Who Was Anderson’s Witness?

[Bridewell]

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". 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. For City PC to be an exact fit it would probably have to be Harvey (Sussex origin) or (inexact fit) Alfred Long whose beat could be described as near Mitre Square but who wasn't a City PC. For it to be Harvey would require him to have seen a man with a knife in or leaving Mitre Square; for it to be Long would require him to have seen the apron piece being discarded on Goulston Street. Both men were dismissed from the police service, Harvey for reasons unknown and Long for being drunk on duty. Could be either - or neither I guess.

Had to re-post with additions as it wouldn't let me edit for some reasom. Apologies.

[GBinOz]

"Only one person" (to me) suggests only one person in such circumstances as to leave no doubt that the person seen was the killer. For City PC to be an exact fit it would probably have to be Harvey (Sussex origin) or (inexact fit) Alfred Long whose beat could be described as near Mitre Square but who wasn't a City PC. For it to be Harvey would require him to have seen a man with a knife in or leaving Mitre Square;

Hi Bridewell,

Why couldn't it have been Watkins? I don't think a man seen with a knife would have been allowed to escape. More likely, IMHO, the witness saw a man leaving the scene before the body was discovered and he escaped by the time the witness realised that a murder had taken place. Possibly something like the White scenario but with the beat PC. Or maybe the witness was White and he was the man that identified Grainger. White's description is very close to that of Grainger.

Cheers, George

[Michael W Richards]

Maybe the fact that Liz is only cut once is telling you that there was no plan to open her up as well......just like any evidence from that murder suggests anyway.

Sorry, but my only take away from it is that she was cut once. Your extrapolation lacks supporting evidence.

c.d.

Excuse me? One cut to the throat is clear indication that the killer never wanted anything further. My supporting evidence which apparently I extroplated on is the physical evidence in 4 murders of Five so called Canonicals. All 4 had multiple cuts after the double throat cuts. And in all those cases the abdomen was mutilated. Im prone to seeing 2 or 3 by the same person, but to each their own.

I know...that old "within the realm of possibility iterruption" you and others are so fond of. Lets just say that if you want to look at scenarios that have no evidence indicative of said speculation, then why not Liz fell on the boot scraper like AP Wolf once suggested. Its within the realm of possibility, and there is no evidence to indicate that happened, so its a perfect match for your "iterruption" theorizing. Although thats going down a path that is obviously off track and seems pointless to me, you go ahead and enjoy the imaginary views.

[c.d.]

Excuse me? One cut to the throat is clear indication that the killer never wanted anything further.

Oh, so you know the killer's intent is that it? My apologies, I had no idea that you have clairvoyant powers.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s pointless discussing the case with anyone that proposes the laughable suggestion that there should have been evidence of interruption. This isn’t a question of opinion or interpretation. It’s a case of a 100% undeniable inarguable fact. A fact that a child could understand. If the killer was interrupted just as he cut Stride’s throat there would have been zero evidence of interruption. What could be simpler? It’s truly embarrassing that we still have to waste time and effort trying to dispel this utter drivel. Can anything in this entire case be so obvious. So blatant. So simple to understand. And yet on we go. It’s a joke tbh but it’s embarrassing one rather than a humorous one and is indicative of the utter desperation that some will stoop to just to bolster a theory.

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s pointless discussing the case with anyone that proposes the laughable suggestion that there should have been evidence of interruption. This isn’t a question of opinion or interpretation. It’s a case of a 100% undeniable inarguable fact. A fact that a child could understand. If the killer was interrupted just as he cut Stride’s throat there would have been zero evidence of interruption. What could be simpler? It’s truly embarrassing that we still have to waste time and effort trying to dispel this utter drivel. Can anything in this entire case be so obvious. So blatant. So simple to understand. And yet on we go. It’s a joke tbh but it’s embarrassing one rather than a humorous one and is indicative of the utter desperation that some will stoop to just to bolster a theory.

It is foolish to ignore the fact that Stride was killed with one cut to the throat when most of the other victims were additionally subjected to abdominal wounds as well as having their throats cut, and I personally dont buy the same killer suggestion who was intrerrupted and then contiuned on to find another victim

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

If there had been say 19 victims all with two cuts and the 20th victim only had one then I would say yes, that seems to be significant. But the C5 is way too small of a data base to draw conclusions let alone a hard and fast conclusion. There could be a reason why he only made one cut. We simply don't know. But that one cut killed Stride. I would have to imagine that that was his primary goal as opposed to being consistent with the number of cuts.

c.d

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is foolish to ignore the fact that Stride was killed with one cut to the throat when most of the other victims were additionally subjected to abdominal wounds as well as having their throats cut, and I personally dont buy the same killer suggestion who was intrerrupted and then contiuned on to find another victim

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And he might not have been interrupted. Stride might have been killed by a man that wasn’t the ripper. No one is ignoring this. All that’s been said is that it’s possible that the killer had been interrupted. Michael keeps making the same erroneous point though. He says that if the killer had been interrupted then there would have been signs of that interruption. Not ‘might’ have been signs but ‘would’ have been signs. And so, according to him, no ‘evidence’ of interruption means no interruption. This is obviously incorrect though because the killer might have been interrupted just as he cut her throat and before he’d begun to do anything else. He keeps saying that there should have been evidence though as if it’s a valid point to make which it obviously isn’t. How can you begin to debate when someone is trying to claim this as a valid point?

[c.d.]

And again, the interruption need not have been physical but simply a little paranoia and a voice saying this is not a safe place.

c.d.

[Doctored Whatsit]

And again, the interruption need not have been physical but simply a little paranoia and a voice saying this is not a safe place.

c.d.

Or as I have said elsewhere, he could simply have realised that it was too dark to effectively and safely carry out his swift disembowelling which certainly required some light.

[DJA]

Didn't bother him in the dark corner of Mitre Square with two police patrols.

[Guest]

I like the tenacity of the arguments for and against Stride being a ripper victim, and it seems damned unlikely to me that she wasn't.

All I can say is that if she wasn't and let's say police key witness was thst Schwaztz then if that was the case, that would have been very unlucky for the police, very very unlucky.

[Guest]

Also if you look at past cases of successful serial killers, they vary the killing method far more than was seen in the c5,
So this 2 Vs 1 slashing of Strides throat dosent hold any water for me either.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Didn't bother him in the dark corner of Mitre Square with two police patrols.

Mitre Square wasn't that dark. The Coroner asked if there was sufficient light to carry out the disembowelling, and Dr Sequiera said that there was. In Dutfield's Yard however, Eagle said that he walked down the middle of the passageway 9 foot wide, and could not say for certain whether or not there was a body there in the darkness. Louis D said that when his pony shied, he saw something there but could not distinguish what it was, and tried to feel it with his whip. He needed to light a match to tell it was a woman. I don't think anyone could have disembowelled a woman swiftly and effectively given what those two say!

I am not saying whether the killer was JtR or someone else, I am merely suggesting that being unable to eviscerate to his satifaction is as likely a reason for it not happening as being interrupted.

[Abby Normal]

And he might not have been interrupted. Stride might have been killed by a man that wasn’t the ripper. No one is ignoring this. All that’s been said is that it’s possible that the killer had been interrupted. Michael keeps making the same erroneous point though. He says that if the killer had been interrupted then there would have been signs of that interruption. Not ‘might’ have been signs but ‘would’ have been signs. And so, according to him, no ‘evidence’ of interruption means no interruption. This is obviously incorrect though because the killer might have been interrupted just as he cut her throat and before he’d begun to do anything else. He keeps saying that there should have been evidence though as if it’s a valid point to make which it obviously isn’t. How can you begin to debate when someone is trying to claim this as a valid point?

hey herlock
the argument is even stupider than that because there actually is evidence he was interupted! schwartz evidence.