Striking after being seen?

[lynn cates]

2 points

Hello Tom.

"If you're going to espouse the virtues of 'open-mindedness' then I suppose we'll soon see you taking Supt Arnold's point-of-view and reconsidering the various scenarios with Eddowes as the copycat"

Hmmm, works for me.

"Or, as some contemporary detectives felt, that they were each killed by different men working in tandem?"

Ah, that would be George Lewis, the solicitor, who favoured exactly this point of view.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

I'm always shocked when someone says it's an individual opinion that Jack killed Stride, as though the entirety of the contemporary opinion of investigators didn't lean that way.

And I'm always shocked by those who cling to the "conventional wisdoms" like nanny's apron strings. They could have been wrong - after all, they failed to catch Jack, it seems! maybe they should have thought outside the box - multiple killers, no canonical five etc etc.

We don't have to reject contenporary opinion - I have never suggested that - just remain mentally flexible.

By contrast, you have a police Supe (Arnold) and a couple of doctors calling Eddowes copycat. All this 'Stride out' nonsense as it's known today began with AP Wolf and was followed by Evans/Gainey, who also took Mary Kelly out of the mix, and now we have Andrew Cook, Simon Wood, and Trevor Marriott carrying that torch and striking all victims from the list.

I don't agree with all or any of them, but thank heavens some people are capable of original thinking. It doesn;t change the evidence, or destroy anything - it's not like cleaning the Sistine ceiling, or archeology - where you remove permanently what was there before. We simply rearrange the mosaic in a different pattern to see what the effect is - and sometimes they are interesting.

I've seen your reasons for counting out Stride and they're all based on mistakes and a misinterpretation of the evidence, same as AP Wolf, Evans, and every single author - without exception - who concluded Stride wasn't a Ripper victim.

And that is my privilege - to make mistakes, if I wish. I'd rather that than those resistant to any sort of originality, DICTATING what I can and cannot say or think. I possess no one over-riding theory on JtR, have no axe to grind, and am frankly appalled by the railway line approach of many of this site. I would condemn it in a schoolchild let alone adults.

It appears that few researchers appreciate how difficult it would be for the average man to kill a woman with a single slice of the knife. Murder is not an easy thing, even for a criminal. But Stride's killer, operating in a very dark and public corner, subdued his victim, dispatched her in the SAME WAY as the Ripper (turning her away from him and cutting her carotid artery), and escaped without any sign of panic or struggle.

I doubt that there are too many different ways to slit a throat, and ther are many reasosn for a man having such a skill. We know nothing of the killer's escape apart from the fact that it was unseen.

That a copycat should be so lucky as to happen to strike in the same hour and within the same mile as the man he's copycatting would be, I believe, a complete anomaly in the annals of crime, particulary when you consider that Eddowes was killed at a far earlier hour than the other victims.

Belief and your assumption.

The single fact upon which the theory that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim hangs, that she wasn't mutilated below the neck, is not enough in the face of all the other facts I've mentioned (and more) to conclude she wasn't a Ripper victim, especially as there are many other less radical explanations for the lack of mutilation.

What satisfies you - and given your approach to this, it seems to be that you question little - would not satisfy me. You site single facts when the situation is nothing like that.

If you're going to espouse the virtues of 'open-mindedness' then I suppose we'll soon see you taking Supt Arnold's point-of-view and reconsidering the various scenarios with Eddowes as the copycat and Stride the Ripper victim?

If I felt it useful, maybe. And why not? What are you so afraid of? You seem to feel that the Inquistion and the Index of Books should be brought back - heretical thinking must not be allowed.

My view of history is that it is for each generation to re-write it in their own light. History - in the sense of interpretation - is about US not then. It seeks to explain what we are and to draw on what we know. It should respect evidence (not views of that evidence) in assessing and evaluating it, and it should not be anachrosnistic - but history's life is in re-visiting and reviewing previous work.

There is - there can and never will be - one and only one solution to the JtR case. As we have seen with the marginalia, even new first-hand written testimony will be "marginalised" by those with a vested interest. See too reactions to the new Dutfield's Yard photo a few years ago. It is views like that (excluding anything that might disagree with an individual's preconceptions) and a vision that sees only one interpretation that drives people away from this site and the study of the case.

I stand second to no man in holding to the highest standards in the evaluation of evidence. I will see nothing dismissed that should not be. But I do aver allegience to freedom of thought and interpretation.

Phil

[K-453]

From the inquest:

Joseph Lawende: […] The woman was standing with her face towards the man, and I only saw her back. She had one hand on his breast. He was the taller. She had on a black jacket and bonnet. I have seen the articles at the police-station, and believe them to be those the deceased was wearing.
[…]
[Coroner] Would you know him again? - I doubt it. The man and woman were about nine or ten feet away from me. I have no doubt it was half-past one o'clock when we rose to leave the club, so that it would be twenty-five minutes to two o'clock when we passed the man and woman.
[Coroner] Did you overhear anything that either said? - No.
[Coroner] Did either appear in an angry mood? - No.
[Coroner] Did anything about their movements attract your attention? - No. The man looked rather rough and shabby. […]

Mr. Joseph Hyam Levy: The point in the passage where the man and woman were standing was not well lighted. On the contrary, I think it was badly lighted then, but the light is much better now.


I attach a photo of Church Passage, taken on the spot where the couple was standing. The murder site was behind the parked car.
Quite a long way to go in a few minutes. What would you say – 60 – 70 yards?

[Monty]

K,

You can walk it in seconds. Not far at all.

Monty

[Addy]

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

Greetings,

Addy

[mariab]

"Or, as some contemporary detectives felt, that they were each killed by different men working in tandem?"
Ah, that would be George Lewis, the solicitor, who favoured exactly this point of view.

Lynn, could you please direct me to where I can read about this? Thank you.

[lynn cates]

UC

Hello Maria. It's in Evans & Skinner's "Ultimate Companion."

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Thanks Lynn.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott