Why is Lawende definitely Anderson's Witness?

[Shelley]

I am unsure whether Piarate Jack meant in terms of serial killer statistics, he may be right that statistics haven't seemed to waver that much, but as i have mentioned statistics can be unreliable.
However, if a man is a vicious semi-criminal and has say knifed 3 guys and caused thier deaths as a result, either overlooked medically or overlooked in general, with also the time frame involved he wouldn't, or could, be classed as a serial killer, but none the less he would have caused death due to violence.
Also the history bit, further the back we go, we do find more violence occurred. What i found interesting on a visit to a place of interest, was that there was some type of medeival horse like bench and a terrible whipping item that looked like a horrific long length of birch which had been used on a woman in the 1920's by a family member, it was said that this type of punishment was more regulated and implemented in the 1600's, how about that blast from the past right into the twentieth century!

[caz]

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

Pirate

Hi Jeff,

I'm not 'suggesting' anything. But there's certainly no evidence that Kidney was the man seen having some kind of argument with Stride, during which she was allegedly pushed to the ground.

It's just as likely that an unaccompanied woman in Stride's shoes would be shoved around by a potential client or disapproving passer-by. So there's no call for anyone to insist that she must have known the man who shoved her around, or to insist that the ripper could not have been passing with his knife, en route to find some action, and either shoved her around himself just because he could and he felt like it, or watched someone else do it - just as Schwartz seems to have done. Being Jack, instead of running incontinently off to the missus, he may have rather enjoyed the show and stayed around for a little foreplay of his own.

If it was more than plausible for any other passer-by, like Schwartz or Pipeman, to witness a woman being bullied in this way, why does it suddenly become implausible for Jack to have witnessed anything similar? One could even argue that he gave himself more chances to witness such things, because he was out that very night looking for women so desperate that a bit of routine bullying by potential clients and disapproving passers-by would seem like luxury compared with an encounter with the fiend who had last struck in Hanbury St.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Eh? I think you'd better read my post again!

Schwartz may have seen Jack or he may not have. The evidence doesn't allow me to favour one over t'other.

And I don't have a clue what Jack wouldn't have been involved in, for fear of being identified, since he could well have been seen shoving Liz around if he didn't mind being seen with Kate's hand on his chest shortly before he drew his knife across her throat.

Where's the logic?

A stranger to Liz would stand less chance of being identified than someone known to have associated with her.

Love,

Caz
X

[celee]

Hi,

Simply put, If Shwartz saw a man attack Stride, he indeed saw her Killer. If it was the Ripper or someone else, He killed her straight off after being seen by Shwartz and he ran off in a hurry maybe to find another victim.

Your friend, Brad

[Jeff Leahy]

Cheers Caz that’s pretty much how I see it also. I dont think Kidney was her attacker.

Re: Schwartz. The one thing that worries me is if he did witness Jack the Ripper cut her throat, why didn’t Diemschutz see Schwartz as he came up the road?

Thanks Pirate

[c.d.]

I was reading Sugden's account of Liz's murder and it occurred to me that there might be a simple explanation for the BS man's actions. I believe Tom Wescott brought this up before but what if the BS man was someone associated with the Workingman's Club? He sees Liz standing near the entrance to the club and assumes that she is a prostitute. He takes offense at her conducting business so near the club so he simply grabs her and says "get the hell out of here, go peddle your wares somewhere else." This would explain two troubling things (to me anyway) about the BS man/Liz encounter...why, if he was intent on killing her, was he pulling her towards the street and not into the yard and why she didn't call out to Schwartz and the Pipe Man for help. Just a thought.

c.d.

[Nemo]

I've always been intrigued by the fact of the cachous still being in Liz's hand.

I think the man who threw her to the ground had time to leave the scene and Liz had a few moments to compose herself.

It must have been at or near that moment when the person who cut her throat attacked. That is why I tend toward the scenario that the cut-throat was within Dutfield Yard itself before he struck - yanking Liz from behind and killing her so quickly that she had not even time to defend herself in the slightest - and the cachous remained in her hand.

I think he cut her throat and left the scene quickly - there was no intention to mutilate at that spot. I think the chances of discovery were too great.

If the broad shouldered man was the Ripper, why would he try to pull her INTO the street?

If he continued manhandling her into the alleyway and then cut her throat, why would the cachous still be in her hand?

[Ben]

Seems a reasonable explanation to me, Brad.

Again, the only explanation that isn't reasonable is one that would have Stride being attacked twice, at the same location, within minutes of eachother, by two seperate attackers. Too much of an implausible coincidence, and the idea that Jack just happened to turn up when an unprovoked attack on a prostitute was in session, and thought "Hey, that looks like fun!" is just hilarious in its unlikelihood. Of course it's true that anyone could have witnessed the broad-shouldered attack, but how insanely unlucky would that make Liz for two attackers to descend on her, entirely independently, but within minutes of eachother?

Nothing's impossible, but my goodness, it's one hell of a long shot against the far more workable "bloke seen attacking her shortly before 1.00am was also the bloke who killed her around the same time".

Best regards,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

I think you are getting hung up on the word "attack". A prostitute got shoved to the ground so yes technically that is an attack. But you are not differentiating that from an attack where someone has their throat cut. I see a hell of a difference there and a coincidence that is by no means implausible.

c.d.

[Ben]

yanking Liz from behind and killing her so quickly that she had not even time to defend herself in the slightest - and the cachous remained in her hand.

It wouldn't happen that way, Nemo.

If she was taken by surprise, she'd instinctively release the cachous. The fact that they remained in her hands is far more of an indication that she'd tensed up in anticipation of an attack, perhaps clenching or balling her fists in the process. That would explain their presence in her fist during the attack.

why would he try to pull her INTO the street?

But then he turned her around and thew her onto the kerb, if memory serves. He intention was probably to pull her into the yard, but he was deterred from that purpose by Liz trying to escape into the streets. He then pulled her back in the intended direction, Dutfields Yard.

I think the man who threw her to the ground had time to leave the scene and Liz had a few moments to compose herself.

...and then whaddya know, along comes another attacker to give her an even worse beating just minutes later in the same spot! It just wasn't her night.

[Ben]

But you are not differentiating that from an attack where someone has their throat cut. I see a hell of a difference there and a coincidence that is by no means implausible

Of course it's implausible, CD.

You don't need any differentation. They were both vicious attacks on the same defenceless women, and the suggestion is that they occured within minutes of eachother by two seperate attackers in the same spot. Whatever exists in the realms of possibility, it's a long sea mile behind the infinitely more probably explanation that the man seen attacking her was the man who killed her. Sorry if I come across as unyielding about this, but I doubt very much that anyone would seriously entertain such a concept if there wasn't a "Jack" preconception. I'm not saying Jack wasn't responsible, but to dismiss the broad-shouldered man as Stride's because it's already been decided that his behaviour isn't ripperish enough is a step in the wrong direction.

I'm afraid your only realistic options if you don't like "BS" as the ripper is to stop believing that Stride was a ripper victim or to argue against Schwartz's veracity. The above "alternative" just comes across too much as trying to have one's cake and eat it.

Regards,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

Had Liz been a respectable married woman standing outside church on a Sunday morning surrounded by other people and had two similar encounters then I would say yes that is a hell of coincidence. The fact of the matter though is that Liz was a prostitute standing by herself late at night in a bad area. Now are we to believe that being thrown to the ground by a drunken customer (if that was the case) is absolutely a unique event in the annals of prostitution? I would say no and that in fact it or something like it occurred on a regular basis.

You describe both attacks as being "vicious" attacks on a defenseless woman. But let us suppose that these attacks were done by two different individuals and that both perpetrators were apprehended. I would venture to guess that the first perpetrator would be let off with a small fine or a warning or maybe a few days in jail at the most. The second perpetrator would be hanged. Now that is quite a difference in how the court would view these two events.

When a prostitute at that time was found with her throat cut and another was found a short time and a short difference away, I don't think it requires a preconception that maybe Jack did them both.

c.d.

[Ben]

Now are we to believe that being thrown to the ground by a drunken customer (if that was the case) is absolutely a unique event in the annals of prostitution?

Not absolutely unique, but random unprovoked attacks on women standing alone would certainly not have occured on a regular basis, and rarely, if ever, were they followed hot on the heels by the women in question being murdered. If they were, then the murderers in question were certainly the men who had attacked them just moments before, and here we're dealing with a no-brainer of epic proportions that goes something like this.

- Body of Liz Stride ajudged by the first doctor on the scene to have been murdered in Dutfields Yard some time between 12:46 and 12:56.

- Evidence emerges that a man was seen attacking the victim in that location at that time.

Surely there's no doubt whatsoever as to the most probable explanation here? The attack assumes an extremely important resonance in light of Stride's subsequent fate and the medical evidence evinced by it, and it elevates the signifiance of the attack way above and beyond that of a so-called "ordinary" scuffle.

Whoever killed Stride, it's obvious that an attack of some description had to have occured before the actual murder, and - amazing (not) coincidence - we have evidence that someone saw Stride being attacked just minutes before she was believed to have died.

There can simply be no doubt as to the more probable explanation (short of Schwartz lying), and only once we've acknowledged this can we determine how this impacts upon Jack's involvment. Personally, I don't see anything remotely problematic about the broad-shouldered man being the serial killer who did for the others.

Ben

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

Well, since you've chosen to use words like "certainly", "no brainer", "no-doubt", "obvious" and "more probable" I have "no doubt" that I would be unable to change your mind. You see the BS man as a slam dunk. I don't. I see too many red flags there. I don't know if the BS man killed Liz or if it was Jack or someone else. Neither do you. But what is clear is that neither of us can change what took place 120 years ago by the quality, quantity or passion of our arguments.

c.d.

[Ben]

You see the BS man as a slam dunk.

I see him as Stride's killer, CD, irrespective of whether or not he was the ripper, and I don't see how anyone could possibly argue that this isn't the most likely explanation, unless Schwartz lied. I can't help but stand by those robust expressions you've highlighted as they really apply here.

Cheers,
Ben