Striking after being seen?

[Malcolm X]

the problem with the Eddowes sighting is, it's just a wee bit too close to her time of death for me, plus too close to the murder scene, yes someone else could've quickly jumped in after he walked off, but i cant see that happening.

yes, this suspect would be far weaker if he was seen 10 mins earlier

this bloke might be the guy seen talking to Stride that said, ``you'd say anything but your prayers``

you cant deny that this JTR suspect was seen quite well, unfortunately just like everything else around here, my Stride suspect wasn't

it's not me favouring a certain suspect without good reason, it's more like this same person keeps appearing, with a slight variation in clothing and that's about it.

[Ben]

That certainly does not apply to me and is something of an over-generalisation, I would say. I do NOT argue for a well-dressed "Jack" and I champion no dubious evidence of any sort.

I can assure you I didn't have you in mind, Phil.

I fully accept that no possibilities should be ruled out, and that caution must always be exercised, but as long as the likelihood is conceded that Lawende saw Eddowes with her killer, there is little to argue about as far as I'm concerned. I certainly don't see the timing as a problem. Dr. Sequeira believed that the mutilations could have been completed in three minutes. On the matter of the clothing, Lawende believed it was the "same", which carries considerably more weight than a suggestion that they might have been "similar". Of course, none of this is beyond question, but in terms of what is probable, I'm in no doubt as to which mast I'm nailing my colours to...or which colours I'm nailing to the mast...ah, y'know what I mean.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Unless you set your bar at 10 minutes deliberately there were at least two other eye witnesses who claimed to have seen the victim with someone shortly before the probable time of death

I'm not sure quite what you mean by "set the bar", but I stand by my observation with regard to the Lawende sighting insofar as it occurred so shortly before the discovery of the victim's body. Schwartz also comes close, as you note, and debates over Stride's inclusion in the "canon" notwithstanding, I would argue that this sighting also constituted a likely ripper sighting. "Probable time of death" is a lot more ambiguous and open to dispute, particularly in the Chapman case.

I am looking forward immensely to late February, incidentally, Lechmere.

All the best,
Ben

[Phil H]

I think it's fairly obvious that Lawende's sighting was invested with more significance than most others by the police. This has less to do with the quality of the sighting or the time the witness had at his disposal, than with the overwhelmingly likelihood that the man described was the killer. He was seem with the supposed victim ten minutes before the discovery of the body, rendering the sighting unique amongst eyewitness testimony.

I'm not sure that I agree with your analysis, Ben.

I don't necessarily discount Lawende's sighting (or that of his friends) - in any case the police at the time placed weight on it (as demonstrated by them calling on Lawende for identifications later).

That said, I believe it is in our interests to look at alternatives.

There is a question of time pressure on the killer - it is thus informative to consider the implications if Lawende was wrong and "Jack" was already at work in the Square.

As has been discussed earlier in the thread (I think) Lawende's identication of Eddowes was based on her skirt and the basis of that confirmation could be questionable.

Turning to your post, Ben, I would point out that the "overwhelming likelihood" that the man described was the killer, is something of an overstatement. Like Mrs Long's sighting of Chapman, it is plausible and possible, even likely - but overwhelmingly likely?- No!

I notice that the only people who choose to dismiss Lawende's sighting - for deeply spurious reasons - tend to be the those who champion far more dubious pieces of non-inquest testimony. It tends to a minority-endorsed argument resorted to by those who angle for the "well-dressed" Jack that have a problem with Lawende's ostensibly shabby man.

That certainly does not apply to me and is something of an over-generalisation, I would say. I do NOT argue for a well-dressed "Jack" and I champion no dubious evidence of any sort.

Phil

[Lechmere]

I haven’t seen anyone rubbish Lawende’s sighting on the basis that they prefer an A-man type as their suspect as you imply.
Unless you set your bar at 10 minutes deliberately there were at least two other eye witnesses who claimed to have seen the victim with someone shortly before the probable time of death:

Schwartz claims to have seen Stride with someone 15 minutes before she was found dead.
Elizabeth Long/Darrell claims to have seen Chapman with someone maybe 15 minutes before she was killed.

I agree with you the the most likely culprit would be an average Joe Blow type and I agree that he almost certainly was also responsible for Stride and the graffiti. But I think that would be the majority view – which is different from being the most vocal view.

[Ben]

I think it's fairly obvious that Lawende's sighting was invested with more significance than most others by the police. This has less to do with the quality of the sighting or the time the witness had at his disposal, than with the overwhelmingly likelihood that the man described was the killer. He was seem with the supposed victim ten minutes before the discovery of the body, rendering the sighting unique amongst eyewitness testimony. I notice that the only people who choose to dismiss Lawende's sighting - for deeply spurious reasons - tend to be the those who champion far more dubious pieces of non-inquest testimony. It tends to a minority-endorsed argument resorted to by those who angle for the "well-dressed" Jack that have a problem with Lawende's ostensibly shabby man.

On a semi-related note, I must be very rare amongst those who "favor an average everyday Joe Blow local East Ender" in believing both the Stride murder and the graffiti to have been the work of the killer. I find that very strange, since neither of these acts is remotely inconsistent with a Joe Average East-Ender (which, based on crime scene evidence and other serial cases, would be the most likely offender type by a considerable margin).

[Fleetwood Mac]

Mr. Mac,

Dr Brown claimed it couldn't have been done in less than 5 minutes, and Watkins is on the scene at 1.44am.

Perhaps Dr. Brown was wrong and it was done more quickly. After all, in estimating the time to do what was done Brown was mindful of the cautious way a surgeon would proceed in order to protect a patient's life. Jack did not have that concern, as evidenced by the fact he was rather careless in extricating the womb.

Don.

Supe,

There's always the chance he was wrong. Course there is.

I personally, however, tend to place some sort of store in professionals trained to do their job/s.

I would disagree with the 'cautious' point. Dr Brown gave a time range to account for possibilities (e.g. hurried and careful), and added that it couldn't have been done in less than 5 minutes; also, he freely admitted that it had been done in a hurry (or should I say probably done in a hurry).

And then we have supporting information. A couple are loitering at 1.35, and I believe Morris said something like it was a quiet area at that time of night. Watkins finds the body at 1.44 and Dr Sequiera arrives at 1.55.

To me, that would all seem to conincide.

The one point that seems to contradict eye witness testimony and professional opinion being: could he have killed her at 1.40 and escaped without being seen by 1.44? Which is perhaps illiluminated by the Kelly murder. Seems when left to his own devices he had work to do beyond a 3 and half minute window.

[Phil H]

Tom - thank you for your post. I quite understand your position.

You may not have a particular individual in mind, but I think you have a ‘type’ you favor. I would guess you favor an average everyday Joe Blow local East Ender. This is the typical suspect-type preferred by those who want to get rid of Stride and the graffiti. Just an observation.

I honestly don't. For many years I was a Druittist - but long abandoned that - mid 1970s, I think. He was my last suspect.

I see candidates being proposed in ways that reflect society at the time they are promoted, rather than in 1888. So "toffs" were the fashion in the 50s/60s; conspiracies after Watergate; and today - in a more egalitarian age, commoners like Kosminski. (I also recall well that when I was first engaged by the case, in the late 60s, and before the release of the files, the "game" was partly to guess what name would be on the file when it was opened - that approach is now dead.

My concern today is to look at what we know, and seek to put it into a mental "matrix" -I have the sort of mind that can still play with Druitt as "Jack"; while simultaneously comparing an contrasting that with consideration of why Macnaghten may have promoted Druitt's name; or considering Kosminski.

If I have a "gripe" it is with those who put all their eggs in one basket, when intellectually and as an historian, I see that as very dangerous.

We all have our own approaches, and I respect your's Tom, and your learning. But I will continue to paddle my own canoe.

Thanks again for your temperate and welcome post.

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, if such a thing happened, it wouldn't have been intentional.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick,

I could actually see that happening, particularly considering how competitive the City and Met police were. If the person taking Lawende's statement had been familiar with Schwartz's description, it could have influenced his questioning of Lawende, and in turn, Lawende's recollection of events. I've always scratched my head over how Lawende became the 'golden boy' of the Ripper investigation, when he couldn't even be sure if the woman he saw was Eddowes or not.

Thats prettymuch what I'm getting at, the questions you ask a witness can be coloured by the fact you already 'know' the answers.
I'm not suggesting anything intentional, this could have evolved purely by happenstance.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Phil H,

Please don’t take my blunt tone personal. That’s just how I usually type. I can see that you’re exploring ideas and scenarios and I’m totally cool with that. In fact, it’s often productive. I don’t want you to think I’m trying to stifle you if I come off a little heavy handed in my replies. I was mainly taking issue NOT with your ideas, but with your dismissal of other ideas as a mere individual opinion. It’s easy to forget (I know, because I’ve done it) that many of the posters here have spent years considering all the same ideas, and are perhaps further along in the game than yourself (or myself).

I’m sure many will find it funny that you accuse me of sticking with ‘conventional wisdom’ and refusing to ‘think outside the box’ and that I don’t have the imagination to consider other perspectives. I know there are a number of people who post to this site who fit this description, but I’m not one of them.

What satisfies you - and given your approach to this, it seems to be that you question little - would not satisfy me.

I guess you haven’t read the multiple essays I’ve published on the Berner Street murder. If you had, you’d know I question everything and consider every angle before reaching a conclusion that satisfies me. And many others, I might add. Name an original viable idea regarding the Stride murder you’ve seen espoused on these boards and odds are it emanated from me. And although I prefer to publish on the Stride case, my approach holds true throughout the investigation.

You site single facts when the situation is nothing like that.

On the boards, we kind of have to speak in single facts, as threads are broken down by sub-topics. Have you read my ‘Exonerating Michael Kidney’? I trace the Stride myths back to their roots and dismiss them one by one and as a whole. But I digress…For instance, currently there’s a thread on the graffiti, then there’s a separate thread on the apron. I was thinking about this today, and perhaps we agree, that one must look at each facet separately, and consider every possibility, but that when put back together, it all must make sense. When I get around to writing my full thinking regarding the reason why I believe Jack wrote the graffiti, you’ll know exactly how my brain operates on this stuff. The apron, the graffiti, the Eddowes murder, Stride murder, et al, SHOULD be discussed and studied separately, but also as a whole. If the individual ideas or conclusions don’t work when placed back in the whole, then perhaps they should be reconsidered. If a theory requires dismissing evidence outright, concluding other events are mere coincidences, etc. then I’d say the theory needs to be discarded.

I possess no one over-riding theory on JtR, have no axe to grind,

I don’t know about that. You may not have a particular individual in mind, but I think you have a ‘type’ you favor. I would guess you favor an average everyday Joe Blow local East Ender. This is the typical suspect-type preferred by those who want to get rid of Stride and the graffiti. Just an observation.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick,

I could actually see that happening, particularly considering how competitive the City and Met police were. If the person taking Lawende's statement had been familiar with Schwartz's description, it could have influenced his questioning of Lawende, and in turn, Lawende's recollection of events. I've always scratched my head over how Lawende became the 'golden boy' of the Ripper investigation, when he couldn't even be sure if the woman he saw was Eddowes or not. By contrast, James Brown was 'almost certain' it was Stride he saw, and many of the same people who boost Lawende up are quick to strike down Brown as a legit Stride witness. I don't get it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Grave Maurice]

I agree, I think you can walk it within a minute, even when walking slowly.

Yep, K, Monty and Addy are right. The angle of the shot and the lens make the distance look much farther than it actually is. It would take JtR and Kate very little time to get to the corner of the square.

[K-453]

One of the problems with Lawende has always been his insistance that he could not recognise the man again, yet we have in our possession a pretty clear description attributed to Lawende.

Yes, but he describes mainly clothes which were common at that time and only superficially what the man himself looked like. He mentions his height, complexion and moustache. No facial features or other remarkable traits.
This description could have fit to a lot of people back then.

[Wickerman]

What you say makes sense, and you may be right, but I think we should consider the politics of the Oct. 19th report to Home Office that you're quoting. The purpose of it is to show HO that they're making 'progress' with the investigation, and illustrating that the City Police - with only one murder on their books - have produced a more viable witness than the Met would probably not be an observation that Swanson would want his superiors to make.

I see what you are saying Tom, that was the first quote.
The second quote (further comments) I took from Swanson's Nov. 6th letter. This was a summary to the H.O. of all the facts the Met. force were in possession of pertaining to the Mitre Sq. murder (Ref: Ultimate, pp.185-8).

One of the problems with Lawende has always been his insistance that he could not recognise the man again, yet we have in our possession a pretty clear description attributed to Lawende. How to marry those two facts?

The first problem is that we do not have a description by Lawende in his own words due to him being silenced at the inquest.
Lawende was only unearthed after the house-to-house inquiry following the Eddowes murder.
I think the description given by Schwartz to the police was in the possession of the authorities before they interviewed Lawende.

Given that the police already assumed the two murders were committed by the same killer, I have to wonder if the police who interviewed Lawende did so with the description of the suspect already in their hands?

As Lawende claimed to have seen the 'couple' so close in both time & distance to the second murder, but was not too clear on specifics, perhaps they were able to 'jog his memory?' so to speak?

Lawende may have seen the man's cap because he was taller that the woman, but whether he could make out the peak is questionable. More especially the jacket, if the woman was standing with her back to Lawende then how was he able to determine the type of jacket/coat the man was wearing.
However, the police already had details of the man's cap with peak, & the jacket the killer was wearing.

There is nothing in contemporary writings to suggest the authorities leaned heavily on Lawende, in fact Swanson (all politics aside) appears to hold a contrary opinion.

I would suggest that it is ourselves who have put Lawende on a pedestal. We have made him a supreme witness, in spite of his own claims. This modern view of ours is not consistent with what we know from 1888.

Regards, Jon S.