Thomas Ede

[protohistorian]

Besides coroner Wynn Baxter's opinion of this witness can anyone shed light on why specifically he was thought of as a non critical witness? I would also like to know more about why Baxter had his misgivings. Thank You. Respectfully Dave

[John Bennett]

Hi Dave

Perhaps it was just because he saw a man with a knife on the morning of Annie Chapman's murder. This was pretty much when the Whitechapel Murders took off with mass panic etc. and the authorities were possibly looking for every lead they could get their hands on at this time... any port in a storm, as they say.

JB

[protohistorian]

Thank you sir. I suspect there is a great deal of what we would consider pertinent information that the authorities of the day thought inconsequential. Respectfully Dave

[protohistorian]

maybe an awnser

Ede identified a man as the one he saw. The prominence of this witness seems to hinge on the identity of that man. Dave

[lynn cates]

James

Hello Dave. The man Eade identified was Henry James. He was SUPPOSED to be a harmless lunatic. Not sure how we arrive at the "harmless" bit.

Was he really carrying a knife or just some object that gleamed in the sun?

Did Abberline ever question James?

Cheers.
LC

[ChrisGeorge]

Thank you sir. I suspect there is a great deal of what we would consider pertinent information that the authorities of the day thought inconsequential. Respectfully Dave

Hi Dave

One of the problems with this case is that there is an overload of information. Too many witness statements, too many suspects, too many tips coming into the police. I think it's very likely that the police had trouble sorting through it all, that they were often misled by potentially useful sounding information that turned out to lead to dead ends, and that, yes, occasionally they may have for one reason or another rejected genuinely useful leads to follow up something else.

Best regards

Chris