Why is Lawende definitely Anderson's Witness?

[Shelley]

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?

The clutching of the cachous could just be a bodily response for being seized at the throat, as with cutting or strangling the fists can clench.

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

You say that you can't see how anyone can put forth an argument different from yours but Chief Inspector Donald Swanson, a trained and experienced Scotland Yard detective, who was on the case at the time and who had all the facts available to him felt that there could have been a killer other than the BS man. So it would seem that there is at least one.

c.d.

[c.d.]

The clutching of the cachous could just be a bodily response for being seized at the throat, as with cutting or strangling the fists can clench.

Hi Shelley,

But wouldn't Liz's natural response be to try to get those hand's off of her throat? Hard to believe that if she fought back at all that the bag of cachous would not have ripped.

c.d.

[Shelley]

Hi Shelley,

But wouldn't Liz's natural response be to try to get those hand's off of her throat? Hard to believe that if she fought back at all that the bag of cachous would not have ripped.

c.d.

Being fearful can make you freeze and not fight back, it just depends on the persons reactions from one to another, one woman may fight back and couldn't careless what happened to the cachous, another would freeze. It may make a difference if she knew there was a knife and not a hand at her throat as well, maybe not. However Liz was found clutching her bag of cachous, so my guess is she would have been too fearful. From bit's i've read she seemed to get on with people and no one could see any reason why she would have been attacked by anyone, so she may have been more of a gentle person, if so it could well explain why she did not struggle or fight back. Personally i don't think she was a ripper victim i think she was picked by a member of a gang and used to serve as some kind of warning, i would not have thought that JTR would shout out to draw attention to himself, he could just as well have solicited her and the pair slink off quietly so he could do his nasty deed in some dark or not well lit street. Others believe she was a ripper victim and have thier reasons.

[Shelley]

Hi Ben,

You say that you can't see how anyone can put forth an argument different from yours but Chief Inspector Donald Swanson, a trained and experienced Scotland Yard detective, who was on the case at the time and who had all the facts available to him felt that there could have been a killer other than the BS man. So it would seem that there is at least one.

c.d.

C.D,
What's a BS man?

[Ben]

Hi CD,

Chief Inspector Donald Swanson, a trained and experienced Scotland Yard detective, who was on the case at the time and who had all the facts available to him felt that there could have been a killer other than the BS man.

...Which is true, of course.

There could have been. It isn't beyond the realms of possibility, but the likelihood is incredibly slim.

[Christine]

C.D,
What's a BS man?

Broad-shouldered man, a nickname for the man who shouted "Lipski!" at Israel Schwartz.

[Nothing to see]

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

Hi. I guess I didn't say what I was trying to say clearly. To me, there's a very big difference between Jack being physically rough with an intended victim in front of witnesses, and Jack doing the smooth 'Let's talk terms" in front of witnesses.

I don't know this for sure but I'm going to guess Jack didn't want to get caught. So, he'd hardly be making a display of himself manhandling a woman, in front of witnesses, just before he murders her. That's why I don't think Schwartz saw Jack. Michael Kidney is someone I've never thought about before and he does make sense. I wonder if the police ever had that thought
and showed a photo of Kidney to Schwartz or brought them face to face?

What I don't understand is why the city solicitor applied for and the coroner allowed Lawende's description to not be given to the jury, when the police had already released a description to the press?

[caz]

Hi. I guess I didn't say what I was trying to say clearly. To me, there's a very big difference between Jack being physically rough with an intended victim in front of witnesses, and Jack doing the smooth 'Let's talk terms" in front of witnesses.

I don't know this for sure but I'm going to guess Jack didn't want to get caught. So, he'd hardly be making a display of himself manhandling a woman, in front of witnesses, just before he murders her. That's why I don't think Schwartz saw Jack...

Hi NTS,

Well the irony of this is that if Jack did manhandle Liz in front of a couple of reluctant witnesses before killing her, it certainly didn't do him any harm at the time, and now people are busy assuming he would never have risked it, or it wasn't his style or his 'normal' approach, so it wasn't him.

Conversely, Jack was still able to rip up Kate like a pig in the market and get away with it, after allowing himself to be seen by three men, doing precisely what most people believe was the fiend's usual thing: lulling his victim gently into a false sense of security. He may as well have had a stand-up row with her instead, because now she'd be considered yet another one-off domestic copycat job, done to resemble Annie Chapman.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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

With all due respect, Brad, that is simply your opinion. You may well be right, but equally you may be wrong. There is not enough evidence to give us a reliable timeline and nobody witnessed what happened between Schwartz's incontinent exit (if we can rely on him at all) and the pony and cart fetching up by Liz's dead body.

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.

Excellent points, c.d.

I don't think BS man (whoever he was) was necessarily intending to use a knife on Liz when pulling her about. Nor do I think she would have seen this as anything other than an occupational hazard of hanging around clubs in the early hours - hence no thought of appealing for assistance from other passers-by. We need to use what evidence we have before we start filling in the gaps with speculation that doesn't sit well with that evidence.

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?

But Ben, Jack was active in the area that night, so he was on the lookout for just the sort of vulnerable women who routinely had to put up with rough treatment by men who, like him, felt nothing but contempt for them. How long do you think he would have needed to roam the streets or the pubs on a Saturday night before witnessing some kind of dust-up involving one of the scores of downtrodden women out and about hoping to beg, borrow or steal a few pennies, a drink or just a bit of male company? How could it possibly be called an 'implausible coincidence' if he had simply taken advantage of one such dust-up?

You've obviously not been out on a Friday or Saturday night anywhere in Croydon, if you seriously think it would be an implausible coincidence for a loner with a knife and an urge to use it to come across (or sniff out more like) an argument in progress and get stuck in himself. But I don’t think you do seriously think that, in which case it must be your agenda talking. Perhaps we can leave it there so yet another thread doesn't get diverted down Hutchinson Way. In the meantime, you would be well advised to read up on the Sally Anne Bowman case. By your logic, if it had happened back in 1888, with no forensics, you’d swear that her innocent ex-boyfriend must have murdered her because he admitted they had been arguing in his car just seconds before she was subjected to a horrific knife attack. Her killer was watching and waiting for the boyfriend to drive off so he could pounce. He may even have got off on the row he witnessed. Not only that, but her killer had tried and failed to attack another woman with a knife earlier the same night, so it was a genuine double event!

Personally, I don't see anything remotely problematic about the broad-shouldered man being the serial killer who did for the others.

Watch my lips, Ben: nor do I.

But it’s far from being the only perfectly plausible scenario.

...he could just as well have solicited her and the pair slink off quietly so he could do his nasty deed in some dark or not well lit street.

Hi Shelley,

Only if Liz was willing to slink off quietly somewhere slightly more suitable for his nasty deed than a busy club entrance with ponies and carts and all sorts coming and going at any moment.

Love,

Caz
X

[Nothing to see]

Hi NTS,

Well the irony of this is that if Jack did manhandle Liz in front of a couple of reluctant witnesses before killing her, it certainly didn't do him any harm at the time, and now people are busy assuming he would never have risked it, or it wasn't his style or his 'normal' approach, so it wasn't him.

Conversely, Jack was still able to rip up Kate like a pig in the market and get away with it, after allowing himself to be seen by three men, doing precisely what most people believe was the fiend's usual thing: lulling his victim gently into a false sense of security. He may as well have had a stand-up row with her instead, because now she'd be considered yet another one-off domestic copycat job, done to resemble Annie Chapman.

Love,

Caz
X

You've got me intrigued. Chapman and Eddowes. Can you tell me what the circumstances surrounding their murders have in common? I'd really be interested to know. Besides Jack chatting both of them up.

And I don't think I'm wrong about Jack choosing who to whack and not in front of witnesses. I know you have much more knowledge about this than me but... He wasn't stupid. Unfortunately for the women he killed.

I know the police believed Schwartz. I'm not saying I don't believe his testimony. He saw something. But..I do believe Jack got Stride. I don't believe it was Jack trying to pull her down onto the pavement or into the yard. Not in front of witnesses.

[Chris]

Well the irony of this is that if Jack did manhandle Liz in front of a couple of reluctant witnesses before killing her, it certainly didn't do him any harm at the time, and now people are busy assuming he would never have risked it, or it wasn't his style or his 'normal' approach, so it wasn't him.

Conversely, Jack was still able to rip up Kate like a pig in the market and get away with it, after allowing himself to be seen by three men, doing precisely what most people believe was the fiend's usual thing: lulling his victim gently into a false sense of security. He may as well have had a stand-up row with her instead, because now she'd be considered yet another one-off domestic copycat job, done to resemble Annie Chapman.

Isn't this getting a bit silly?

Just because Schwartz happened to run away rather than intervening or calling for help, that doesn't mean the murderer wouldn't have been taking a huge risk by attacking his victim in full view of passers-by.

As for whether it was his "normal approach" how many reports have you seen of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes or Kelly being attacked in front of witnesses just before their deaths? Aren't the indications that the other victims were taken to a secluded spot in order to be killed, rather than being attacked in front of witnesses?

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

I don't think BS man (whoever he was) was necessarily intending to use a knife on Liz when pulling her about. We need to use what evidence we have before we start filling in the gaps with speculation that doesn't sit well with that evidence.

Precisely, and the "evidence" we're fortunate enough to have at our disposal is that Liz Stride - the victim - was believed by the first medical professional at the scene of the crime to have been killed around the same time that an independent witness saw someone attacking the victim. Overwhelmingly logical deduction? The man seen attacking her was the man who killed her. I disagree completely with the assumption that Stride viewed vicious unprovoked attacks on innocent women as an "occupational hazard", and I really can't envisage her reacting along the lines of: "Here we go again. Go on then, beefy, give us a kickin!". She screamed in protest three times, which can logically be construed as an appeal for assistance.

so he was on the lookout for just the sort of vulnerable women who routinely had to put up with rough treatment by men who, like him, felt nothing but contempt for them.

Evidence please that these "dust-ups" were as common as you say.

How could it possibly be called an 'implausible coincidence' if he had simply taken advantage of one such dust-up?

Because:

1) I don't believe umprovoked attacks on women - prostitutes or not - were particularly common.

2) It's even less common for one unusual, aggressive and unprovoked attack on one women in one location to be followed, just minutes afterwards, by an even more aggressive attack on that same victim in the exact same location.

3) Any "alternative" is bound to pale into comparative insignificance alongside the obvious commonsense deduction that the man seen attacking her was the man who killed her.

You've obviously not been out on a Friday or Saturday night anywhere in Croydon, if you seriously think it would be an implausible coincidence for a loner with a knife and an urge to use it to come across (or sniff out more like) an argument in progress and get stuck in himself.

Yes I have, and I've never heard of that happening, especially not if it follows a scenario that one lone man attacks women for no reason, and is then followed minutes later by a second lone man attacking the same women in the same location. You can argue that broad-shoulderes had an accomplice if you wish, and that he - the accomplice - killed Stride, but to argue that the REAL Jack arrived after Stride had alredy been attacked just doesn't work.

By your logic, if it had happened back in 1888, with no forensics, you’d swear that her innocent ex-boyfriend must have murdered her because he admitted they had been arguing in his car just seconds before she was subjected to a horrific knife attack.

An argument is quite different from an unprovoked attack. There's no evidence that the broad-shouldered man was known to Liz Stride. He simply approached her and attacked her, so no I wouldn't swear that the boyfriend must have murdered her.

And why did you just introduce Hutchinson into the discussion for no reason at all? I'm dying to know how my "agena" in that regard impacts in the slightest on this issue?

But it’s far from being the only perfectly plausible scenario.

Indeed, the alternatives include Stride not being a ripper victim, Schwartz lying, "BS" having an accomplice.

Best regards,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

You continue to insist that Liz being thrown to the ground constituted a vicious and unprovoked attack. How do we know that it was unprovoked? All we have is the testimony of Schwartz who came in in the middle of the movie. We don't know what Liz might have done to provoke the BS man. She might have told him to **** off or even shoved him first. We simply don't know.

As to "vicious", let's assume for the sake of argument that the whole throwing to the ground scene was witnessed by a policeman. If the BS man could give a reasonable explanation for his actions, I would venture to say that based on the policeman's mood that evening and his feelings towards prostitutes that he might have let the BS man go with a simple admonition to go on home. But even if the policeman did his duty and brought the man in what penalty would he face? Hanging? Life imprisonment? Fifty years of hard labor? I would guess maybe a few days in jail. Would the newspaper headlines scream "prostitute thrown to the ground" "police vow full investigation?" "Reward for information being offered?" Of course not. It is only a "vicious" attack when linked to what followed. But if the BS man simply cussed her out afterwards and walked away it seems a lot less sinister and very far from vicious.

c.d.

[c.d.]

C.D,
What's a BS man?

Oh to have that one lobbed my way and have somebody else respond before I could jump in with a smart ass answer. That hurts. Opportunities like that don't come along every day.

c.d.