Tweet
Hi Observer,
Abberline was clearly referring to witnesses who described foreign or Jewish-looking suspects in their witness statements. Lawende clearly does not belong in this category because he never gave any impression at the time that he considered the suspect to have been foreign of Jewish in appearance. Abberline then goes on to observe that “they” – the witnesses who mentioned Jewish or foreign appearances in their statements – only got a rear view of their suspect. The observation necessarily excludes any witness who described a foreign-looking person, but obtained a full frontal view, for whatever reason. That wouldn’t make Abberline “at fault” in any sense.
The fact that they were writing years after the event and became confused as to certain details is really a side issue to the fact that they all lend mutual support for the premise that certain witnesses were clearly discarded at some stage prior to the penning of the memoirs in question. You won’t find a police report from any senior police official describing in detail why Matthew Packer and Emanuel Vilonenia were no longer considered of interest. It’s their complete absence that tells the story, coupled with the fact that other witnesses who expressed more doubt about the possibility of identifying their suspects were nonetheless preferred for identity attempts. It’s the only logical, if not inescapable conclusion, especially if it has independent corroboration from separate press sources.
Better than Elizabeth Long’s who only obtained a rear view (clearly the witness Abberline had in mind in 1903). It really isn’t surprising that someone like Lawende be accorded more investigative focus, especially in terms of suspect identity efforts, than Long.
Best regards,
Ben
“It follows that Abberline was technically at fault when he commented to the effect, "witnesses who described foreign suspects only acquired rear sightings".”
The fact that they were writing years after the event and became confused as to certain details is really a side issue to the fact that they all lend mutual support for the premise that certain witnesses were clearly discarded at some stage prior to the penning of the memoirs in question. You won’t find a police report from any senior police official describing in detail why Matthew Packer and Emanuel Vilonenia were no longer considered of interest. It’s their complete absence that tells the story, coupled with the fact that other witnesses who expressed more doubt about the possibility of identifying their suspects were nonetheless preferred for identity attempts. It’s the only logical, if not inescapable conclusion, especially if it has independent corroboration from separate press sources.
“Elizabeth Long wasn't Jewish. Of course we have to determine what constitutes "a good look", I reckon she got a decent look at the man she observed with Annie Chapman. Did Lawende get "a good look" at his suspect?”
Best regards,
Ben
Comment