Ripper Victims?

[Malcolm X]

Hello Tom,

You're a creative fellow.

5 years and 2 inches difference (more if you go with the 5'7/8).

Fair and brown aren't the same.

They both have a moustache. That's about it!

yes ha ha..... this reminds me of Maybrick !

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

The lateness of the hour at which I posted might have contributed to my message coming across as somewhat stroppier than I intended. Sorry about that. But yes, there are obvious similarities between the broad-shoulders and sailor suspects (30 years old, peaked cap, wearing a jacket) that are absent in the suggested sailor-pipeman comparison. BS and sailor-man could very easily have been the same person, and in my opinion, it is a point that the Stride-as-JTR-victim proponents would do well to emphasize. A sailor-like appearance would have been more conspicuous in the City of London, and thus stood a greater chance of being remarked upon by a witness there than in Berner Street, where dockers were far more common. This would account for Schwartz' failure to notice a particular sailor-like appearance.

It must be considered highly unlikely that anyone other than Lawende was the source for the 19th October description that appeared in the Police Gazette.

I certainly don't rule out the possibility that Pipeman and BS were accomplices, but even if that were the case, the latter is still the more likely of the two to be Stride's murderer, given that he was observed physically manhandling her.

All the best,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom,

You're a creative fellow.

5 years and 2 inches difference (more if you go with the 5'7/8).

Fair and brown aren't the same.

They both have a moustache. That's about it!

Let's play fair, Mac (pardon the pun). I believe you mean 'light brown', which to many people, would be the same or quite similar to 'fair'.

now your Pipeman is still too old and tall for Lawende, who is about 30 and 5ft 8 or 9, stop trying to make your guy fit this suspect.

I'm clearly discussing this with two individuals who haven't the slightest concept of the reliability of witness evidence. You have both told me that a difference of five years in age and 2 inches in height is proof positive they couldn't have been the same man.

I would love for both of you to team up on an investigation of the Annie Farmer attack, where numerous people - in broad daylight - watched a man exit the lodging house and run away. One witness described him as 5' 6" or 7", another as 5' 3" or 4", another as being a tiny short man. Depending on who you asked, he had a large moustache, a small moustache, or no whiskers at all. This is atypical of such witness evidence, yet no doubt you two would conclude not one, but at least four men had exited the lodging house at the same time!

Ben,

The crime evidence alone determines Stride to be a Ripper victim, and witness descriptions are so generic for the most part that I would consider it desparate to point at Lawende's man and BS Man and conclude anything other than they were similar in appearance. Pipeman, due to his height, is obviously one who stands out from the rest.

Ben, Mac, and Mal,

However, I would point out that Mitre Square Man, at 5' 9" is far closer to 6 ft than he is to 5' 3" inches, as I'v seen given for the estimated height of Mrs. Long's man. For this reason, investigators ALWAYS argue the shorter estimation of MSM's height, which STILL carries with it a larger discrepancy with Mrs. Long's man than does the 5'9" estimate with Pipeman. You guys simply can't have it both ways.

As for age, ask anyone over 35 to show you photos of themselves at 30 and at 35. Assuming their not a crack addict, my guess is there'd be little difference. I'm 37, and I promise if you asked 10 people to walk by me, then asked them to estimate my age, you'd hear everything from 28 to 42.

In short, the estimations of height and age in this case, as in any, are the least reliable evidence we have to work with. Perhaps for this reason, the police placed virtually zero faith in it and considered suspects taller than even Pipeman, such as Tumblety, Le Grand, Ostrog, Grainger, and others. The tall suspects outnumber the short ones.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

The fact that there were a number of tall suspects is not an indication that the police placed zero faith in the witness descriptions. It just means that for whatever reason, certain suspects warranted investigation in spite of their incompatibility with the preponderance of eyewitness evidence. Grainger in particular had stabbed a prostitute in Spitalfields, and it would have been ludicrous for the police to dismiss him purely because he was on the lofty side. As for the taller suspects outnumbering the shorter ones, the problem there is that the former category contain a number of candidates (not Le Grand), who despite the police suspicion attached to them, are very implausible.

As an aside, both Joseph Levy and Liz Long thought their suspects were slightly or somewhat taller than the female companion (I can't recall the exact words), whereas anything above 5'10" would qualify as appreciably taller, in my view. Also, the pedant in me is forced to observe that Lawende estimated 5'8" for sailor man.

All the best,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

yes Tom has a point for sure and i've argued what he's saying many times in the past, but the trouble is Pipeman was seen with another suspect BS, who is a better match for Lawende's sailor boy than he is.

JTR therefore appears far more like BS, unfortunately BS does not appear like GH...... not really, not unless i use your arguements

because Toppy was only about 21 to 23, and in addition, the GH seen outside was short and stocky and of military appearence, so i'm not sure really, because we have no idea what Toppy looked like, not unless we contact surviving family members

we do not have a match for the Eddowes suspect, because it's the hat that you wont mistake late at night, because this is too noticeable, therefore for BS to be JTR he has to go home and change

i'm not very convinced about this, because going home to change seems too lame ! but i am TOTALLY CONVINCED that the last 3 murders are linked back to Dutfields/ anti-semetism.

BS to me is the weak link and he was before too.... he just does not look enough like Sailor boy

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Ben,

I understand where you're coming from. I clearly don't mean to say the police put no value on witness evidence, but as it should be, it wasn't considered 'primary' evidence. But for the sake of our current argument, let me point out that the one suspect we KNOW Lawende was taken to see was Sadler, who does not appear to have been a short man. I think this is significant when considering Lawende's evidence.

Hi Malcolm. You seem to have an inner struggle with George Hutchinson that hues the lens through which you view all the evidence (this is consistent with GH, this isn't consistent with GH, etc). Have you thought about putting GH aside for the time being?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Steven Russell]

Hello, Malcolm.
Let me see if I've got this straight. You are convinced that the last three murders are linked by anti-semitism like this:
Stride: location. Right next to the IWEC,
Eddowes: the GSG,
Kelly: Hutchinson's description of Astrakhan Man.

This only works if Hutch is the killer; if so, he certainly played a very dangerous game in going to the police. I wonder if he was questioned about an alibi for the Double Event.

That's a hell of a lot of trouble to go to to implicate a Jew. It means he would have had to have:
1) Deliberately chosen Dutfield's Yard as a location for the killing of Stride (or whoever else happened to turn up),
2) Taken the apron piece to Goulston Street and written the message, confident that the message would be connected to the apron piece and the apron piece to Eddowes,
3) Gone to the police to implicate an imaginary suspect for a murder he himself had committed, surely recognizing that this would place him at the scene.

Have I got that right? Perhaps you are suggesting that he wanted to throw suspicion back onto a Jew following Pizer's exoneration?

I'm by no means convinced that he is our GH but didn't I read somewhere that Toppy was barely literate which is why he developed an excellent memory? Might be wrong about this last point but I stand by the rest.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Malcolm X]

Hi Ben,

I understand where you're coming from. I clearly don't mean to say the police put no value on witness evidence, but as it should be, it wasn't considered 'primary' evidence. But for the sake of our current argument, let me point out that the one suspect we KNOW Lawende was taken to see was Sadler, who does not appear to have been a short man. I think this is significant when considering Lawende's evidence.

Hi Malcolm. You seem to have an inner struggle with George Hutchinson that hues the lens through which you view all the evidence (this is consistent with GH, this isn't consistent with GH, etc). Have you thought about putting GH aside for the time being?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

yea i'm not happy about GH at all, and definitely not Toppy ( who it looks like it is )

recent developments that i should have realised, tell me that JTR going to the police as GH is far too risky and i'm getting sod all help from fellow GH fanboys either, so this isn't helping our cause,

i'm one of the first guys to ever forward GH as JTR and i've been on and off this forum for more years than i care to remember, but right now he's starting to look too weak, let me explain why and this goes right back to the basics

inserting yourself into this case is the work of a genius and it's very foolhardy too, this is not the type of thing that a JOE AVERAGE is capable of doing, or even smart enough to try. this is not the work of a stay at home family guy, that's too bloody lazy to get off his arse and find a job. this killer is already successful in life, either as a criminal, or simply good at his job etc.

if these last 3 murders are linked via Dutfields, then this killer is probably a part time vigilante/ thug, a bit like a Millwall supporter that works as a bank clerk/ Estate agent, he leads a double life

i think he's shooting home to change his disguise between murders, do you know something and i sensed this yesterday :- the Eddowes suspect almost looks too scruffy, he looks like a characture.

they all have similar faces, age too, but they all have different clothing, blotchy face, BS, BANK CLERK, overweight, stocky, military

i've noted many times that some smart people look scruffy, but with just a few items of clothing changed to make them look tidy, it's most bloody odd.

sailor boy..... remove his wideawake and replace with a sailors hat, add a scalf, mess up your face, slouch a bit...... this could quite easily be BS/GH

BS..... NO ! only broad due to the wide overcoat, he could be without a good clear look, medium build only......do others here sense this !

why did JTR ( but not toppy ) describe a jew, when the Eddowes suspect that he would definitely have known of, was described as a sailor, and especially considering that this JTR to me seems intelligent.

1.... well maybe, without anyone realising, plus dead lucky, the Lawende supect and this GH look very similar, but the 50% error due to it being so dark/ change of clothing has worked in JTRs favour.

2..... maybe describing the killer of MJK as another sailor boy, would be too similar to him + or - 50% when he went to Abberline, especially when a sailor boy can also be a labourer/ joe average

3..... did GH therefore describe LA DE DA, to throw the police totally off his scent, thus allowing him to mix with them for the next 2 days.... because he definitely describes a killer, not a jew, a killer.... he even said ``he didn't look like someone that could harm anyone else``..... hang around no, what makes you think that this guy is even the killer, no this is because you want the police to think that he definitely is...... you're telling the police what to think all the time and you've done this 3 times already and by the time you've left 2 days later, you've even convinced the tabloids too.

sorry Tom, GH is still my man, he's just not toppy that's all

[Malcolm X]

Hello, Malcolm.
Let me see if I've got this straight. You are convinced that the last three murders are linked by anti-semitism like this:
Stride: location. Right next to the IWEC,
Eddowes: the GSG,
Kelly: Hutchinson's description of Astrakhan Man.

This only works if Hutch is the killer; if so, he certainly played a very dangerous game in going to the police. I wonder if he was questioned about an alibi for the Double Event.

That's a hell of a lot of trouble to go to to implicate a Jew. It means he would have had to have:
1) Deliberately chosen Dutfield's Yard as a location for the killing of Stride (or whoever else happened to turn up),
2) Taken the apron piece to Goulston Street and written the message, confident that the message would be connected to the apron piece and the apron piece to Eddowes,
3) Gone to the police to implicate an imaginary suspect for a murder he himself had committed, surely recognizing that this would place him at the scene.

Have I got that right? Perhaps you are suggesting that he wanted to throw suspicion back onto a Jew following Pizer's exoneration?

I'm by no means convinced that he is our GH but didn't I read somewhere that Toppy was barely literate which is why he developed an excellent memory? Might be wrong about this last point but I stand by the rest.

Best wishes,
Steve.

basically yes but i doubt Toppy is GH, dont forget that he only signed one page, the coppers signed the other 2 pages, yet again this is highly suspicious

if toppy is as you; say barely literate, then this means that he almost definitely didn't write the graffiti, this was small and neat, with no spelling mistakes.... i think.

finally, Toppy has totally the wrong personality for JTR

[Wickerman]

...In short, the estimations of height and age in this case, as in any, are the least reliable evidence we have to work with.

Correct Tom, eyewitness testimony is the least reliable, yet it is assumed to be the most reliable.
There are a number of sources any witness will use to give a description.
A witness may say the suspect was "tall'ish", because he was taller than they are.

If the witness was not sure of the height the interviewing officer will ask, "Taller or shorter than me?", whereby we then go from "tallish" to a precise 5' 11", when the witness in reality had no clue.
The measure actually comes from the officer in his attempt to create a detailed description from vague opinions. The suspect may not have been 5' 11" at all.

Much the same problem exists with respect to age, some people do look older for their age, light and shade have an appreciable affect on whether someone looks 30'ish or 40'ish, especially at night in poor light.

Likewise a deerstalker hat (with peak fore and aft) can look like a "cap with a small peak" if the suspect is standing with his back to a wall, or if his collar is turned up hiding the rear peak, or making it less obvious.

Another example would be the overcoat. Such a description brings to mind a coat which extends down to the ankles, yet if a suspect wore a suit jacket under a 3/4 coat (Morning coat) then he would be wearing an overcoat because he had one longer coat on top of another.

We place a great deal of weight in witness descriptions yet there is incredible "room for error". Especially as most of the sightings were a passing glance, a fleeting glimps. Yet the witness is expected to provide a description comparable to a short study, so yes, perhaps the witness then comes up with some details that are just purely wrong.

Regards, Jon S.

[Steven Russell]

Estimating age.

Good points, Tom and Wickerman. Added to which -

These days there can be clues (not always reliable) to a person's age due to hairstyle and fashion, speech, gait etc. Now I may be wide of the mark here but I would suggest that these distinctions were not so obvious in Jack's time. Looking at Victorian photographs, it seems that young people had more or less the same fashions, haircuts, facial hair etc as their parents, making people's ages even more difficult to pin down.

We often hear that the teenager was invented in the 1950s. I suppose gangs like The Hoxton High Rips were the Teddy Boys of their day but I wonder if there was any identifiable style of dress they favoured. In other words, people of different callings may have tended to dress in a particular way (appearance of a clerk/sailor/military man etc.) but I doubt if you could make a decent guess about age unless you had a goodish look at someone's face.

Any thoughts?

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Wickerman]

... Looking at Victorian photographs, it seems that young people had more or less the same fashions, haircuts, facial hair etc as their parents, making people's ages even more difficult to pin down.

Quite true Steven. In fact just 30 minutes north of where I live are Mennonite farms, schools & a church. The little boys are all dressed like old men. They wear small suit jackets, trousers, flat caps & boots. And the girls dress like their mothers in long dresses and something on their head like a hair net?
And to look at them, I couldn't tell you how old they are except by guessing from their height.

I mention this because the children remind me so much of how the young street urchins are dressed in the Victorian photo's on the East End. When I drive up north around St. Jacobs, & Elmira it's like driving back through time.

A little off-topic, sorry.
Jon S.

[Steven Russell]

Not at all, Jon. It seems we agree. Are the Mennonite people a bit like the Amisch?

Best wishes,Steve.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Steven. Actually, Mennonites are less progressive than the Amish, and that's not a joke.

Yes, witness evidence is less reliable for height and age, but in Victorian times would be more reliable for this like headgear. The closer the age of the person witnessed to the witness, the more reliable. Also, obviously, the length of time they witnessed the individual and the circumstances. Best and Gardner almost certainly saw Stride and were able to identify her by truly identifiable characteristics, such as her unique mouth and flower.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Steven Russell]

Hi Steven. Actually, Mennonites are less progressive than the Amish, and that's not a joke.

Yes, witness evidence is less reliable for height and age, but in Victorian times would be more reliable for this like headgear. The closer the age of the person witnessed to the witness, the more reliable. Also, obviously, the length of time they witnessed the individual and the circumstances. Best and Gardner almost certainly saw Stride and were able to identify her by truly identifiable characteristics, such as her unique mouth and flower.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

This is pure babble from the sickbed. Are you alright, Tom? Is there anything we can do?