Tumblety and the e-fit

[Ben]

Hi Nigel,

The coroner figured about 5 minutes for the murder. That gives us five minutes for her to leave that man and meet her muderer and get to the location in Mitre square

Except there was never any indication that the couple observed by Lawende were parting preparatory to going their seperate ways. Even if the couple went directly into the square a minute of so after the Jewish trio left, he still wouldn't have much time to complete his grisly business and escape before 1.44am. We're not just talking about the time it took the the victim either; there's the extensive mutilations and ensuing escape to consider. Even if it isn't totally impossible for some else to have arrived on the scene, we'd be speaking of an incredibly tight and unlikely squeeze here.

On the issue of the Eddowes identification, she was identified on the grounds that the clothing was "the same"; and "same, as you know, is quite different to merely "similar". Identifications have been established on clothing and less before. Lawende may have been drinking - we don't know how much, if any - but he had a watch.

The police may well have been desperate at the time of the murders, and this may have impacted upon their decision to use Lawende for ID parades despite the latter's admission that he couldn't recognise the suspect again. However, that's not an indication that they didn't genuinely believe he saw the killer.

She could have seen anybody..

Well, no, because she identified Chapman's body as that of the woman she saw. She must have had some degree of confidence in her recollective abilities or she would likely have said "Don't know, didn't notice" when confronted with the victim's corpse. Similarly, her recollection of a snippet of conversation suggests that she wasn't completely disinterested in the couple.

All the best,
Ben

[Nigel Winterburn]

Hi Nigel,



Not at all.

That sighting occured at 1:35am. Eddowes' body was discovered at 1.44am. There simply wasn't enough time for Eddowes to sent Lawende's man packing, bump into the "real" killer, inveigle her client into Mitre Square, get murdered and mutilated in time for her killer to make good his escspe afterwards. There was never indication that the couple were about to go their seperate ways either. All in all, I think we can be pretty robust in our terminology and say with confidence that Lawende's man very probably saw the ripper, and it appears the contemporary police subscribed to the same view.

What do you find unconvincing about Long's evidence, specifically?

Best regards,
Ben

Assuming that the witness actually saw Eddowes (big assumption) we have about ten minutes assuming the times given are correct. The coroner figured about 5 minutes for the murder. That gives us five minutes for her to leave that man and meet her muderer and get to the location in Mitre square.

The question is: how long does it take to engage the services of a cheap prostitute in Whtechapel? I suspect it could be done in less than a minute. There is enough time for this, and this is assuming he actually saw Eddowes.

You seem very knowledgeable about the case. Do we know anything about the nature of Lawende's time at the club? Was he drinking? That could have a major bearing on his memory of the incident.

I'll concede that he is one of the more compelling witnesses, but I'm far from convinced that he even saw Eddowes at all.

As far as the police thinking that he was an important witness, I think they were grasping at straws and desperate at that point.


One problem I have with Long is the much discussed timing issue. But more importantly her own testimony plants the seeds of doubt for me:

[Coroner] Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
[Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.

She could have seen anybody. She readily admits that she didn't take much notice.

The main problem I have with these accounts, aside from not being terribly convincing, is that people take the suspect description as gospel and use that as the basis for everything that follows.

[Ben]

Hi Nigel,

Lawende identified her by her clothing (far from certain ID) and, if it was indeed her, in the next ten minutes she could have talked to a number of other people, given how "densely populated" the area is.

Not at all.

That sighting occured at 1:35am. Eddowes' body was discovered at 1.44am. There simply wasn't enough time for Eddowes to sent Lawende's man packing, bump into the "real" killer, inveigle her client into Mitre Square, get murdered and mutilated in time for her killer to make good his escspe afterwards. There was never indication that the couple were about to go their seperate ways either. All in all, I think we can be pretty robust in our terminology and say with confidence that Lawende's man very probably saw the ripper, and it appears the contemporary police subscribed to the same view.

What do you find unconvincing about Long's evidence, specifically?

Best regards,
Ben

[KatBradshaw]

Hi there! I am fairly new too so welcome.
I can see your arguement but I personally don't think that the e-fit does look like Tumblety. I think I am right in saying that most people also described the person they believed to be the killer and considerably younger than Tumblety, more like mid 30s which I believe fits with the FBI profile of the killer.
Hope you will be adding more interesting posts!!

[Nigel Winterburn]

Welcome, Nigel.



Any of them? More or less impossible, given the densely populated nature of the district. Lawende almost certainly saw the killer, as did Elizabeth Long, and if Schwartz told the truth, he saw at least Stride's assailant. The fact that they were "inconistent" doesn't mean nobody saw the killer.

Even disregarding the witness accounts, I'd have to disagree pretty strongly with the view that he's "far more plausible that any other known suspect".

Best regards,
Ben

Thanks for the welcome. This is a fantastic resource.

Just to clarify (and I think you know this), when I say nobody saw him I mean the known eyewitness accounts. People obviously saw Jack a lot without ever realising it.

I would use your own "densely populated" argument against you. I would say the sheer number of people chatting to these women and walking around the area make it that much more unlikely that these people saw Jack.

I also have a problem with "more or less impossible" and "almost certainly". I just can't see how you can make these claims. We simply don't have enough info to be so bold with our wording, especially with these dodgy accounts.

Lawende identified her by her clothing (far from certain ID) and, if it was indeed her, in the next ten minutes she could have talked to a number of other people, given how "densely populated" the area is. Long isn't terribly convincing either.

I'm curious as to who you like best from the known suspects? You have so many posts I wouldn't know where to begin looking. Personally, I think the most likely killer is an area local who is unknown to us. Of the known suspects I like Tumblety. With the "witnesses" removed from the equation he stands out to me.

Cheers

[Ben]

Welcome, Nigel.

In my opinion it is highly unlikely that any of them actually saw Jack.

Any of them? More or less impossible, given the densely populated nature of the district. Lawende almost certainly saw the killer, as did Elizabeth Long, and if Schwartz told the truth, he saw at least Stride's assailant. The fact that they were "inconistent" doesn't mean nobody saw the killer.

Even disregarding the witness accounts, I'd have to disagree pretty strongly with the view that he's "far more plausible that any other known suspect".

Best regards,
Ben

[Nigel Winterburn]

Thank you for the welcome. I was under the impression that overall the descriptions contradict greatly. I don't know which element of them overall would rule out Tumblety?

As a newbie on these forums I am quite surprised by the number of people who take the witness descriptions as gospel. They are very inconsistent. In my opinion it is highly unlikely that any of them actually saw Jack.

If one ignores these accounts I think Tumblety becomes a very likely candidate. Far more plausible than any of the other known suspects.

[Ben]

Hi Jason,

Yep, I imagine 5"6 was about average at the time, with the majority of eyewitnesses proffering a similar height for their "suspects", the exceptions being the "Pipeman" at the Stride murder and the loitering soldier at George Yard, who were both taller.

All the best,
Ben

[c.d.]

Not to mention his giant ass mustache. Oh wait, I just mentioned it. Damn.

c.d.

[ClarkesYard]

Forgive my persistance. Further to the height, I am under the impression that 5" 5 was the average height at the time. And the descriptions seem to range from 5"6 plus... this is over average height... and it was... very dark I understand...

Scraping the barrel,
Jason.

[ClarkesYard]

There are contradictions between them, certainly, but even in isolation, there are none that could be described as remotely compatible with Tumblety. As for specific elements, I'd guess age and height would be the two most conspicuous.

Yes, I've heard these are the two main arguments against him (or for, depending on perspective).

[Ben]

I was under the impression that overall the descriptions contradict greatly.

There are contradictions between them, certainly, but even in isolation, there are none that could be described as remotely compatible with Tumblety. As for specific elements, I'd guess age and height would be the two most conspicuous.

[ClarkesYard]

A more pressing concern may be that, E-fit notwithstanding, none of the individual witnesses described anyone looking remotely like Tumblety.

Thank you for the welcome. I was under the impression that overall the descriptions contradict greatly. I don't know which element of them overall would rule out Tumblety?

[Ben]

Hello, and welcome!

I understand that Tumblety was considerably younger in that photograph than his 56 years in 1888. A more pressing concern may be that, E-fit notwithstanding, none of the individual witnesses described anyone looking remotely like Tumblety.

Best regards,
Ben

[ClarkesYard]

Hi, my first post so please be gentle...

On seeing the photo of Tumblety in the Ripperologist magazine I was instantly reminded of the e-fit created in 'The First Serial Killer Revealed'. I know the e-fit is open to all sorts of critism, but I believe it is a closer match than the previous likeness to Chapman.