You are at it again. This time I will be polite.

1) There are multiple accounts which claim to be Lavende’s description. Some reports mention the look of a sailor. Some mention he looks respectable. Some say he looked shabby. Some say he was 5ft 7ins. Some say he was 5ft 9ins. Some say salt and pepper jacket. All apparently from the same source. You cannot state this is absolute fact that he was a sailor.

2) Where is there any proof of German used?

3) A hundred reasons why the murders stopped. Including imprisonment and death.

Your final conclusion is based on a very sludgy foundation. You have no right to claim fact on any of it.

[Iconoclast]

I much prefer language around “it is less probable” than outright “impossible” when making any claims of absolute evidence. It”s my biggest bug bear in this debate.

I would suggest that it is impossible to ever use the term 'impossible' when one does not have all the facts at one's disposal, ero b, so very much agree with you there.

Unless there is proof a candidate was not in London or even the country on the specific murder dates we cannot rule them being there as impossible.

And a related question would be 'Why would anyone make such a claim?'.

It less probable the murderer was Walter Sickert, MJD or Tumblety as it is highly possible that all of them were someone else on at least one date of the murders. Not impossible.

Yes, I'm not sure what the evidence is against Sickert, but there are certainly grounds for MJD and Tumblety being downgraded to 'Less probable' but - as you say - without the evidence, never 'impossible'.

It could be argued it is more probable the murderer was a local than someone who came into the area. Not impossible.

I would suggest that as no-one ever gave Jack up to the polis, this is indicative of a murderer who travels into a place where he basically knows no-one and either leaves again or has the profile and resources to rent a room to which he can escape until the heat is off and he has cleaned himself up sufficiently to re-appear. Just indicative, mind, not proof positive (the antithesis of our mooted 'impossible').

In the absence of absolutes probability is the best we have.

Indeed, and probability has to be informed by evidence not by somewhat random opinion (which we do get such a lot of on this site). Random opinion is as valuable to us as the teenager who excitedly proclaims that they think God is a "three-winged dragon with sentient qualities which dissolved into non-existence when the meteor hit Earth and that's why everything's gone to pot in America ever since". Often 'random opinion' is based on something like a core truth but - because one or more bits of the story don't quite work - an individual will declare out of nowhere, "Well, I think that ..." and what follows is a version of the core truth which skips the difficult bits and invents new bits that fill in the awkward gaps.