Why is Lawende definitely Anderson's Witness?

[celee]

Again, I'm very new here and not an expert. But I visited the sites a few times last year as well as the really interesting JTR exhibition in Docklands.and I've just finished rereading Paul Begg's excellent "Jack the Ripper'. I do believe Lawende saw Jack with Kelly. I have in my mind's eye where the streets are and where the policemen's beats took them. The gaslight wasn't functioning properly and let's face it, you have the watchman in Kearley and Tonge not hearing anything. I don't know if he was deaf or not.
I believe Jack killed Stride. And I do think Diemschutz disturbed Jack. That's why he went hunting again.
Anyway, JMHO.

How dare you disagree with me newbe! Just kidding, welcome. It is a good thing that you are new. Fresh opinions. I am interested to here explanations from those such as yourself on why you believe that Jack could cut Eddowes to bits in 8 minutes but not lay a finger on Stride in the 15 minutes between the time Shwartz saw Stride with her attacker and Diemschutz pulled up in his cart.

Why would Jack stick around after being spotted by Shwartz? He had no idea what Shwartz was going to do. It seems to me that the fear of being caught would speed up his exit.

Maybe you think that Shwartz did not see Stride or maybe Stride was attacked a second time after Shwartz left?

Welcome to the boards and I look forward to reading your responce. This is a great site if you are interested in the Ripper murders.

Your friend, Brad

[Nothing to see]

Hi. Schwartz is an I don't know. To me. I know the police thought his evidence was very important but I just don't know. To me his evidence has always seemed more to be 'it wasn't the Jews' if that makes any sense? I'm sure he witnessed something but I'm not convinced he saw Stride.
Statistically, for her to be attacked twice in the same area on the same night within the same time frame is pretty remote. Anyway, let's put it like this. I'd believe Schwartz over Matthew Packer any day.

Jack could have easily done Stride and gone on to Mitre Sq without too much trouble. That's why he really went for Cathy.

[celee]

Hi,

I agree, Jack would have been just as frustrated by being scared of by Shwartz as Diemschutz and he would have been looking for another victim. Of course Stride may not have been a Ripper victim at all.

Your friend, Brad

[Nothing to see]

Yeah you're absolutely right. A lot of people don't include Stride as one of Jack's gets but...Same throat cut, and including her he laid them against a fence or wall. Arterial blood goes left, Jack is on the right.

It's only after he doesn't get to finish Stride that he goes berserk on Eddowes. And I think after that, when he sees what he can get away with, is when he really goes for Kelly. JMO.

[Chris]

I am interested to here explanations from those such as yourself on why you believe that Jack could cut Eddowes to bits in 8 minutes but not lay a finger on Stride in the 15 minutes between the time Shwartz saw Stride with her attacker and Diemschutz pulled up in his cart.

I think it would be a mistake to treat Schwartz's timing of 12.45 as spot on. A round figure like that could be quite approximate. It's easy to believe it could have been five or ten minutes out. Given Gavin Bromley's detailed analysis of the timetable, a time after 12.50 for Schwartz's adventure seems more credible.

[celee]

I think it would be a mistake to treat Schwartz's timing of 12.45 as spot on. A round figure like that could be quite approximate. It's easy to believe it could have been five or ten minutes out. Given Gavin Bromley's detailed analysis of the timetable, a time after 12.50 for Schwartz's adventure seems more credible.

Hi,

You are spot on. Of course his time may be off and if I was a betting man, I would bet it was. However my point is, if Shwartz did see the Ripper and the Ripper was not scared off by him then Jack would have had time to do some mutilation to the body of Stride before Diemschutz arrived. Shwartz seeing Jack and Diemschutz arrival would have had to be almost at the same time to avoid mutilation.

Even if Shwartz is off by a few minutes. I doubt that after being seen attacking Stride, Jack would stick around, Again the Shwartz witnessing the attack and Diemschutz pulling up would have had occured at the same time, I doubt it.

I am getting tired, good night all.

Your friend, Brad

[Nothing to see]

Good night. I still believe Schwartz over Packer but I don't think Schwartz saw Jack. It's so hard to tell. I believe Jack did Stride. There were so many people who saw and didn't see things around 12.30 to 1.00am and contradicted each other. Ok MO. Throat cut left to right, up against wall on the left like the previous 2. Arterial blood goes one way Jack is on the other side.

Diemschutz blunders in. Why do people find it so hard to believe that Jack was put out of his stride(excuse the pun) and wenting hunting again? It makes sense to me. Eddowes has been in the drunk tank. She is sober enough to get out. Half an hour? Not sober enough. I do think Lawende saw Eddowes and Jack.

[caz]

Hi All,

I will continue to believe that outdoor knife attacks on females in London were, and are, incredibly rare, unless someone can provide unequivocal evidence to the contrary. Obviously the period between 1888 and 1891 in the East End was not typical, due to the Whitechapel Murders, regardless of how many killers we believe were involved. Tabram's murder was considered incredibly unusual, and therefore deeply disturbing, and I suspect it still would have been if half a dozen wounds had been inflicted instead of 39.

However, minor altercations with, and assaults on, women soliciting - or more importantly assumed to be soliciting - outside pubs and clubs etc are a completely different matter, and would have been looked upon by women in those circumstances as an occupational hazard and pretty much a nightly event. So maybe we should not read too much into the assault allegedly witnessed by Schwartz. If it was one of these nightly events, Liz would have taken it pretty much in her - yes, I know - stride, and could still have been totally unprepared for what happened to her shortly afterwards. If we can rely on Schwartz, he certainly did not witness a vicious knife attack, but a minor weapon-free altercation or assault. Even if the same man was responsible for both, their nature was very different.

As such, it's unwise to insist that the ripper would never have allowed himself to be seen in a minor altercation, just because he was never seen in the act of murder itself. He need not have been contemplating murder in Berner St or Dutfield's Yard, and was just bullying Liz because of the mood he was in, and it got out of hand after Schwartz left. Or maybe he was watching another bully at work and went over to offer a helping hand to Liz when the bully had shoved off.

We know that opportunist killers can and do take spontaneous advantage of such situations. We also know that when the circumstances are far from ideal, they can and do cut and run - off to vent their considerable frustration on a second victim, and they don't always display a similar MO.

I'm not claiming that one scenario is much more likely than another, and we don't even know if parts of Schwartz's testimony got lost or garbled in translation. But the grounds for rejecting a certain scenario should be based on what life was really like back then, and not on artficial limits put on human nature and behaviour in the LVP by our own imagination.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jeff Leahy]

As a matter of interest Caz are you suggesting an assault by a potential client or by Kidney?

Pirate

[Nothing to see]

Hi All,

I will continue to believe that outdoor knife attacks on females in London were, and are, incredibly rare, unless someone can provide unequivocal evidence to the contrary. Obviously the period between 1888 and 1891 in the East End was not typical, due to the Whitechapel Murders, regardless of how many killers we believe were involved. Tabram's murder was considered incredibly unusual, and therefore deeply disturbing, and I suspect it still would have been if half a dozen wounds had been inflicted instead of 39.

However, minor altercations with, and assaults on, women soliciting - or more importantly assumed to be soliciting - outside pubs and clubs etc are a completely different matter, and would have been looked upon by women in those circumstances as an occupational hazard and pretty much a nightly event. So maybe we should not read too much into the assault allegedly witnessed by Schwartz. If it was one of these nightly events, Liz would have taken it pretty much in her - yes, I know - stride, and could still have been totally unprepared for what happened to her shortly afterwards. If we can rely on Schwartz, he certainly did not witness a vicious knife attack, but a minor weapon-free altercation or assault. Even if the same man was responsible for both, their nature was very different.

As such, it's unwise to insist that the ripper would never have allowed himself to be seen in a minor altercation, just because he was never seen in the act of murder itself. He need not have been contemplating murder in Berner St or Dutfield's Yard, and was just bullying Liz because of the mood he was in, and it got out of hand after Schwartz left. Or maybe he was watching another bully at work and went over to offer a helping hand to Liz when the bully had shoved off.

We know that opportunist killers can and do take spontaneous advantage of such situations. We also know that when the circumstances are far from ideal, they can and do cut and run - off to vent their considerable frustration on a second victim, and they don't always display a similar MO.

I'm not claiming that one scenario is much more likely than another, and we don't even know if parts of Schwartz's testimony got lost or garbled in translation. But the grounds for rejecting a certain scenario should be based on what life was really like back then, and not on artficial limits put on human nature and behaviour in the LVP by our own imagination.

Love,

Caz
X

As such, it's unwise to insist that the ripper would never have allowed himself to be seen in a minor altercation,

I agree with you. I don't think Schartz saw Jack.

And I think you're correct. Jack wouldn't have been involved in a street incident where he could have been identified.

But I believe Lawende saw him and Kathy Eddowes. Has to be.

[Ben]

Hi nothing to see,

I remain uncomfortably on the fence when it comes to Stride's inclusion in the ripper's tally, but I feel the "inclusion" camp weaken their own case somewhat when they argue that yes, Jack did it, but because the actions of the broad-shouldered man aren't quite "ripperish" enough, the real Jack must have arrived on the scene afterwards.

Not remotely plausible, I'm afraid, and it stretches a coincidence to breaking point. Israel Schwartz saw a woman identified as the victim being attacked at around 12:45am, the time suggested as the likely time of death by the first doctor on the scene. Setting aside all "Jack"-related preconceptions then, the logical commonsense conclusion is that she was killed by the broad-shouldered man, unless Schwartz lied or was wildly awry is his estimation of the time. To posit the existence of an imaginary second attacker who targetted Liz just moments after the first attack and in the same location just isn't a credible proposition, unless Liz's nickname was Job.

If you don't think "Schwartz saw Jack", you'd be better of either ruling Liz out as a ripper victim or arguing that Schwartz made up the whole thing, but the second attacker scenario doesn't work. Having studied a number of other serial cases, I can endorse Caz's observation that; "it's unwise to insist that the ripper would never have allowed himself to be seen in a minor altercation, just because he was never seen in the act of murder itself."

Best regards,
Ben

[Chris]

Not remotely plausible, I'm afraid, and it stretches a coincidence to breaking point. Israel Schwartz saw a woman identified as the victim being attacked at around 12:45am, the time suggested as the likely time of death by the first doctor on the scene.

I agree that the idea of two separate assaults within minutes is not very plausible, but Blackwell didn't really suggest 12.45 as the likely time of death. The reports of his inquest testiimony are conflicting, but at best 12.46 would be his earliest limit for the time of death, and taking the different reports together he seems to have thought death was more likely to have occurred after 12.56 - which is also what the Star reported him as saying in a separate statement.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=21678&postcount=192

None of this really has much bearing on Schwartz's story, because (1) the time given by Schwartz may easily have been out by a few minutes and (2) Blackwell didn't have the means to estimate the time of death that accurately anyway ...

[Shelley]

Shelley,

it was similar to Martha Tabrams wounds of 39 stabbings to the lower torso.

This is not so. While deciding exactly where the upper- and lower-torso equator lies is not entirely clear, the majority of the wounds sustauned by Martha were to her neck and upper torso.

Don.

Hi Don,
I just said similar , as in the torso area, similar is not the same as ' Same '. Just meaning the torso area that's all.

[Ben]

Thanks for that, Chris.

Since 12:45 was Schwartz's estimate of the time when he turned onto Berner Street from Commerical Street, it would follow that the attack and ensuing murder would have occured some minutes later (i.e. closer to 12:56), assuming that the broad-shouldered man was Stride's killer.

Regards,
Ben

[Shelley]

I'd be careful with this assumption and would like to know where you get these satistics from?

As far as i am aware actual murder statistics are fairly consistent. I dont believe that you are any more or less likely to be attacked on the streets of Whitechapel today than you were in 1888.

Of course there are theories that the over crowded conditions of the Eastend
gave rise to a disproportionate number of serial killers (but it is a theory)

Whitechapel is as dangerous/safe today as it has ever been.

Pirate

I just said more common, statistics are fairly unreliable overall on a whole as they are only based on information to go on, there are plenty of unreported crimes in other areas or even later undiscovered murders that have come from ancient times as well as later recordings, that have been shown. And when i did some research in criminology even the home office had established that with the abolishment of capital punishment of hanging, murder did increase and also amongst police officers. So i would have to disagree with you in the fact of my study of Criminology & Home Office records shows this not to be true, there have been occassions where murder has been increased, so nothing steady of number there Pirate Jack.
Plus if the times are more violent there are more for the case that the violence can turn lethal and death can be a result. In information as regarding violence of women, domestic physical violence 2 women every week wind up dead and that is today's statistics. In an age where a man was given the full privileges of the law to beat his wife, not that that is allowed today, i would have thought that there would be more women who died as a result, than they do today.
I have not made any assumptions but have done study along with some theory that is reasonable to gather that conclusion.