Who Was Anderson’s Witness?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my answers below.

Which witness got a closer look? A woman who walked next to the man or a man across the street. You go for the one further away. Ok.

I notice that you left out the fact that Long saw her couple in daylight whereas Lawende saw his couple at night.

I never said that he was drunk or that there was absolute proof that he’d had a drink but if he’d spent the evening in a club then it’s entirely reasonable to suggest that he might have had a drink. He might have had one pint….he might have had 6 pints for all that we know. So it’s an unknown…not an irrelevance. I can’t say that he’d had a drink and you have no evidence that he hadn’t. So we have to assume that both are equally possible. It’s 50-50.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my answers below.

Who should we favour?

Which witness got a closer look? Long.

Which witness saw their suspect in better light? Long.


Long said she did not see the man's face.

She said she saw him from behind, which means that she could not even say whether he wore a neckerchief.

Lawende saw the man's face and noted that he had a fair moustache and wore a reddish neckerchief.

Long could not say what colour the man's coat was; Lawende described the man's coat as pepper-and-salt.

It is obvious that Lawende had a better look.


Which witness hadn't just been to a pub/club? Long.


Since there is no evidence as to whether either witness had recently drunk alcohol, your point is irrelevant.

If Long was an alcoholic, she may have drunk alcohol before leaving home that morning.

Even if the Imperial Club served alcohol, that does not mean that Lawende necessarily drank any with his meal.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Are you suggesting that Lawende was drunk?

I have no evidence of that but he had just left a club. I don’t even know if the club served alcohol or not but there has to be at least a possibility that it did. So if that was the case (and it’s only an ‘if’) then we know that alcohol can impair judgment. It’s certainly something that a modern police force would take into consideration. Whereas unless someone was staggering around, the Victorian police might not have seen a few pints as a potential impairment.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It’s not even a coincidence. So we have 3 options. 1) Lawende saw the killer and Long didn’t. 2) Long saw the killer and Lawende didn’t. 3) Either description might have been inaccurate.

Who should we favour?

Which witness got a closer look? Long.
Which witness saw their suspect in better light? Long.
Which witness hadn't just been to a pub/club? Long.

Are you suggesting that Lawende was drunk?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s not even a coincidence. So we have 3 options. 1) Lawende saw the killer and Long didn’t. 2) Long saw the killer and Lawende didn’t. 3) Either description might have been inaccurate.

Who should we favour?

Which witness got a closer look? Long.
Which witness saw their suspect in better light? Long.
Which witness hadn't just been to a pub/club? Long.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

PI The point I am trying to make is that Mrs Long thought the suspect looked Jewish and dark . Now why is that ? She never saw his face . Perhaps he had black/dark hair which extended from the back of his headgear ? Perhaps his dress sense somehow made him look Jewish ? I simply do not know, just speculating. As you are when you are speculating on why Lawende said his suspect had the appearance of a sailor. I believe both witnesses saw the killer but he may not have been Jewish, and he may not have been a sailor .

Regards Darryl

Thanks for your reply.

Perhaps he had black/dark hair which extended from the back of his headgear ?

I think you are correct.

Elizabeth Long said in evidence:

I did not see the man's face, but I noticed that he was dark.

I do not understand how Long and Lawende could both have seen the killer.

Long saw a man with dark hair whom she estimated to be in his 40s.

Lawende saw a man with a fair moustache, whose age he estimated at 30.

One was of Jewish appearance.

The other had the appearance of a sailor.

I suggest it is beyond mere coincidence that the suspect of Jewish appearance had dark hair and the suspect with the appearance of a sailor had fair hair.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Please see my answers below.

PI The point I am trying to make is that Mrs Long thought the suspect looked Jewish and dark . Now why is that ? She never saw his face . Perhaps he had black/dark hair which extended from the back of his headgear ? Perhaps his dress sense somehow made him look Jewish ? I simply do not know, just speculating. As you are when you are speculating on why Lawende said his suspect had the appearance of a sailor. I believe both witnesses saw the killer but he may not have been Jewish, and he may not have been a sailor .

Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my answers below.


And as I pointed out in response to his suggestion that the light from the lamp caused the suspect's moustache to appear lighter than it was: it did not make his red neckerchief look pink!

Yet again you do yourself no favour with nonsense like this. No one is claiming that lighting could make white hair seem black! But it could make light brown hair seem lighter. What shade of red was the neckerchief? We don’t know. So how do you know that it wasn’t a darker red but the lighting made it look like a lighter red? Lawende was just naming the colour; he wasn’t choosing wallpaper.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my answers below.


As I have argued previously, the eyewitness evidence in Hanbury Street is outweighed by other evidence, but even if Cadoche heard the murder taking place, it was before Long's sighting.

And you’ve argued based on ignorance.

It has been categorically proven, using the evidence of all modern day forensic experts, that the methods that Doctor Phillips used were unreliable. This is not my opinion. It’s a fact that I’m no longer prepared to debate.

So all that we have for an earlier TOD is the unreliable estimation of Phillips who, in his own statement, made an allowance for error.

For a later TOD we have John Richardson who couldn’t possibly have missed a badly mutilated corpse around a foot from his left foot at around 4.45.

Albert Cadosch who heard the word ‘no’ which he initially thought came from number 29 but he was honest enough to say that he wasn’t certain. But he was certain that he heard something fall against the fence. If Chapman had been killed earlier then there couldn’t have been anyone there. It had to be the sound of the killer.

Then we have Long who was slightly later but this is no issue at all given that we know for a fact that clocks weren’t synchronised plus we don’t even know that Cadosch had a clock. So we only need Cadosch and Long’s timings to have been 5 minutes out each and all matches up perfectly.

Three witnesses with no reason for lying should trump a Doctor using provably unreliable methods.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my answers below.

Elizabeth Long.
Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased. I did not see the man's face, but I noticed that he was dark.

Joseph Lawende did not see Catherine's face .

Yes.

On balance Annie was murdered around dusk and around the time Mrs Long said she saw her. I believe most posters would agree on that. You may otherwise .

I think you meant dawn, but I know what you mean - about 5.30 a.m.

As I have argued previously, the eyewitness evidence in Hanbury Street is outweighed by other evidence, but even if Cadoche heard the murder taking place, it was before Long's sighting.

Again Jack would probably project himself with a few pennies and try and disguise who he was particularly as the murders escalated. .

If he was the man seen by Long, he could not have been Kosminski.

And the only Jewish suspects are about half Long's suspect's age or about 10 years younger!

Yes he could have been a sailor but why broadcast the fact by wearing his work attire ? If indeed he did.

He was not wearing a uniform.

None of this does not mean that I don't view Lawende as an important witness , I do. But people can [ and do ] get small facts wrong on appearance when they only have a cursory glance at someone. And as Herlock has pointed out the suspect was stood under a lamp which may have made his appearance seem lighter.

And as I pointed out in response to his suggestion that the light from the lamp caused the suspect's moustache to appear lighter than it was: it did not make his red neckerchief look pink!

I would add that Lawende gave a very detailed description - and I am referring to the one recorded by Swanson.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Kosminski was 22.

Long's suspect was about twice his age.


There is strong evidence that the murder had already taken place at the time Long saw him.

Lawende saw his suspect about nine minutes before the body was discovered.


There is evidence that the murderer was a sailor.

There is no evidence that the murderer was Jewish.

Elizabeth Long.
Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased. I did not see the man's face, but I noticed that he was dark.

Joseph Lawende did not see Catherine's face .

On balance Annie was murdered around dusk and around the time Mrs Long said she saw her. I believe most posters would agree on that. You may otherwise .

Again Jack would probably project himself with a few pennies and try and disguise who he was particularly as the murders escalated. .

Yes he could have been a sailor but why broadcast the fact by wearing his work attire ? If indeed he did.

None of this does not mean that I don't view Lawende as an important witness , I do. But people can [ and do ] get small facts wrong on appearance when they only have a cursory glance at someone. And as Herlock has pointed out the suspect was stood under a lamp which may have made his appearance seem lighter.

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Its not a theory.

And I’ve been less than polite to the way that you’ve tried to manipulate the evidence to bolster it.

In that case, you show no signs of improvement.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I suppose I ought to thank you for acknowledging that the response to my theory has often been less than polite.

Its not a theory.

And I’ve been less than polite to the way that you’ve tried to manipulate the evidence to bolster it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I wasn’t talking about vehemence in terms of anger. I’m talking about how strongly you are defending your position.

You are absolutely entitled to your theory but if it’s only based on one man saying that a potential ripper had ‘the appearance of a sailor,’ then it’s hardly solid ground is it? You would need other evidence which you are free to expand on. Lawende is not even close to strong evidence though.

I suppose I ought to thank you for acknowledging that the response to my theory has often been less than polite.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Elizabeth Long described someone she saw talking to who she believed to be Annie as looking like a foreigner [ at the time a euphemism for looking Jewish in appearance ]
So there you go Jack was definitely a Jew like he was definitely a sailor in Lawende's sighting. And since Kosminski was Jewish he must be a strong suspect . Just like a gentile, fair haired sailor must be in, again Lawende's sighting.
And don't forget Long described her suspect as looking shabby genteel, just like Lawende. See the irony.

Regards Darryl

Kosminski was 22.

Long's suspect was about twice his age.


There is strong evidence that the murder had already taken place at the time Long saw him.

Lawende saw his suspect about nine minutes before the body was discovered.


There is evidence that the murderer was a sailor.

There is no evidence that the murderer was Jewish.