Who Was Anderson’s Witness?

[Abby Normal]

Okay you again have you head buried in the sand and therefore cant, or dont want to see what is before your eyes

Lets look at the Stride murder and what makes it different from the other murders

1. The time of the murder, there were no other murders that occurred as early as Strides
2. The location was almost on a main throughfare
3. All the other murders were relatively secluded locations
4. The only murder to have occurred South of The Whitechapel Road
5. People were moving about and in close proximity to where the murder took place
6. No mutilations or any attempt at mutilations
7. The cut to her throat severed the carotid artery, but was not as deep as the other victims throat wounds, who some were almost decapitated
8. No sign of clothing being drawn up as with other victims
9 Forget about the suggestion that it was the ripper and he was disturbed, if it was the ripper he had time to cut her throat so he had time to quickly mutilate the body by stabbing the abdomen

So what do you rely on to suggest it was the same killer

1. The victim was a prostitute, as we know prostitutes are easy prey for killers and besides I doubt many self respecting women would be walking the streets late at night knowing there was a killer about.
2, Stride had her throat cut that doesnt necessary prove the same killer, cutting throats was one of the accepted ways of killing people in victorian times so that in itself doesnt make it unique to Stride
3. Another murder consistent with the Rippers MO a short time later, coincidences do happen

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

i refuse to beleive you were a detective once. no way

[DJA]

So do those who think that Stride was a Ripper victim also think that Coles was a Ripper victim?

Cheers, George

Nope.

[Guest]

In my opinion Stride was being murdered when Schwarz walked past, and he witnessed the actual murder.
Seeing Schwarz, Jack shouts Lipski at him and then he himself also leaves immediatly.
But he was down on Jews for the rest of the night, hence the message/ The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing. Which I also think was Jack, not some older graffiti which happened to be there where the apron was disposed. Because police said it was in full view, most people who lived in that street were themselves Jews and as Superintendent Arnold said it would have been rubbed out by people entering and exiting that building.

But what interests me is the second man Schwarz saw, the taller pipe smoking man, was he a device of Schwarz's so he didnt seem cowardly, or was he another witness.
Or was he actually associated with Jack, maybe on an ad hock basis - which would not be uncommon, there are many examples of serial killer duos.

[Trevor Marriott]

i refuse to beleive you were a detective once. no way

The trouble is that you and others have totally convinced yourslelves into beliveing that the canoical 5 were all killed by the same hand

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Stride and Coles - both throat cut but no mutilations, closer in location to each than to the other canonicals. If the Stride murder was closer in time to the Coles murder then would the suspicion have been that they were by the same hand? Is too much weight being given to timing for Stride being a ripper victim or, conversely, too little weight being given to Coles on the same timing basis?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

May 1895 The Pall Mall Gazette –
“There is one person whom the police believe to have actually seen the Whitechapel Murderer with a woman a few minutes before that woman’s dissected body was found in the street. That person is stated to have identified Grainger as the man he then saw.”

It was reported that the above witness was Lawende. IF Lawende had already identified Kosminski as the man he saw, as is suggested as part of the Anderson/Swanson theory, how could he have identified a different suspect in 1895. Another possibilty is mistaken identity. A photo found of Grainger taken in 1910 drew the comment "Allowing for the size of the photo and the passage of years the resemblance between Druitt and Grant is nothing short of uncanny.". Was the witness mistakenly identifying Grainger for Druitt? Both were slim and 5"10" tall, pale complexion and a dark moustache.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Okay you again have you head buried in the sand and therefore cant, or dont want to see what is before your eyes

Lets look at the Stride murder and what makes it different from the other murders

1. The time of the murder, there were no other murders that occurred as early as Strides

The murder occurred around 45 minutes earlier that Eddowes. No matter how many murders occur in a series there will always be one that’s the earliest.

2. The location was almost on a main throughfare
3. All the other murders were relatively secluded locations
5. People were moving about and in close proximity to where the murder took place

You appear to have stretched one point to make 3 here. The location was more exposed than the others. I agree though. It’s my main reason for having doubts.

4. The only murder to have occurred South of The Whitechapel Road

I see no relevance in that. You could apply the same thinking to any series. Jean Jordan was the only Yorkshire ripper victim to have been killed on an allotment. Should the police have dismissed her?

6. No mutilations or any attempt at mutilations
8. No sign of clothing being drawn up as with other victims

Again, you have given us 2 points for the price of one. Worth noting of course but we can’t dismiss for that as there is a plausible, possible explanation for that.

7. The cut to her throat severed the carotid artery, but was not as deep as the other victims throat wounds, who some were almost decapitated

That could have been down to circumstances. The killer wasn’t a machine repeating exactly the same every time.

9 Forget about the suggestion that it was the ripper and he was disturbed, if it was the ripper he had time to cut her throat so he had time to quickly mutilate the body by stabbing the abdomen

This is your opinion and not a point. Could the above sentence make less sense? Are you suggesting that if the killer had been disturbed he should just have carried on. If he was disturbed just as he’d cut her throat then very obviously he wouldn’t have carried on. Honestly Trevor, surely you can do better than this?

So what do you rely on to suggest it was the same killer

1. The victim was a prostitute, as we know prostitutes are easy prey for killers and besides I doubt many self respecting women would be walking the streets late at night knowing there was a killer about.



So she was the correct, specific type of victim.

2, Stride had her throat cut that doesnt necessary prove the same killer, cutting throats was one of the accepted ways of killing people in victorian times so that in itself doesnt make it unique to Stride

How many women had their throats cut in the street at that time?

3. Another murder consistent with the Rippers MO a short time later, coincidences do happen

True but not particularly relevant.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So when we whittle down your intentionally inflated list we have a shorter list. Can it fairly be pruned? Certainly.

1. You believe it some kind of issue that Stride was killed 45 minutes earlier than the previous earliest murder time?

I doubt if you’d find anyone who would place any relevance on this as there couldn’t fail to have been an earliest murder in the series. 45 minutes? Come on. So we can dismiss this one.

2. That the murder took place in a location that was more exposed than the others. In other words a riskier location.

As I’m said earlier I tend to agree. This is my main cause for doubt. A more risky location.

3. The murder was the only one south of the Whitechapel Road.

You could make similar point for all the murders. The murder of x is the only one near to a y. It means nothing Trevor unless you know of some significance for the Whitechapel Road. It’s simply a road.

4. The throat wound wasn’t as deep as in the other victims.

Circumstances. The killer wasn’t working to British Standards. I’m pretty sure he didn’t whip out a micrometer to check if he’d cut deeply enough. It’s a point but not a strong one by any means.

5. You appear to believe that if he had enough time to have cut her throat then he had enough time to mutilate.

The less said about this nonsense the better I’d say.

……

So out of 5 points only 1 was worth making and judging by the way you expanded your list to seem more substantial I think we can see who has an agenda here.

[Herlock Sholmes]

i refuse to beleive you were a detective once. no way

[Ms Diddles]

So do those who think that Stride was a Ripper victim also think that Coles was a Ripper victim?

Cheers, George

Nah, on balance it's a tentative yes to Stride and no to Coles from me.

[Trevor Marriott]

So when we whittle down your intentionally inflated list we have a shorter list. Can it fairly be pruned? Certainly.

1. You believe it some kind of issue that Stride was killed 45 minutes earlier than the previous earliest murder time?

I doubt if you’d find anyone who would place any relevance on this as there couldn’t fail to have been an earliest murder in the series. 45 minutes? Come on. So we can dismiss this one.

2. That the murder took place in a location that was more exposed than the others. In other words a riskier location.

As I’m said earlier I tend to agree. This is my main cause for doubt. A more risky location.

3. The murder was the only one south of the Whitechapel Road.

You could make similar point for all the murders. The murder of x is the only one near to a y. It means nothing Trevor unless you know of some significance for the Whitechapel Road. It’s simply a road.

4. The throat wound wasn’t as deep as in the other victims.

Circumstances. The killer wasn’t working to British Standards. I’m pretty sure he didn’t whip out a micrometer to check if he’d cut deeply enough. It’s a point but not a strong one by any means.

5. You appear to believe that if he had enough time to have cut her throat then he had enough time to mutilate.

The less said about this nonsense the better I’d say.

……

So out of 5 points only 1 was worth making and judging by the way you expanded your list to seem more substantial I think we can see who has an agenda here.

I have no agenga, I call it as I see if from an investigators perspective which clearly your blinkered approach will not allow you to do

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have no agenga, I call it as I see if from an investigators perspective which clearly your blinkered approach will not allow you to do

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Please explain how it can be considered a ‘blinkered approach’ when I’m looking at it from both sides while you are simply looking at it from one side?

Please explain how I can be called ‘blinkered’ despite the fact that I accept the possibility that Stride might not have been a victim? And why do you keep ignoring this fact?

Please explain why you always resort to the Marriott Defence (…”you’re just defending the old established theories blah blah”) rather than responding to the points that have been made?

Of course I don’t know why I’m bothering to ask straight questions because you’ll just continue to make things up to suit.

[Trevor Marriott]

Please explain how it can be considered a ‘blinkered approach’ when I’m looking at it from both sides while you are simply looking at it from one side?

Please explain how I can be called ‘blinkered’ despite the fact that I accept the possibility that Stride might not have been a victim? And why do you keep ignoring this fact?

Please explain why you always resort to the Marriott Defence (…”you’re just defending the old established theories blah blah”) rather than responding to the points that have been made?

Of course I don’t know why I’m bothering to ask straight questions because you’ll just continue to make things up to suit.

If you dont have a blinkered approach, why do you continue to question the proveable facts which I have presented, which in my opinon makes Strides murder different from the rest?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you dont have a blinkered approach, why do you continue to question the proveable facts which I have presented, which in my opinon makes Strides murder different from the rest?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You just can’t get past your bias can you? I haven’t questioned any provable facts I’ve questioned how you’ve interpreted them. I haven’t said, for example, that Stride wasn’t killed earlier than the other victims. I’ve said that the fact that she was killed around 45 minutes earlier than Eddowes is completely irrelevant. It’s a none point which you have employed when you’ve been desperately scraping around for ways to try and show that she wasn’t a ripper victim.

And please read your own post and try to understand what you yourself are saying.

which in my opinon makes Strides murder different from the rest?

Note…..in your opinion.

Why do you believe that your opinion should simply be agreed with? You do this regularly Trevor. You come to a conclusion and then sound outraged when someone dares to disagree with you. It’s your opinion. It’s not a fact.

I accept the possibility that Stride might not have been a ripper victim. I also accept the possibility that she might have been a ripper victim.

So again, why are you willing to go to such silly lengths to try and prove that she wasn’t? We will never know for certain either way unless we discover the killer beyond any doubt and that killer left a record of his victims. Until then there’s nothing wrong with saying ‘we have no way of knowing.’

[Scott Nelson]

May 1895 The Pall Mall Gazette –
“There is one person whom the police believe to have actually seen the Whitechapel Murderer with a woman a few minutes before that woman’s dissected body was found in the street. That person is stated to have identified Grainger as the man he then saw.”

I suspect this statement was fabricated by either the police or the newspaper. I've been trying to find another newspaper source or two for this story (that didn't copy the PMG), but have been unsuccessful thus far.

[Bridewell]

It’s certainly strange to say the least that there’s no mention of this identification anywhere except for Anderson’s personal writing. What reason could there have been for such a complete absence of evidence in the records? The other point that’s always bothered me is why The Seaside Home? If it was on the coast what possible reason could they have had for using it? If, for whatever reason, they didn’t want to use a police station surely they could have found somewhere within the City or even in the suburbs?

Great question. We know that (according to DSS) the suspect was taken to the Seaside Home (and "with difficulty"). The only logical reason I can think of for a location quite so far from London is that the Seaside Home (or somewhere nearby) was where the witness was situated and that it would have been even more difficult to take the witness to the suspect. I know that MacNaghten wasn't a serving officer in 1888 but he was close enough in time to have spoken to those who were and the MM (Aberconway version) speaks of the only person to have seen the killer being perhaps (from memory) a "City PC who was (on) a beat near (my italics) Mitre Square". Was that a mistake (which it has to be if Lawende is the witness) or was it correct but embarrassing (and therefore omitted from the final version of the MM)? My surmise (nothing more) is that the witness was a police officer and the story about unwillingness to identify a fellow Jew was a construct. Pure speculation on my part though. Harvey's personal file has been heavily weeded but documents the fact that he was "Dismissed" - but not the reason why. As a City PC you wouldn't expect to see him at the Seaside Home though (a Met facility) but he came from Sussex originally.
MacNaghten's claim about "only one person" is interesting in itself because lots of people must have seen the killer without knowing who he was. "Only one person" (to me) suggests only one person in such circumstances as to leave no doubt that the person seen was the killer.