Striking after being seen?

[lynn cates]

Juives

Hello Jason.

"could the confused wording of the GSG be reconciled with a foreigner's attempted grasp of written English?"

Possibly. It does look like the French word Juives, doesn't it?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

involvement

Hello Addy.

"if Lawende had seen another couple, wouldn't they have come forward when they read about it all?"

Not necessarily. Some wish not to get involved.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

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.

Hello Addy,
The evidence speaks overwhelmingly and most plausibly for Stride being an interrupted Ripper victim (hence no mutilations/disembowelment), but there are some problems with coming to the conclusion that Schwartz (vs. Lawende) was the eyewitness who supposedly identified Kozminski: For one thing, Lawende's story is corroborated by 2 other witnesses, all of them law-abiding citizens, plus Lawende stayed in Whitechapel, and his address, physical description, and family history is known to us, thus it's not a strech to imagine that he would have been available to the police for further questioning after the fall of 1888. On the other side, Schwartz' story is possibly conflicting with the other witnesses (since noone else saw the incidents described in his testimony), there was doubt issued about his veracity as a witness in one newspaper report, there are suspicions that he was affiliated with the IWEC who might have influenced his testimony, it appears that he wasn't invited at the inquest, and the search results in the censuses are not giving us a clear idea about his whereabouts after the fall of 1888. I'm currently researching Schwartz as affiliated with the Whitechapel anarchists in 1902-1905, and, while yet not done at all with this research, I'm starting to get the impression that he changed or kept changing his first name. Unlike Lawende, I very much doubt that Schwartz would have been available for questioning again by the police after the fall of 1888.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The problem with Schwartz, if you believe his account, is that BS man throws her onto the 'footway'. Clearly, the footway is outside of the gates. He's certainly not attempting to drag her into the corner. So, what will Liz do? Walk with him into a dark corner? I doubt it. So, he must have dragged her there? Except there are no corrobating signs.

15 minutes? That's a fair amount of time. Seems possible that BS man just wanted her off the premises, BS man went inside, and Liz continued to solicit. Gives Jack 10 minutes to appear. Twice as much time as Jack has to kill Eddowes, mutilate, cut a piece of apron, wrap the organs, and move off without being seen - if you believe the doctors' testimony and Watkins'.

I personally would place much more store in Lawende.

[Wickerman]

...For one thing, Lawende's story is corroborated by 2 other witnesses, ...

Maria.
As I noted elsewhere, it is 'us' today who have put Lawende on a pedestal, comments like your's serve to demonstrate just what I meant.

Lawende's partner Levy tells us:
"..I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of Church-passage, but I did not take any notice of them". Apart from estimating the man's height, Levy add's:
"...I cannot give any further description of them. "

How does this corroborate Lawende's story? - the truth is, it does not do anything beyond confirm that a couple were standing on the corner.
Levy saw a couple, as did Lawende, who they were and what they were doing was not apparent to either witness.

So what was Lawende's story? He only, & briefly, saw a couple on the corner.

"..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."

What did the man look like?

"...He had on a cloth cap with a peak of the same. "

That was it, the Coroner cut Lawende short so we never get to hear his story.
What was there to corroborate?

Lawende tells us nothing. The eventual 'suspect' description although attributed to Lawende actually came via other sources, there are several versions, the most popular came via Swanson.

Given the detail contained in the description we are required to assume Lawende took a good look at the couple, yet he openly admits he would not know him again. He also admitted to not being sufficiently curious to 'look back' at the couple.
What about the light on that corner?

Levy said:
"...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."

So Lawende could give no further details, neither of them paid much attention to the couple, and the lighting at that location was particularly bad.

The third member Harry Harris made no comment at all, he was not even asked to be a witness.

Do you see where I am coming from?, 'we' create all these assumptions about what a great witness Lawende was, and he had support from his friends, yet when we take notice of the facts, Lawende by his own admission was not a good witness, and he did not have the support of his friends beyond the fact that Levy also saw the couple, but Harris offered no support at all.

Given the facts we know, we are left to query just how such a detailed description could be attributed to a man who took no real notice, could offer little by the way of detail, and only saw the couple briefly in a pooly lighted location.

This is the reality of Lawende's sighting, anything beyond that is purely our own conjecture unsupported by Lawende's own claims.

Regards, Jon S.

[mariab]

Hello Wickerman,
I totally see where you're coming from. What I meant was that Lawende's witnessing of a man and a woman (regardless of the fact if these two were indeed Eddowes and her killer) was corroborated by 2 law abiding citizens. I'm not claiming that Lawende was a perfect witness, just a honest one. Vs. Schwartz, whose story remains un-corroborated, and whom I might have succeeded in affiliating with the anarchists (there'll be more about this in a future article), and who might have being evading the police for political reasons.
I think it was Tom and Ben who initiated the discussion in this thread about Lawende having been put on a pedestal as a witness in the wake of Kozminski’s rise in prominence as a Ripper suspect. Another, less biased reason for Lawende's prominence is the fact that we now know so much about him (thanks to research conducted by Chris Scott and Chris Phillips) vs. the obscure, evading (?) Schwartz.
And obviously I agree that Lawende was a much less self-assured witness than say, James Brown, but Lawende's lack of assurance very much fits with the unnamed Jewish witness unwilling to testify against a Jew suspect in 1890(?)/1891(?).

[Ben]

Agreed, Maria.

Jon - Lawende's inquest testimony wasn't merely "cut short". It was deliberately suppressed, only to appear later in the Police Gazette, which, unlike the Illustrated Police News, was actually a police newspaper. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of its content.

[Tom_Wescott]

Wickerman,

While I'd hesitate calling the police circular's description of Lawende's man 'purely conjectural', as they clearly knew more than they wanted us to know, and had access to Lawende, I nevertheless find your thoughts on the matter very intriguing. Would it be possible for you to post all the descriptions provided by Lawende and Levy, or by the police in their name? It would be nice to have them all in one post for comparison.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I have always been in favour that Eddowes was initially accosted by her killer where Lawende and friends stated, however was reluctant to his advances note.. her hand on his chest[ almost a back off sailor].
I also believe she relented[ foolishly] and was led tightly by her left hand into the square,
I still cant discount Mrs Cox,s [ albeit oral history] nieces account of Mary Kelly alleged words 'All right my love, don't pull me along' . it would have been accomplished by grasping her left hand , in order to lead her up the passage.
Which could explain the bruising on Eddowes left hand of recent origin, as the same situation could have happened down church passage..
Note, Mary Kelly obviously remarked upon her hand being grasped, as by a punter in a hurry, and Kate no doubt had the same attitude, no need to scream out.
The hand bruising is important, although could have happened during her being arrested...we shall never know.
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

A hand on the chest can, of course (depending on other body language), be an indication of affection and familiarity.

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hello Phil,
Yes affection/ Familiarity, has to be in the mix, but it has been suggested that Kate was not a prostitute , indeed her and kelly were a item. and I would doubt if she offered herself at that time of the morning, to someone who appeared a randy client, at least initially, hence my interpretation of ''back off..not tonight some other night''... [does that not ring a bell with Strides attitude in Berner street.]?
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

I was also thinking of the possibility that Kate KNEW her killer. Had she made pre-arrangements to meet?

There are claims (I know questionable) that she had said she thought she knew who the killer was. Can we rule out at least acquaintanceship between the two?

This assumes, of course, that the couple Lawende saw were Kath and "Jack".

Phil

[jason_c]

Hello Phil,
Yes affection/ Familiarity, has to be in the mix, but it has been suggested that Kate was not a prostitute , indeed her and kelly were a item. and I would doubt if she offered herself at that time of the morning, to someone who appeared a randy client, at least initially, hence my interpretation of ''back off..not tonight some other night''... [does that not ring a bell with Strides attitude in Berner street.]?
Regards Richard.

Except that kind of encounter usually brings with it a raised voice or two. No witness claimed a scuffle with this sighting, nor a conversation of any sort(i believe).

Familiarity and "affection" is what prostitutes do best. If a drunken woman had her hand gently on my chest at 2oclock in the morning i'd pretty much know what was being propositioned.

[Malcolm X]

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.

the reason he wasn't caught is that he was cool and calm and looked like joe average/sailor boy, either one will do, or better still both

it doesn't take long to gut someone, an Eddowes would take no longer than about 7 mins; the face mutilations are strange, very odd indeed and always have been..... there are symbols in the cut marks that can be interpreted as the occult, but probably arent so i wouldn't bother studying these too much.

i would say that there is no sadism shown, these women are killed as quickly as possible, they have to be, so this is nothing like Sutcliffe, bundy etc.... be it a baseball bat or a claw hammer, the initial murder is always savage and very barbaric with these two

why JTR mutilates is therefore very odd, because this is definitely not about hatred, he's doing it in a semi-hypnotic trance, it's very immature, imbecilic and quite twisted.

[Phil H]

...the face mutilations are strange, very odd indeed and always have been..... there are symbols in the cut marks that can be interpreted as the occult, but probably arent...

IT has been VERY plausibly suggested that the V shaped cuts on the cheeks were a side-effect of a simpler attempt - to cut off the nose. There is an excellent post with convincing illustrations somewhere on casebook.

It convinced me and - other than the slits to the eye-lids, don't concern me anymore. Not occult, just accidental.

Phil