Striking after being seen?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[K-453]

There was a lamp right above the couple.

Monty

… and this could mean they were either fully visible OR the light blinded the witnesses and they saw not much of the couple.
Or do I overestimate the illuminating power of antique gas lamps now?

[Monty]

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.

There was a lamp right above the couple.

Monty

[Garza]

I dont see why this should be the case. If he couldnt get a good view of the 3 witnesses I doubt the 3 witnesses could get a good view of him, and he knew it.

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.

[Monty]

There's more to Packers dismissal than that though Jon.

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

Monty

[Wickerman]

... After all, Mathew Packard (I know his account is not true!) was also shown a different body before he was shown Liz in order to test him.

Hi Addy.
Don't be shy of acknowledging Packer, no-one said his statement was untrue.
Packer was uncertain about the time (11:00-11:30, or 12:00-12:30?), and he changed some details in subsequent interviews. Other witnesses had also changed details of their statements too (both Hutchinson & Schwartz).
Packer's statement was "of little value" because two other witnesses had seen Stride later that night(morning).

Packer was shown Eddowes body by two private detectives, this was not a police initiative, yes he was tested and he passed that test.
The man Packer saw was also seen by other witnesses, or perhaps more correctly, the description of the man was not inconsistent with other men seen that night.

Regards, Jon S.

[Addy]

Hi all,

I would say too that if he couldn't see the witnesses, they probably couldn't see him either. And it didn't stop him ( a witness being present) in the case of Liz Stride or Annie Chapman (mrs Long). And they had a far better look than the three men near Mitre Square.

Perhaps the witness was shown a couple of sets of clothing. After all, Mathew Packard (I know his account is not true!) was also shown a different body before he was shown Liz in order to test him.

Greetings,

Addy

[jason_c]

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.

I dont see why this should be the case. If he couldnt get a good view of the 3 witnesses I doubt the 3 witnesses could get a good view of him, and he knew it.