Striking after being seen?

[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

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[Malcolm X]

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?

unless of course there is some light coming from the neighbouring windows, beyond this passageway would be pitch black at night, very creepy too, you would hardly see the square beyond..... this is a good photo

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

Hi Ben. In case I’ve been misunderstood, let me say that I don’t at all dismiss Lawende. I believe he was an honest witness who saw what he said he saw, and he very likely may have seen Eddowes with the Ripper. I was just observing from discussions I’ve had with researchers who put so much stock in a witness who wasn’t at all certain, but are quick to dismiss other witnesses who were actually more certain about what they saw and provided no reason to disbelieve them. I used James Brown as an example. But because Lawende is on record as stating he wouldn’t likely recognize the man again, and only took note of the color of the woman’s clothes, we have to be careful in accepting his description of the man as accurate, and most certainly have to treat with caution any suspect identification he may have been a part of then or in later years.

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).

You’re exceptionally rare, but the idea of dismissing the graffiti seems to have taken root in the wake of Kozminski’s rise in prominence as a Ripper suspect. At that time, many felt he would have hardly known English, let alone could have written in a ‘schoolboy’ hand, so it became necessary for Koz supporters to revise their thinking about the graffiti. Not just Koz, but supporters of the ‘Polish Jew’ suspect altogether. This led to a groundswell against the graffiti as a legit piece of evidence. And of course, because it wasn’t a material artifact like the apron piece, it was and is possible the Ripper didn’t write it, though I believe a balanced assessment of the evidence leads to the conclusion he likely did. Funny thing is, now that we know more about Kozminski, we know he spoke English fluently and would have been literate, and certainly COULD have written the graffiti. As a young Jewish man, we should also not be surprised to find him at the Berner Street club, frequented by other Jewish men, including those with a criminal bent.

In short, for those who believe the Ripper relied on luck to keep from getting caught, the more of the murders and ‘toying with the police’ evidence they dispose of, the stronger their argument becomes, and I believe this is where the modern era of minimalism got it’s start.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

Firstly, I should clarify that I wasn't referring to you personally as someone who dismisses the Lawende sighting for spurious reasons. I would agree that the minimalist approach does seem to be in fashion at the moment, with more and more "coincidences" being dismissed as unrelated. I note with interest your suggestion that this may be due, in part, to a preference for the "Polish Jew" theory. That could well be the case, as I can certainly think of a few impediments to such a theory if Stride and the graffiti were both accepted as the ripper's work. But if, like me, you believe that a local, average, everyday gentile man dunnit, there is no impediment whatsoever as far Stride/graffiti are concerned, nor is there any inconsistency with the image of Jack as someone who toyed with the police and didn't rely solely on luck.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

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).

Hi Ben
I think along with the proximity of his sighting, he may have been seen as a better witness by police because his sighting is backed up by his companions unlike IS and he was maybe seen as repectable and could speak English, again unlike Schwartz.

On the other hand, red flags for me on Lawende, other than the obvious fact that he said he could not identify again, is that he never IDed the body and (for some reason sticks in my craw) is the description of a "suspect" with fair hair.

But let me just say I think out of all the witnesses, he and IS Should be the best, and I agree that the killer was an "average Joe-Blow type" as described by their appearance by both IS and Lawende.

[jason_c]

Hi Ben. In case I’ve been misunderstood, let me say that I don’t at all dismiss Lawende. I believe he was an honest witness who saw what he said he saw, and he very likely may have seen Eddowes with the Ripper. I was just observing from discussions I’ve had with researchers who put so much stock in a witness who wasn’t at all certain, but are quick to dismiss other witnesses who were actually more certain about what they saw and provided no reason to disbelieve them. I used James Brown as an example. But because Lawende is on record as stating he wouldn’t likely recognize the man again, and only took note of the color of the woman’s clothes, we have to be careful in accepting his description of the man as accurate, and most certainly have to treat with caution any suspect identification he may have been a part of then or in later years.



You’re exceptionally rare, but the idea of dismissing the graffiti seems to have taken root in the wake of Kozminski’s rise in prominence as a Ripper suspect. At that time, many felt he would have hardly known English, let alone could have written in a ‘schoolboy’ hand, so it became necessary for Koz supporters to revise their thinking about the graffiti. Not just Koz, but supporters of the ‘Polish Jew’ suspect altogether. This led to a groundswell against the graffiti as a legit piece of evidence. And of course, because it wasn’t a material artifact like the apron piece, it was and is possible the Ripper didn’t write it, though I believe a balanced assessment of the evidence leads to the conclusion he likely did. Funny thing is, now that we know more about Kozminski, we know he spoke English fluently and would have been literate, and certainly COULD have written the graffiti. As a young Jewish man, we should also not be surprised to find him at the Berner Street club, frequented by other Jewish men, including those with a criminal bent.

In short, for those who believe the Ripper relied on luck to keep from getting caught, the more of the murders and ‘toying with the police’ evidence they dispose of, the stronger their argument becomes, and I believe this is where the modern era of minimalism got it’s start.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Off topic. But I suddenly had an "epiphany" of sorts. Could the confused wording of the GSG be reconciled with a foreigners attempted grasp of written English?

Assuming the writers general knowledge of English being decent. Their English syntax slightly less so. A graffitio version of "went the day well"?

[K-453]

the problem with the Eddowes sighting is, it's just a wee bit too close to her time of death for me

Exactly that is what I am thinking!
On the other hand, "Jack" was fast. That is probably the reason why he was not caught. Had he stayed longer on any murder site, the risk of being seen would have grown exponentially.

[Addy]

I feel the sighting was indeed too close to Kate's death for the man to have been anyone else than the Ripper. Even though he was fast, he would have to have pulled Kate from that other mans arms if she was seen with another man by Lawende. And I doubt she would have gone with him into the square if he had done that!

Also, if Lawende had seen another couple, wouldn't they have come forward when they read about it all? I believe that also happened in the case of Liz Stride, when a cop saw a courting couple which turned out to be another couple and they came forward. The same happened when Frances Cole was murdered (nothing to do with whether she was a Ripper victim or not!!)

Not to start a complete new discussion here, but I do believe Paul Begg gave some (to me very convincing) arguments that the eyewitness who identified Kosminski was in fact Schwartz, not Lawende? That would make Lawende's sighting less significant. And it would seen logical, in my opinion Schwartz had a better look at the attacker than Lawende. This ofcourse depends on you accepting Stride as a Ripper victim or not.

Greetings,

Addy