Lawende is a red herring.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

The story also appeared in -

Portsmouth Evening News
South Wales Echo
South Wales Daily News
Birmingham Mail

There may be others.

Stay safe.

Simon

[Scott Nelson]

Daily Telegraph, 18th February 1891—

..."The witness has confronted Sadler and has failed to identify him.”

Hi Simon,

Did this appear in any newspaper other than the DT?

If not, it sounds like a police cover story to me.

[Simon Wood]

Whom else might the witness have been, Michael?

Daily Telegraph, 18th February 1891—

“Probably the only trustworthy description of the assassin was that given by a gentleman who, on the night of the Mitre Square murder, noticed in Duke Street, Aldgate, a couple standing under the lamp at the corner of the passage leading to Mitre Square. The woman was identified as one victim of that night, Sept. 30, the other having been killed an hour previously in Berner Street . . . The witness has confronted Sadler and has failed to identify him.”

[Michael W Richards]

A point often made by people who do not think Eddowes was killed by the Ripper is that the ripping in Mitre Square was sloppy compared to what was done to Chapman. Cut through the clothes, knicked the colon, no attempt to decapitate, etc. While I believe it was the same killer as Chapman, the sloppiness is certainly consistent with it being a rush job.

Of course doctors take longer to cut people up: what they do only superficially resembles what the Ripper did.

Or due to substantially less light than Annies killer had Damaso. I dont automatically include Kate as Ripper victim myself, but I do acknowledge the variables at play here.

[Michael W Richards]

Lawende admitted he wouldn't recognise the man if he saw him again. For the police to rely on him as a witness must show they were clutching at straws.

There's no guarantee the couple he saw were Eddowes and her killer in the first place.

Theres no guarantee that Lawende was their witness that they used later either.

[c.d.]

Did someone say something?



Just kidding. We cool, we cool.

Glad to hear it.

c.d.

[Harry D]

My man Harry D,

Hey are we still cool after our little Liberal/Conservative pissing match?

c.d.

Did someone say something?



Just kidding. We cool, we cool.

[Michael W Richards]

Really, Michael?

I'm trying hard to imagine the killer [or killers if you prefer] of any of these women thinking to himself: "I know that what I'm doing is not essential, but I'll risk my neck doing it anyway".

Surely, every act was essential to the killer at the time, or he'd have been somewhere else having a quiet night in.

Love,

Caz
X

No issue with the above comment highlighted Caz, just that many "essential acts" to Kates killer quite obviously had no bearing at all in Annies murder, assuredly the one murder that best exemplifies what his "essential acts" were. To kill, access what he wanted, cut it out, and leave. these acts were specific and single minded. What was the nose cut about? Or the chevrons, if made separately? Why do we have a 2 ft section of colon stuick between her arm and body? Tracing the navel? Why did he forget that he intended to take sloppy wet organs and not bring something to do that, if he had excised organs like that before?

Non-essential to accessing and obtaining, which is what Annies killer "essential" goals were.

[DJA]

[DJA]

Really, Michael?

I'm trying hard to imagine the killer [or killers if you prefer] of any of these women thinking to himself: "I know that what I'm doing is not essential, but I'll risk my neck doing it anyway".

Surely, every act was essential to the killer at the time, or he'd have been somewhere else having a quiet night in.

Love,

Caz
X

There are no cuts that are not pertinent to Eddowes health.

The nose and maxillary sinuses are the starting points for strep pyogenes which caused her and Nichols' rheumatic fever in 1867.
The strep resides in the small intestine for one's lifetime.

The cut into the Inguinal nodes goes hand in hand with cancer,hence the removal of her uterus.

Hopefully the rest is fairly obvious.

Like the attempted removal of Chapman's head,we are looking for a treating physician.

[c.d.]

My man Harry D,

Hey are we still cool after our little Liberal/Conservative pissing match?

c.d.

[Harry D]

Really, Michael?

I'm trying hard to imagine the killer [or killers if you prefer] of any of these women thinking to himself: "I know that what I'm doing is not essential, but I'll risk my neck doing it anyway".

Surely, every act was essential to the killer at the time, or he'd have been somewhere else having a quiet night in.

Love,

Caz
X

Seeing as the Ripper had only removed a uterus at that point, rummaging around for a kidney was a bold, inexplicable move for a copycat.

[c.d.]

How about rage?

Sure. Pretty much any reason is up for grabs. Choose one you like.

c.d.

[Scott Nelson]

Simply enjoying the cutting of female flesh could account for that as well. No deeper meaning or symbolism needed.

How about rage?

[c.d.]

and its undeniable that her killer "marked" her with a knife.

I would agree that he cut her with a knife but I don't think we can therefore conclude that she was "marked." Simply enjoying the cutting of female flesh could account for that as well. No deeper meaning or symbolism needed.

c.d.