Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[RedBundy13]

[QUOTE=Malcolm X;202803]

i'm one of those who sais that you recognise evil, but it takes time, the early warning signs are always, `` he's a nice bloke, but a bit odd ``.... all serial killers have this.... they are never Mr Kippling !



I do agree 100% with that. I think JtR in all outwards appearances came off as pretty much normal guy, only after you'd known him for a bit or at least had been around him some would some of his odd traits appear. And I think that the people who knew him back them didnt connect his odd behavior or his wierd ticks with any overtly violent tendencies that would link him to the Ripper. Otherwise the case just might have been solved and a murderer brought to justice. But luckly for us (and this website) that didn't happen. Kidding

[RedBundy13]

, the more you learn, the less you 'know'.

Regards, Jon S.

Ha, its funny cause its so true. I thought I knew it all before. The more I find out, it really goes to show me how little I really did and do know.

[Malcolm X]

There isn't enough to point the finger to any one person, but of all our suspects, GH/TOPPY and G.Chapman are closest.

unfortunately to know who JTR is, you'd need to meet him first, because you'd know if he was GH within 10 mins...or even 30 seconds

JTR will not be a ``mr Kippling loving grandad``that every family member adores....... because a savage mutilator like this will be a much darker character, fact, even though he appears ok when you first meet him.

i'm one of those who sais that you recognise evil, but it takes time, the early warning signs are always, `` he's a nice bloke, but a bit odd ``.... all serial killers have this.... they are never Mr Kippling !

therefore even Toppy can quite easily be JTR, because research shows that he too is no Mr Kippling.... the trouble with him though is way too obvious, no more murders whilst he's still around.

JTR could not be anybody..... get this right, there are not that many of our suspects that fit him; at all.

have faith, stick to your guns, because there is no such thing as, ``the more you learn, the less you know``.

[Wickerman]

That's simply because I have no clue who the Ripper might have been. Right now I don't even have a suspect or even a leading contender for a suspect.

Join the Club!

I used to know who JtR was, no doubt in my mind I KNEW who he was,,,, until I did a little bit of research on my own and found him to be, well, not as promising as I had hoped.

Which is a fine example proving that, the more you learn, the less you 'know'.

Regards, Jon S.

[RedBundy13]

hate it, or wont accept it, i think you'll find that GH is JTR, or he saw JTR
and for either suspect, being seen explains them downgrading and distancing themselves from JTR.

Some interesting points for sure, I am leaning towards GH to having seen JtR then being JtR. That's simply because I have no clue who the Ripper might have been. Right now I don't even have a suspect or even a leading contender for a suspect. I used to know who JtR was, no doubt in my mind I KNEW who he was,,,, until I did a little bit of research on my own and found him to be, well, not as promising as I had hoped. But who knows, like you say it may well have been Hutchinson.

[Rubyretro]

hate it, or wont accept it, i think you'll find that GH is JTR, or he saw JTR
and for either suspect, being seen explains them downgrading and distancing themselves from JTR.

You can understand it Malcolm -I'd certainly be up for downgrading in the circumstances.

[Malcolm X]

I too agree that evidence is much stronger than eyewitness testimony. The trick is to corroborate the two and find something that fits in both.... I think

evidence?.... evidence is something that you can prove is factual, unfortunately there is nothing factual about the night of MJKs murder.... only suspicion..... not even her time of death.

something that fits both is still not good enough, because with clever manipulation, anything can be made to fit.

my guess is, it's what feels about right, combined with the possibility that we're missing something very obvious, but this depends on how intelligent JTR was/ his ego etc.

you're more likely to leave a clue that's well hidden at the time, or one that's left years later........when it doesn't matter any more.

well, that's what i'm hoping for anyway.

the problem we have is that these witnesses that lived in Millers court, are probably the most unreliable due to their circumstances, than all the others with regards to JTR.

They seem confused, open to tittle tattle, easily manipulated by the press, and likely to say anything just for 6 pence.... they dont even seem to know what night it was that she died !

are they easy to talk to by JTR, who might be waiting outside the inquest, MAYBE PRETENDING TO BE A JOURNALIST?...... oh yes, it's dead easy to make his story fit....and to manipulate this lot

but why does JTR need to bother, because they will never be able to catch him and everyone knows this, well maybe because he wants to !!!!!!!

all of this points to one person only, even with a 20% error, because the one thing that i'm suspicious of, is that it seems unlikely that JTR would keep his Identity a secret, because the Graffiti reflects that JTR is starting to play silly little games with the police, his ego is starting to take over !

this final murder isn't enough, he needs to carry on what he's started, to play games with the police.

hate it, or wont accept it, i think you'll find that GH is JTR, or he saw JTR
and for either suspect, being seen explains them downgrading and distancing themselves from JTR.

[RedBundy13]

witness vs. evidence

I too agree that evidence is much stronger than eyewitness testimony. The trick is to corroborate the two and find something that fits in both.... I think

[Garry Wroe]

I’m genuinely confused as to your reasoning for posting the details of these 1991 Sarah Lewises.

Sorry. That should have read 1891.

[Garry Wroe]

Where you choose to argue from the perspective of one who "knows" the solution to these issues, I choose to argue that no-one today can "know" the true solution … What we have is a situation where at least two solutions exist, and no-one, not even you Garry, can possibly claim to "know", no matter how persuasive you try to construct your arguments. Wheras I have never claimed to "know", you see the difference?

I’m unsure as to whether you are confusing me with someone else, Jon, or have simply misread my posts on the Lewis issue. Either way, I have never claimed to know that the two Great Pearl Street Lewises were one and the same. Even were I not trained in the methodology of science, common sense alone would deter me from dealing in absolutes when the evidence itself is inconclusive.

What the evidence does tell us, however, is that a fifteen year old Jewish Sarah Lewis was living in Great Pearl Street in 1881. Seven years later, a Sarah Lewis described as a ‘young woman’ with ‘negress-type’ features resided in this same street. My contention, based upon names, likely ages and ethnographic considerations, is that the two Sarahs were almost certainly the same person. I do not claim to know anything, and would happily revise my opinion were you or anybody else able to produce anything in the way of credible disconfirmatory evidence.

Those Sarah Lewis's I offered are not the only one's in the 1891 census. And to counter your claim once again, another 'single' Sarah Lewis exists where she is a "servant" in 1891, and 20? years old … Now you have two contenders as "single" girls, perhaps they are now both "overwhelmingly likely", in your opinion?

But overwhelmingly likely as what, Jon? I’m genuinely confused as to your reasoning for posting the details of these 1991 Sarah Lewises. You could post a thousand of them, but what would it prove other than an unusually high prevalence rate? Unless you are able to provide a definitive link to the Sarah Lewis, it amounts to nothing more than an exercise in futility. What’s more, you have been posting these Lewis examples despite your earlier asseveration that Sarah misrepresented her name to the authorities in order to preserve her anonymity. If that was indeed the case, none of the Lewises you have cited could have been the woman who appeared at the Kelly inquest. Leastways, not unless at some point between late-1888 and early-1891 Sarah separated from her spouse and then married (or took up with) a man named Lewis.

Finally, in order to place your argument in its proper context, it must be reiterated that the name Sarah Lewis was not prevalent at the time of the murders. The East End encompassed a population of some 900,000 persons, almost ten percent of which (80,000) resided in Whitechapel. In other words, Jon, we are dealing not with a country hamlet consisting of a couple of dozen families, but rather a densely populated conurbation wherein the name Sarah Lewis was a comparative rarity. Thus two Sarah Lewises of foreign extraction who lived in the same street within a seven year timeframe is noteworthy in my view. And whilst it may well prove to have been coincidental, it remains a far more compelling explanation for the antecedents of Sarah Lewis than does the assumption of an Irish lineage based upon an unconfirmed newspaper report linking her to the Gallaghers.

But if you have evidence to the contrary, I for one would welcome the opportunity to examine it.

[Sally]

Where did "multitude" come into this debate?, and pray explain what having a neighbour named Kennedy, in 1881, has to do with events which happened seven years later in 1888?

Jon

How terribly nonsensical. I'll try to explain.

I believe that it was you who pointed to the other Sarah Lewis's living in the East End at the time, with a clear inference that support for the individual living at Great Pearl Street in 1881 had been overplayed.

In case you don't get it, there were very few women by the name of Sarah Lewis living in the East End at the time. Considering that one of them was living in Great Pearl Street in 1881, her identification with the witness Sarah Lewis is wholly reasonable.

And this Sarah Lewis was a Polish Jew. She wasn't Irish, end of story.

As for her having been a neighbour of the Kennedy's - well, what does it have to do with the events of seven years later? Maybe nothing - perhaps a coincidence.

Yet I think there comes a point at which insistence on coincidence begins to sound like special pleading. There seems to be a lot of it about.

[Ben]

And living in Great Pearl Street? Just the one.

Precisely, Sally.

The only Sarah Lewis who can be placed in Great Pearl Street to anyone's knowledge has to be the most likely candidate for the witness in question, and by a significant margin. These "equal contenders" are nothing of the sort as they fail to meet this crucial and rather obvious criterion. As my “partner in crime” Garry astutely observed, it is unlikely to be a coincidence: an 1881 Sarah Lewis of foreign extraction living in Great Pearl Street, and an 1888 Sarah Lewis with “negress-type” of features also living in Great Pearl Street. For the benefit of Jon’s enlightenment, it was the Daily News that made the “negress” observation, not the Star.

It seems that some people are eager to resist this identification out of preference for the idea that Kennedy equals Lewis, which is obviously not the case at all. Similarly, the notion that the real Sarah Lewis had anything to do with Ireland is completely without foundation.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

And this list is intended to prove what, Jon? If it’s meant to demonstrate what a clever fellow you are, you may rest assured that these as well as other Sarah Lewises are distinctly old news.

I never intend to prove anything Garry, what I endeavor to do is level the playing field. When you make such comments as:

... If, as seems overwhelmingly likely, this was the same Sarah Lewis who resided in Great Pearl Street at the time of the 1881 census,...

You only give one example where others certainly existed. In not mentioning equal contenders I consider it remiss on your part, presumably, in your continuing effort to substantiate your argument at the expense of what is truely known by those who have the means to look.
It is possibly true that most of the readers of Casebook do not have copies of census records with which to judge your claim of, "overwhelmingly likely". I prefer to provide a little balance to such one-sided claims.

...But didn’t you express the belief that Sarah used an alias when making her police statement in order to prevent her husband from finding out that she’d stayed in Miller’s Court on the night of the Kelly murder? If so, Sarah Lewis wasn’t her real name and your list of candidates is thus utterly meaningless....

Where you choose to argue from the perspective of one who "knows" the solution to these issues, I choose to argue that no-one today can "know" the true solution.
What we have is a situation where at least two solutions exist, and no-one, not even you Garry, can possibly claim to "know", no matter how persuasive you try to construct your arguments. Wheras I have never claimed to "know", you see the difference?

- Sarah Lewis may have been her maiden name, and that Mrs Kennedy may have been her married name.

- Sarah Lewis may have been her married name, and Lewis visited the same house 30 mins before Mrs Kennedy arrived, ie, they were separate people.

There are small problems with both scenario's, such is the state of the evidence we have.

Where you may choose to use wording which implies you "know", I may insist you do not know.
Without the qualification "in my opinion" your comment could easily be misconstrued into meaning "it is obvious to everyone", which would be completely untrue.

You may notice I was careful not to dismiss your "belief" entirely, it is a contender, one of two and nothing more, certainly not "overwhelmingly likely".

Those Sarah Lewis's I offered are not the only one's in the 1891 census. And to counter your claim once again, another 'single' Sarah Lewis exists where she is a "servant" in 1891, and 20? years old.
Now you have two contenders as "single" girls, perhaps they are now both "overwhelmingly likely", in your opinion?

As I understand it, your primary interest lies in the field of archaeology. Perhaps this explains why you exhibit a seemingly unerring capacity to dig yourself into a hole.

I appreciate the humour, there's nothing wrong with that.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Exactly so. A handful. Not a multitude. And living in Great Pearl Street? Just the one. Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot, is there?

That Miss Sarah Lewis of Great Pearl Street (who, by the way, was a neighbour of a Kennedy family) and Sarah Lewis the witness were one and the same is a wholly reasonable conclusion to draw.

Where did "multitude" come into this debate?, and pray explain what having a neighbour named Kennedy, in 1881, has to do with events which happened seven years later in 1888?

Jon

[Sally]

So what do you suggest I do with this handful of Sarah Lewis's, resident in Whitechapel in 1891?

Exactly so. A handful. Not a multitude. And living in Great Pearl Street? Just the one. Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot, is there?

That Miss Sarah Lewis of Great Pearl Street (who, by the way, was a neighbour of a Kennedy family) and Sarah Lewis the witness were one and the same is a wholly reasonable conclusion to draw.