Striking after being seen?

[Wickerman]

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

How unique do you think that was Neil, a potential "witness" first response being, "I saw nothing"?

I can hear the police chorus now, "I wish I had a shilling for everytime I heard that!".

One common critique has been that Packer was eventually influenced by the publication of the description by PC Smith.
Yet, Packer's 'description' bares no resemblance to that given by Smith. So how do we justify that argument?

On the other hand it is easy to counter the "Smith" argument by suggesting that Smith must have been Packer's "witness", by that I mean Packer must have closed up his shop at 12:30 not 11:30, because PC Smith saw this couple standing where Packer placed them at approx. 12:35, so now we know the correct time.
The immediate response would be, "but Packer's "man" looks nothing like Smiths "man".
Ah!, I rest my case.

How many people do you think told the police they saw/heard nothing?
Isn't this a common theme throughout all the murders?
The difference with Packer is "someone" (two tecs) went back to him and presumably enticed him to talk. Now, whether that involves some conspiracy or not, who can tell. Personally I think not.
The press did keep repeating Packer's description for weeks after.

We do have Packer's press statement, but not Packer's police statement with which to judge him.
On balance, I would not say Packer was untruthful, maybe somewhat unreliable and definitely today, unpopular.

If anything, Packer's "man" is the same as the description given by Ada Wilson some 6 months previous. Packer just might have seen "Pipeman", and the consensus is that he did exist, but his description was not published before the 4th, that I can tell.

Yes, I cut Packer a little more slack than most others do.

Regards, Jon S.

[jason_c]

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.

"Pretty well" is a relative term. I'd say the suspect was in a better position to know wether he could be recognised than we can today. If the suspect didnt get a good view of the witnesses the witnesses likely didnt get a good view of the suspect. The later statements by these witnesses suggest the killer was correct in his assumption.

[Malcolm X]

Lawende describes the man as 30 years old, 5 foot 7 inches tall, fair complexion and mustache with a medium build. He is wearing a pepper and salt colored jacket which fits loosely, a grey cloth cap with a peak of the same color. He has a reddish handkerchief knotted around his neck. Over all he gives the appearance of being a sailor. Lawende will later identify Catherine Eddowes clothes as the same as those worn by the woman he saw that night.

this suspect description is quite good, compared to the others, so it's fair to say that he got a good look at the suspect...... this means that he probably got a good look at Eddowes too, they must have been very close to a street lamp, to be able to identify the colour red...... please dont forget that back in 1888, Whitechapel would've been pitch black at night and they never get this right in JTR films either !

i'd be most interested to know if this guy is the same as the one seen talking to Stride....``you'd say anything but your prayers``, but this suspect description is extremely bad, except for maybe a very similar sailor hat

this Pipeman guy keeps appearing, i'm sensing a street gang of some type, especially with regards to Stride, there's too many strange guys lurking around, i dont know; just sensing something that's all, it seems like about 3 blokes.... i wonder if anyone else here feels this way too

this Pipeman/ street gang thingy is far more noticeable than it was 6 years ago, maybe due to my old mate Tom

[Ben]

There is very little reason to doubt that the Church Passage couple seen by the Jewish trio were anyone other than Eddowes and the killer. The sighting occurred ten minutes before the discovery of the former's body, and Lawende in particular believed that the clothes shown to him were the same (not just similar) to those worn by the woman. It is clear that the police invested this sighting with particular significance.

All the best,
Ben

[Monty]

I think one aspect which is being overlooked here is the timing of sighting.

Looking at photos, maps etc, Lewande and Co sighting would have been very brief.

Monty

[Garza]

"Pretty well" is a relative term. I'd say the suspect was in a better position to know wether he could be recognised than we can today. If the suspect didnt get a good view of the witnesses the witnesses likely didnt get a good view of the suspect. The later statements by these witnesses suggest the killer was correct in his assumption.

Like I said Duke Street is narrow and Eddowes and "sailor" were underneath a lamp, the witnesses would have got a good view.

If you're stating that the suspect was hoping that the witnesses would take no notice of him, thats something else entirely.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

I don't think the police would have phased him as they couldn't have pinned it on him, but the vigilance committee may have done. Rumour gets round and one night you're lynched on the streets.

[Fleetwood Mac]

So if you are dismissing the couple based on insufficient time alone then not alot is gained, maybe 4 minutes at the most.

Yes, but those 4 minutes, in context, could have made all the difference.

If it was Jack with Eddowes, then he has about 6.5/7 minutes to kill, mutilate and possibly gather up the organs without being seen going in or coming out. That's good going by anyone's standards. Add on an extra 4 minutes and that is a world of difference in this context.

Oh, and reading two of the doctors' testimonies, they claimed 1.40 at the earliest, giving him 3 and a bit minutes. This would lend weight to the killer already being in the square.

[Wickerman]

Lawende describes the man as 30 years old, 5 foot 7 inches tall, fair complexion and mustache with a medium build. He is wearing a pepper and salt colored jacket which fits loosely, a grey cloth cap with a peak of the same color. He has a reddish handkerchief knotted around his neck. Over all he gives the appearance of being a sailor. Lawende will later identify Catherine Eddowes clothes as the same as those worn by the woman he saw that night.

this suspect description is quite good, compared to the others, so it's fair to say that he got a good look at the suspect......

Yes Malcolm, but that is our assumption, Swanson had a different opinion at the time, he wrote:

"I understand from City Police the Mr Lawende, one of the men, identified the clothes only of the murdered woman Eddowes, which is a serious drawback to the value of the description of the man".

Meaning, even Swanson was not convinced the couple were Jack & Eddowes.

Subsequently Swanson made further comments:

"...... even Mr Lawende states that he could not identify the man, but also the woman stood with her back to him, with her hand on the man's breast, he could not identify the body mutilated as it was, as that of the woman whose back he had seen, but to the best of his belief the clothing of the deceased, which was black was similar to that worn by the woman whom he had seen, and that was the full extent of his identity."

So Lawende did not get a good look at Eddowes, and as Swanson was not wholly convinced of the value of Lawende's sighting it serves us no credit to put more faith in Lawende than Swanson did.

Incidently, the Sadler "witness" was never identified by name, and the result was of no value either.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

So Lawende did not get a good look at Eddowes, and as Swanson was not wholly convinced of the value of Lawende's sighting it serves us no credit to put more faith in Lawende than Swanson did.

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.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

I’m disinclined to take any of the witness testimony in this case very seriously as I am fairly sure that whoever they saw was usually not the victim and still less the victim with the Ripper, and then even if they did their minds would have muddled up and confused things to such an extent to make their testimony almost worthless.
They would have all been influenced by the mythology of the case. The first instances of witnesses claiming to have seen the victim with the culprit were associated with the Chapman murder, by which time ‘Whitechapel Murder’ hysteria was in full swing.

Basic human powers of observation and recall when confronted with either an unusual or unexpected situation or conversely recalling mundane situations a day after the event (and the witness sightings would have appeared mundane and unmemorable at the time) are notoriously poor.

Of course the culprit would not be thinking this if he was seen and I think he would have moved on to find another victim if he felt he had been compromised.

Up until the file were effectively closed the police where totally in the dark as to who did it, notwithstanding the self-serving after the event ‘I knew who it as all along’ type memoirs that came from several usually senior officers.
That is why several culprit ‘types’ remained under the spotlight – such as ‘sailor’ or ‘mad Jew’, and why a witness such as Lawende (who lived a stable lifestyle and so was easily traceable and retrievable) may have been used again.

How seriously can we treat the claim that Lawende recognised the clothes – when confronted with what must have been a set of cut and bloody garments? Not very seriously I would suggest.

Having said that the man seen by Lawende could have done it – he may have relied on the fact that it was a fleeting sighting. I would say that 8 minutes was ample time for him to complete his work. The Nichols attack, although nowhere near as elaborate, must have been over and done in a couple of minutes. The time factor does not rule out the Lawende sighting as being that of the Ripper

[K-453]

Another weird detail is, PC Harvey went into Church Passage as far as Mitre Sq – but not into the square – at 1.40 and saw and heard nothing, although the murder site was opposite Church Passage, there was a street lamp in Mitre Square, and the square cannot be that big.

[Addy]

Kate was found in the darkest corner, where the light wasn't working that night. Only when a lantern was shining on the body, so from close range, was she visible. And the night watchman, working in one of the buildings in the square, saw and heard nothing and he had the front door open at one point.Even a policeman living in the square heard and saw nothing. So a policeman not seeing and not hearing anything as he didn't enter the square but passed it, doesn't surprise me.

Greetings,

Addy

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

K,

Dr Brown was certain that the earliest the murder could have taken place was 1.40. Dr Sequira felt it was probably no earlier than 1.40.

Two doctors, trained in this sort of thing, in agreement re 1.40 being the earliest time of the murder.

In the event you place store in their opinion, then that decreases the possibility that our sailor wasn't Jack.

It would fit quite nicely:

Lawende and associates walk past at 1.35 and Jack and Eddowes are having a fairly amicable chat. Presumably by the time they're out of sight, and Jack convinces her it's a good idea to go into the square, and they choose a corner, make their way there, and he does his killing thing: 1.40ish sounds about right.

One big problem:

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

This would mean he was disturbed, and I for one think this is a decent shout.

I suppose the other option is that Watkins wasn't there at 1.44am (and actually arrived later), but then Dr Sequiera arrives at 1.55am (so 11 minutes to run around a bit, stand and stare, make your way to Jewry Street, the doctor to put some clothes on and make his way to the scene seems believable).

It explains the City PC witness, the only person to get a good look at him; and explains the problem with Lawende or Schwartz being the witness.

It also explains the odd exchange between Watkins and Morris: Watkins does Morris the courtesy of knocking on his door when he's just found a butchered a woman, the door is ajar and he knows Morris is inside.

Lawende & co, and the doctors' times fit, as does Dr Sequiera's arrival time.

The one thing that doesn't is that Jack kills Eddowes at 1.40am and is out of there by 1.43am without being seen.

[Lechmere]

He could have killed her at 1.36 - those extra minutes would make all the difference.