Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Striking after being seen?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Striking after being seen?

    The “sailor” seen by Lavende is quite suspicious.
    BUT one of the problems with him is, if he was Jack, he would have struck immediately after he had been seen by no less than three witnesses with his victim, standing with his face towards them.
    He could not rely on them not paying much attention or not discerning much in the badly lit spot. He had to reckon with them giving a detailed description of him or recognizing him.

  • #2
    posibilities

    Hello K.

    You are right that the "Sailor Man" may not have been Kate's assailant. Of course, Lawende, et al, may not even have seen Kate.

    Many possibilities.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by K-453 View Post
      He could not rely on them not paying much attention or not discerning much in the badly lit spot. He had to reckon with them giving a detailed description of him or recognizing him.
      Apparently he could because they didn't.

      I'm not exactly sure of your point. If the man speaking with Eddowes was, in fact, JtR (which is one of the few things about this case that I continue to believe is true) are you saying that he would have killed Lawende/Lewin/Lavender and his mates simply because they passed by and briefly looked at him? Come on.

      Comment


      • #4
        I think the point being made, Ken, is that the killer wouldn't have struck had he just been sighted by three witnesses.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Garry Wroe View Post
          I think the point being made, Ken, is that the killer wouldn't have struck had he just been sighted by three witnesses.
          Quite right, Garry. My wife has pointed out to me (at some length) that I completely misread K-453's post. I apologize, K, and retract my silly comment.

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm not so sure that would has phased him, across town he's a different man in a different location.

            I do think the "appearance of a sailor", as worded by Swanson has been overplayed by modern theorists. Lawende doesn't appear to make the suggestion.

            Regards, Jon S.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • #7
              @ The Grave Maurice: No problem – and give your wife my regards!

              My point is, it could at least be possible the couple seen were not Kate and Jack, but Jack was at work already behind them in Mitre Square.
              St Botolph’s was close, so there must have been a lot of, ahm, “traffic” in all the dark corners around, and it is not unlikely there was another couple in the same area.
              OK, Lavende recognized the clothes, but did they show him the clothes and asked him if he recognized them, or did they show him several sets of clothes and let him chose? Showing only one set is suggestive.
              The same goes for the mortuary photos shown to witnesses, by the way.
              Probably police didn’t know this back then …
              It depends on how recognizable and unique the floral pattern on Kate’s dress was. As far as I remember, the other clothes were black or dark, not much to remember.

              To be honest, I think that “sailor” is VERY suspicious, but – he had only nine minutes or so to politely end his genial conversation with Kate, get into Mitre Sq. with her (distance of 50 – 70 yards), choke her unconscious, stab her, gut her, wrap up his little parcel and decamp.
              We know he was a fast worker – but that fast?
              Nine minutes are little time if you have something important to do. I should know, I had 15 minute breaks at work for some time!

              I am not surprised authors invent stories with time machines and vampires. The supernatural suggests itself!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by K-453 View Post
                My point is, it could at least be possible the couple seen were not Kate and Jack, but Jack was at work already behind them in Mitre Square.
                I'm also inclined to think the couple were not Jack & Eddowes, but don't forget PC Watkins did pass around the square at 1:30am on his regular beat. So if you are dismissing the couple based on insufficient time alone then not alot is gained, maybe 4 minutes at the most.

                ...and it is not unlikely there was another couple in the same area.
                There had been some reports of another couple in the Orange Market (St. James Pl.), I think some night watchman at the Firestation noticed someone?

                OK, Lavende recognized the clothes, but did they show him the clothes and asked him if he recognized them, or did they show him several sets of clothes and let him chose? Showing only one set is suggestive.
                They likely didn't have a wardrobe of clothing to choose from :-)

                It depends on how recognizable and unique the floral pattern on Kate’s dress was. As far as I remember, the other clothes were black or dark, not much to remember.
                Agreed, a number of these women all dressed very similar.

                Still, if the police used Lawende later to try identify Sadler, that suggests they put more faith in his abilities to recognise the killer than we do.
                It also might suggest the police were inclined to think the killer was also a sailor.
                I'm inclined towards neither of those interpretations.

                Regards, Jon S.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by K-453 View Post
                  The “sailor” seen by Lavende is quite suspicious.
                  BUT one of the problems with him is, if he was Jack, he would have struck immediately after he had been seen by no less than three witnesses with his victim, standing with his face towards them.
                  He could not rely on them not paying much attention or not discerning much in the badly lit spot. He had to reckon with them giving a detailed description of him or recognizing him.

                  I dont see why this should be the case. If he couldnt get a good view of the 3 witnesses I doubt the 3 witnesses could get a good view of him, and he knew it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hi all,

                    I would say too that if he couldn't see the witnesses, they probably couldn't see him either. And it didn't stop him ( a witness being present) in the case of Liz Stride or Annie Chapman (mrs Long). And they had a far better look than the three men near Mitre Square.

                    Perhaps the witness was shown a couple of sets of clothing. After all, Mathew Packard (I know his account is not true!) was also shown a different body before he was shown Liz in order to test him.

                    Greetings,

                    Addy

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Addy View Post
                      ... After all, Mathew Packard (I know his account is not true!) was also shown a different body before he was shown Liz in order to test him.
                      Hi Addy.
                      Don't be shy of acknowledging Packer, no-one said his statement was untrue.
                      Packer was uncertain about the time (11:00-11:30, or 12:00-12:30?), and he changed some details in subsequent interviews. Other witnesses had also changed details of their statements too (both Hutchinson & Schwartz).
                      Packer's statement was "of little value" because two other witnesses had seen Stride later that night(morning).

                      Packer was shown Eddowes body by two private detectives, this was not a police initiative, yes he was tested and he passed that test.
                      The man Packer saw was also seen by other witnesses, or perhaps more correctly, the description of the man was not inconsistent with other men seen that night.

                      Regards, Jon S.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        There's more to Packers dismissal than that though Jon.

                        The fact he said he saw nothing when initially question by the Police brings doubt on his reliability.

                        Monty




                        Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                        http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by jason_c View Post
                          I dont see why this should be the case. If he couldnt get a good view of the 3 witnesses I doubt the 3 witnesses could get a good view of him, and he knew it.
                          Duke Street is quite a narrow street, I dont know the exact details of the lighting but I would be amazed if they couldn't see each other pretty well.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Garza View Post
                            Duke Street is quite a narrow street, I dont know the exact details of the lighting but I would be amazed if they couldn't see each other pretty well.
                            There was a lamp right above the couple.

                            Monty




                            Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                            http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Monty View Post
                              There was a lamp right above the couple.

                              Monty

                              … and this could mean they were either fully visible OR the light blinded the witnesses and they saw not much of the couple.
                              Or do I overestimate the illuminating power of antique gas lamps now?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X