Who Was Anderson’s Witness?

[Michael W Richards]

If there was a witness who was a policeman who met a suspect face to face, it wasn't the Mitre Sq. murder, it was at Berner St. and the witness was PC Smith.
Mac had confused the two murders, as pointed out above, so what he should have wrote was:
"No-one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer (unless possibly it was the PC who was on a beat near Dutfields Yard".....)

One might also construe from that quote Wick that that the presumed killer that night who met the nickname qualifications went to Dutfields Yard after his kill in Mitre Square, and that he was known to the beat cop there. Which might suggest a cop came to Dutfields after the Mitre Square murder. We do in fact have a cop going into the east end after the 2nd murder.

[GBinOz]

One might also construe from that quote Wick that that the presumed killer that night who met the nickname qualifications went to Dutfields Yard after his kill in Mitre Square, and that he was known to the beat cop there. Which might suggest a cop came to Dutfields after the Mitre Square murder. We do in fact have a cop going into the east end after the 2nd murder.

Hi Michael,

Could you amplify, clarify and explain this post please. I can't make head nor tail of what you may be suggesting.

Cheers, George

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

Could you amplify, clarify and explain this post please. I can't make head nor tail of what you may be suggesting.

Cheers, George

"No-one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer (unless possibly it was the PC who was on a beat near Dutfields Yard"..... That quote used by Scott above can be translated as is......the only person who saw the Whitechapel murderer was a PC working the beat near Dutfields Yard. That person came from Mitre Square. We do know that at least one cop that was working Mitre Square just after the murder went to the East end to look for clues. If that was the case then the cop who worked Dutfields, in order to be the cop who saw the Whitechapel murderer, would have to know the person he saw was just at Mitre Square. How could he know that unless he knew the person and where he was just before seeing him near the Dutfields crime scene.

[Scott Nelson]

We don't know that Mac confused [all of] the details between the two murders. That has always been an assumption, the City PC bit. It's too much of a stretch for me to think he'd confused the Mitre Square City P.C. with Met PC Smith. But I'm all for betting on what we do know.

[Wickerman]

Hi Michael,

Could you amplify, clarify and explain this post please. I can't make head nor tail of what you may be suggesting.

Cheers, George

I'm glad it wasn't just me.....

[Michael W Richards]

I have had difficulty explaining my comment, not that its a theory or something else..just comments,....for the PC near Dutfields Yard to have been suggested to have seen the Whitechapel murderer, its at least possible that the man felt to be the WM, in retrospect even,.. proceeded to Dutfields Yard after that murder. Maybe to see what the buzz on the streets was about. The ONLY murder that night that in many ways resembled a murder like one Jack would commit is done in Mitre Square, which is why the presumption he was the Whitechapel murderer exists.

Theres no evidence at all that one man killed both women. The killer in Mitre could easily have been the man they were looking for, and the Stride murder is only assigned to Jack because of the part of town and the seasonal, and evenings, timing.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Personally, and this is a subject for a separate thread if developed, I am pretty sure that the alleged sighting by Sgt White mentioned earlier, was a total invention by a freelance reporter. The item appeared in the People's Journal on 27th September 1919 shortly after White's death, whereas the same day, the East London Advertiser gave a different version of the same tale, in that White just missed JtR by a few minutes. Two similar but different stories about Sgt White in two papers the same day, over 30 years after the event, surely the work of an enterprising freelance, who didn't bother to check any facts. Location not possible, weather bitterly cold - wrong time of year, story not told till White had died and couldn't be asked about it! Didn't happen!

[Scott Nelson]

I think White's story was a cover for PC Watkins or Harvey, who encountered the Ripper leaving Mitre Square, and being alone, let him go. Probably based on discussions White had with the City Police years after the event.

[caz]

Theres no evidence at all that one man killed both women.

This isn't the thread for it, but that statement is simply not true, Michael, and you have had this pointed out by others on occasions too numerous to mention. Isn't it about time you changed the record and at least acknowledged that the evidence is there, but it's just not to your personal taste?

[GBinOz]

Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

And, that the police sequestrated Lawende away with expenses paid, they don't do that for every witness.

Plus, the description he gave, published by police:

"At 1.35 a.m., 30th Sept., with Catherine Eddows, in Church-passage, leading to Mitre-square, where she was found murdered at 1.45 a.m., same date, a man, age 30, height 5ft 7 or 8in., complexion fair, moustache fair, medium build; dress, pepper-and-salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap, with peak of the same material, reddish neckerchief tied in knot; appearance of a sailor."

c/w the possibility it was him who the police turned to in two later I.D.'s (Sadler & Grainger).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not a bad description of Monty there Wick

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.”

According to the Pall Mall Gazette Grainger was:-
” ..a man of about 37, 5 ft. 10 in. in height, slim-built, with grey eyes, pale complexion, no beard, and a black moustache. He has scars on cheek and throat, and dancing women, crowns, anchors, and so on, tattooed on his arms and hands…”

Herlock, I recently read a post here
https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...grant-grainger.

The discussion was about a photo of Grainger from 1910 which i thought might interest you:

On the one hand, it is somewhat frustrating for me because, as I had long suspected, Lawende [probably] affirmed to a man in 1895, Grant, who must have been a dead ringer for Druitt, e.g. the man I think he actually saw chatting amiably with Eddowes in 1888.
Allowing for the size of the photo and the passage of years the resemblance between Druitt and Grant is nothing short of uncanny.

Cheers, George

[Michael W Richards]

This isn't the thread for it, but that statement is simply not true, Michael, and you have had this pointed out by others on occasions too numerous to mention. Isn't it about time you changed the record and at least acknowledged that the evidence is there, but it's just not to your personal taste?

cd, youre quick to rebut but my statement about the evidence that support one man that killed Liz then Kate, although you only acknowledged part of it, but it is true. There is not one single piece of hard evidence that suggests Liz Strides killer killed Kate Eddoes, and any presumptions about that are based on geography or timing. I wont even mention the sheer and baseless speculation that the non-ripped murder might have been an interrupted act...oops, guess I did anyway...because once again, there is not one single shred of evidence to support that contention either. Absence of an action is just that unless other evidence exists. It doesnt. So Liz Stride is just killed...thats it. One cut. There is no further intention or evidence of interruption in that...there is only a choice made.

Liz Stride was not a Ripper victim, which makes Schwartz a non viable witness for Anderson. In fact it appears he wasnt even viable for the Inquest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The absence of something that didn’t have to be there in the first place is of course a completely illogical way of looking at Stride’s murder. Obviously we’ve gone over this a million times but why allow reason to get in the way of an attempt to dismiss something that’s inconvenient. Numerous examples can be provided to illustrate this staggeringly simple point. If someone is interrupted before they do something it doesn’t mean that there must be evidence of that intention. There might have been, in certain situations, but we can’t state this as some kind of nonsensical rule. Everyone can see this. Almost everyone. Therefore the only honest way of assessing the Stride murder is to say that she might not have been killed by the ripper but equally she might have been. We can’t make assumptions based on silliness and we should allow bias in defence of a theory to skew our view of the case.

[Michael W Richards]

For accuracy, despite any protestations, there is not one single piece of hard evidence that connects Liz Strides murder to Kate Eddowes murder. There is only conjecture.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s hard to understand why this point needs labouring? There is the very obvious lack of mutilation of course and if there was no possible/plausible explanation for this then there might be a point to be made. But there is a possible/plausible explanation so it cannot be dismissed. Do we really need to keep repeating this but….prostitute (maybe part-time of course) throat cut, within the same small area, occurred around 40 minutes before another murder a short distance away.

So we cannot say for certain if Stride was or wasn’t a victim. Both are possible. Trying to eliminate one on a point that makes no logical sense purely to keep a theory alive gets us nowhere.

[Abby Normal]

there sure is evidence that connects the stride and eddowes murder-same victimology, location and time, MO, and most importantly the witness descriptions at both scenes describing a suspect wearing a peaked cap.