Who was the best witness to have seen Jack the Ripper?

[Michael W Richards]

I only create doubt and debate where I feel there is cause for them, Tom. Your thanks are nonetheless noted and reciprocated, for the same reasons

I wasnt sure how to respond to that comment Sam, hopefully it would have been something like the above.

Cheers

[curious4]

Research

Hi Curious4, I believe the Sourcebook quotes from The Times. You should look at some other press sources. While there may have been blood on the back of the hands, there was certainly blood on the wrists, which is what we're talking about here. And you seem to be thrown off by the word 'clot'. All blood clots. If you cut your hand and a little blood comes out, it will shortly clot. So it stands to reason that the oblong marks of blood would have clotted by the time the doctor got there. The only way that blood could have gotten onto her hand and wrist is by someone transferring it there from her neck wound. The person who did that was Edward Johnston. This is pretty elementary stuff, but some folks prefer to struggle with it. Not sure why.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom W,

You are of course quite right in that it is important to consult all possible sources and I am sure that the majority of posters on this board access anything available to them and not just from the internet. However, the trick is to judge which of them is the most credible. The Times, my dear, is not merely a newspaper, but an institution. I have had difficulty before in trying to explain this to our American cousins. So, as far as credibility is concerned, I personally would choose their version over that of the gutter press, unless there was a very good reason for doing otherwise.

I am sure that you, as a good researcher, are aware of the danger of trying to make the facts fit the theory rather than otherwise.

Clots are out of place on this thread in both senses of the word, but I will say that it takes more than a smear of blood to form a clot and that, outside of the body, it takes longer to form (15 minutes is a time I have seen quoted), which would fit into the timeline if Liz had tried to pull away the scarf as she was being choked, as was suggested at the time, or come to just long enough to put her hand to her throat before fainting again from loss of blood. Either of these actions would result in quite a lot of blood being deposited on her hand.

Best wishes,
C4

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Gwynneth

The Times, my dear, is not merely a newspaper, but an institution. I have had difficulty before in trying to explain this to our American cousins. So, as far as credibility is concerned, I personally would choose their version over that of the gutter press, unless there was a very good reason for doing otherwise.

Whilst I'd be the first to acknowledge your valuation of The Times down the years it does seem (to me at least) that sometimes the old Thunderer wasn't at it's best during the autumn of 1888.

Personally I've found great value in doing as Tom suggests and comparing a variety of sources. In this respect, I've often found the Daily Telegraph to be helpful, and in this respect I'd have no hesitation in recommending "The News from Whitechapel" by Messrs Chisholm, DiGrazia and Yost, which prints the Telegraph's stories verbatim, and then provides an interesting and thoughtful commentary where necessary.

All the best

Dave

[curious4]

The Times

Hallo Dave,

Thanks for the tip. Nothing is infallible.

Best wishes,

Gwyneth/C4

P.S. What makes you think I don't compare sources?

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Gwyneth

P.S. What makes you think I don't compare sources?

I didn't actually say that, nor would I have dreamed of suggesting it!



All the best

Dave

[curious4]

Growl subsided to a purr :-)

Hello Dave,

Actually you do have a point. I did find an instance in The Workhouse Encyclopedia where the Times published an anecdote concerning the workhouse which they were later unable to back up. The book sounds interesting, I shall definitely buy it sometime in the future. Several books ordered for Christmas have not yet arrived, mainly workhouse (have moved on from the socialists/anarchists/trade unions for the moment), but also Whittington Egan, so it will have to wait for a bit.

Best wishes,
Gwyneth/C4

[pinkmoon]

Hello Dave,

Actually you do have a point. I did find an instance in The Workhouse Encyclopedia where the Times published an anecdote concerning the workhouse which they were later unable to back up. The book sounds interesting, I shall definitely buy it sometime in the future. Several books ordered for Christmas have not yet arrived, mainly workhouse (have moved on from the socialists/anarchists/trade unions for the moment), but also Whittington Egan, so it will have to wait for a bit.

Best wishes,
Gwyneth/C4

Hi,I'm currently reading Whittington Egan at the moment and it is excellent .

[GUT]

G'Day

Clearly the best witness was Jack.

Just the bugger won't tell us.

G.U.T.

[Sunbury]

Mrs Fiddymont

Some of you people think Mrs Fiddymont saw him, no?

I saw this on page 7 of the thread and it has been totally ignored as everyone pounds the table with their pet theories or tries to shoot down everyone else's.

Mrs Fiddymont and Co, describe a man that was similar to Mrs Long "genteel shabby".

She is ignored I think for two reasons, the first is people write her off as no "sane" man who enter a pub after killing someone. Secondly, so many theories would be shot down in flames if she was right. Therefore she is an unreliable witness and can be ignored.

Endlessly rehashing everyone's "pet reliable witness" has achieved exactly zero over the years.

[DRoy]

Sunbury,

Pretty bold post. I like it!

I've heard her customer appearing similar in appearance to a few different suspects. I wonder if that's the problem, the description can seem to match many of the zany characters we've come to know?

Cheers
DRoy

[Jonathan H]

I voted for Joseph Lawende because the police of the day regarded him as the best witness by the way they treated and used him.

He testified at the inquest, albeit in a restricted manner, may have 'confronted' both suspects Tom Sadler and William Grant (to whom he said 'no' in 1891 and 'yes' in 1895, respectively) and is arguably the Jewish witness whom Anderson slandered (Lawende had likely never 'confronted' a Jewish suspect) in 1910.

Lawende is arguably the real witness behind Macnaghten and Sims' un-named beat cop, albeit who supposedly saw a man resembling the Polish suspect ('Aberconway' 1894-8; Griffiths 1898; Sims 1907) and who reportedly 'confronted' the suspect later (Sims 1907) or who saw nothing at all of significance (Macnaghten 1914).

I notice there is a significant error in the first post of this thread repeating Lawende's description:

Joseph Lawende - Saw a man of "middling" height, fair moustache, medium build, about 30, wearing a deerstalker and dark clothing with the look of a sailor, before Catherine Eddowe's.

A deerstalker hat is at odds with a working class sailor.

This was the original description in the 'Times' of October 8th 1888:

‘... of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. In height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak’.

And from the 'Police Gazette' of eleven days later:

‘At 1:35 a.m., 30th September, with Catherine Eddowes, in Church Passage, leading to Mitre Square, where she was found murdered at 1:45 a.m., same date – A MAN, age 30, height 5 ft. 7 or 8 in., complexion fair, moustache fair, medium build; dress, pepper-and-salt material, reddish neckerchief tied in knot; appearance of a sailor.’

[Damaso Marte]

I saw this on page 7 of the thread and it has been totally ignored as everyone pounds the table with their pet theories or tries to shoot down everyone else's.

Mrs Fiddymont and Co, describe a man that was similar to Mrs Long "genteel shabby".

She is ignored I think for two reasons, the first is people write her off as no "sane" man who enter a pub after killing someone. Secondly, so many theories would be shot down in flames if she was right. Therefore she is an unreliable witness and can be ignored.

Endlessly rehashing everyone's "pet reliable witness" has achieved exactly zero over the years.

Fiddymont is the pet reliable witness of the people (person?) on this forum who thinks Isenschmitt killed Chapman and Nichols. I don't know how exactly Isenschmitt was found but Fiddymont and her crew had something to do with it, right?

[Sunbury]

Fiddymont is the pet reliable witness of the people (person?) on this forum who thinks Isenschmitt killed Chapman and Nichols. I don't know how exactly Isenschmitt was found but Fiddymont and her crew had something to do with it, right?

My point was Long was a primary witness and Fiddymont was a secondary witness for Long. Something that is very rare amongst the myriad of witnesses that get paraded ad nauseam. Lawende and Levy support each other but they were together. To have another witness an hour after a murder supporting a primary witness is very rare indeed, and of course it is ignored.

[lynn cates]

sane

Hello Sunbury. Excellent post. I heartily agree.

I also agree that no sane man would go to a pub right after a murder and with blood stains on him.

I am also of opinion that no sane man would talk loudly with his victim near a building full of people and in which he is about to kill someone--in the back yard, no less, and ALL after sun up.

Nor would a sane man lose precious time stealing worthless brass rings.

But why assume sanity?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Doctor, doctor. . .

Hello Damaso. Actually, two doctors--Cowan and Crabb--went to a police station and told the authorities that Jacob was the man who likely had committed the murders.

Cheers.
LC