A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[Aethelwulf]

hi wulf
interesting. ive never really thought farmer was a ripper victim, but as usual you make an interesting case. i never heard the sturdily built part, but it does seems the ripper did have that physique.

Sarah Turner: 'was standing at her door in Thrawl-street at the time of the occurrence, stated that she saw a man running in the direction of Brick-lane, followed by three or four others. She described him as a short, thick fellow, 5ft 4in high'.

Right location, not long after Kelly. I would suggest if the ripper wanted another indoor victim he might well have reverted to someone he formerly knew, albeit causally by the sound of it, as his chances of getting a stranger into a dark corner outside, or in their own private room would have been pretty slim by this time. All we need to think is that he made a mistake. It does sound like he deliberately got her drunk, paid for the room and gave her extra money, then waited for her to go off to sleep then tried to cut her throat. What is interesting is that he had walked clean out through a common room full of people and onto the street before the alarm was raised. If he had connected properly with his knife, he would have walked out of there, probably totally unnoticed, and been hours gone before the body was found. Makes you wonder, although I would put my money on a night murder for Kelly, it could have been done later and he walked away in broad daylight.

[Abby Normal]

Ellen Marks: He was about 5ft 7in in height, with a fair moustache, and of very sallow complexion. There was a scar of an abscess on the left side of the neck. I should call him a fair man. He wore a blue-black diagonal overcoat, speckled grey trousers, and a hard black felt hat. There was a white handkerchief round the throat. There was nothing in his hands. He seemed excited, and was panting, and as he went off it struck me that he was a sturdily-built man.

Frank Ruffle: I should say the man was thirty-five years of age. He was clean shaven, with the exception of a slight fair moustache.

Several other persons who were present gave particulars of the man, corroborating in almost every detail the account of his appearance given by the woman herself, viz.: age, 30; height, 5ft 6in; fair moustache; wearing a black diagonal coat and a hard felt hat.

Farmer and one witness give the man as having a dark mustache. Makes me think fair in this instance was probably something like brown/sandy and could have appeared darker depending on light/shade etc.

hi wulf
interesting. ive never really thought farmer was a ripper victim, but as usual you make an interesting case. i never heard the sturdily built part, but it does seems the ripper did have that physique.

[Aethelwulf]

Although someone said he had a fair moustache, Farmer evidently did not, because the police description of him mentioned a dark moustache.

Ellen Marks: He was about 5ft 7in in height, with a fair moustache, and of very sallow complexion. There was a scar of an abscess on the left side of the neck. I should call him a fair man. He wore a blue-black diagonal overcoat, speckled grey trousers, and a hard black felt hat. There was a white handkerchief round the throat. There was nothing in his hands. He seemed excited, and was panting, and as he went off it struck me that he was a sturdily-built man.

Frank Ruffle: I should say the man was thirty-five years of age. He was clean shaven, with the exception of a slight fair moustache.

Several other persons who were present gave particulars of the man, corroborating in almost every detail the account of his appearance given by the woman herself, viz.: age, 30; height, 5ft 6in; fair moustache; wearing a black diagonal coat and a hard felt hat.

Farmer and one witness give the man as having a dark mustache. Makes me think fair in this instance was probably something like brown/sandy and could have appeared darker depending on light/shade etc.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was having a polite exchange with someone else.

It has nothing to do with you.

You have just repeated for at least the third time your allegation that I have invented evidence.

Please do not send me any more messages.

I am not going to reply to any more from you.

No evidence produced because none exists and you know it. You’re seeking to manipulate evidence so that you can shoehorn a very general theory into place. Sulk all you like, it doesn’t change the fact that you’re using the very childish “I have the evidence but I’m not revealing it’ tactic which every single person on here can easily see through.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The evidence doesn’t exist. There is zero to connect the jacket to a sailor. You are making it up.

I was having a polite exchange with someone else.

It has nothing to do with you.

You have just repeated for at least the third time your allegation that I have invented evidence.

Please do not send me any more messages.

I am not going to reply to any more from you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have been asked that before but, as I said before, I am not ready to divulge it yet.

The same goes for other evidence I have come across that suggests the murderer was a sailor.

The evidence doesn’t exist. There is zero to connect the jacket to a sailor. You are making it up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why would I suggest that you had omitted to say something unless I had indeed read all your posts?

Because I would assume that we would be talking about the current conversation. I can’t believe that I’m explaining this to you PI. To avoid this happening in future, before beginning each conversation, we would have to spend hours researching the other persons posting history.

Be serious PI.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

How would you react if you had suggested that I hadn’t said something and I replied “oh yes I did, post #67 of the Rose Mylett thread six months ago?!”

Why would I suggest that you had omitted to say something unless I had indeed read all your posts?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you are not aware of all the relevant comments made by someone, then you should not insinuate - as you did - that he did not mention some detail before and that he is now shifting his position by introducing it.

I have to ask whether you have ever challenged any other member on this forum in a similar way, and, if not, why not?

Another comment that can’t be taken seriously. If I’m having a discussion on here on some topic I can’t can’t be expected to know every comment that that person has ever made on the subject especially on a thread that I wasn’t involved in.

How would you react if you had suggested that I hadn’t said something and I replied “oh yes I did, post #67 of the Rose Mylett thread six months ago?!”

Be serious PI. When entering a conversation you don’t research every single thing that a poster has said on that particular subject. You expect them to reveal all on the current thread.

[Aethelwulf]

I am familiar with the case, but not with all the details you provide.

I am sure he was not the Whitechapel Murderer.

I haven't heard before of anyone saying he looked like a sailor.

Although someone said he had a fair moustache, Farmer evidently did not, because the police description of him mentioned a dark moustache.

Furthermore, whereas Lawende's suspect had a fair complexion, Farmer's attacker had a dark complexion.

Yes, one of the witnesses that saw him leave said he looked like a sailor. Can't remember which report, there are a lot of them for this attack. The mustache thing is interesting though. All the people that saw him runoff and chased him in broad daylight said he had a fair mustache. Farmer said dark. However, bear in mind fair can mean a shade of brown/sandy, and her attacker picked her up in the dark and took her to a pitch black room, and got her wasted by the sound of it, the daylight witnesses should be given priority. If he did have a fair (sandy/brown) mustache, farmer could have thought it was darker than it was given her state.

Personally, I think this attack is too easily overlooked. My feeling is that after a great success with Kelly, he isn't going to stop but try again, and I think that is was this was. The difference could have been that Kelly had a fire/light but the dark lodging house room meant he botched it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Out of interest, what is your take on Farmer's attacker? Short, stout man, slight fair mustache, ran off into Spitalfields I believe. Of the many people that saw this man runoff, one described him as looking like a sailor. Not sure why when you read the descriptions. He was wearing a necktie. He was also carrying and struck someone with a whip. Very similar description to the man seen by Schwartz and Lawende, not long after Kelly, gets a woman alone in a private room and tries to slit her throat.

I am familiar with the case, but not with all the details you provide.

I am sure he was not the Whitechapel Murderer.

I haven't heard before of anyone saying he looked like a sailor.

Although someone said he had a fair moustache, Farmer evidently did not, because the police description of him mentioned a dark moustache.

Furthermore, whereas Lawende's suspect had a fair complexion, Farmer's attacker had a dark complexion.

[Aethelwulf]

The same goes for other evidence I have come across that suggests the murderer was a sailor.

Out of interest, what is your take on Farmer's attacker? Short, stout man, slight fair mustache, ran off into Spitalfields I believe. Of the many people that saw this man runoff, one described him as looking like a sailor. Not sure why when you read the descriptions. He was wearing a necktie. He was also carrying and struck someone with a whip. Very similar description to the man seen by Schwartz and Lawende, not long after Kelly, gets a woman alone in a private room and tries to slit her throat.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Thanks for that. What is your source?

I have been asked that before but, as I said before, I am not ready to divulge it yet.

The same goes for other evidence I have come across that suggests the murderer was a sailor.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It’s bizarre that you appear to believe that I should be aware of every post that you’ve ever made, even those made in conversations on threads that I wasn’t involved in.

If you are not aware of all the relevant comments made by someone, then you should not insinuate - as you did - that he did not mention some detail before and that he is now shifting his position by introducing it.

I have to ask whether you have ever challenged any other member on this forum in a similar way, and, if not, why not?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I don't know where you get your description of the suspect's jacket as 'a grey coat that was a bit too big'!

I did mention earlier the uniform you refer to, but only because it does indicate a connection between 'pepper-and-salt' and sailors' dress.

My point about the blouson was that there is some similarity in that sailors' jackets were, like blousons, waist-length and 'loose'.

My source says that pepper-and-salt loose jackets were commonly worn by sailors in Whitechapel.

I have to say that Herlock Shomes' deduction that the suspect's cap played a part in Lawende's reasoning is incorrect.

The two items of clothing mentioned by Lawende that could have suggested that the man was a sailor were the jacket and neckerchief.

Sailors commonly wore waist-length jackets, open at the front, and a silk handkerchief round the neck.

It stands to reason that it was not just the neckerchief that caused Lawende to think that the man had the appearance of a sailor and, since it could not have been the cap, the jacket was obviously a factor.

And that is what my source suggests too.

Thanks for that. What is your source?