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

[pinkmoon]

Oops, I forgot to mention Long.

Given the time of the sighting in relation to the probable time of death, it is likely that the man she saw with Chapman was the killer.

In fact, of the witnesses named in the poll, the only two who I would say with some confidence did not see the killer are Smith and Hutchinson. Smith because Schwartz's evidence of a different individual arriving on the scene ten minutes later and assaulting a solo Stride indicates that the man with the parcel had gone elsewhere. And Hutchinson because his three-day-late evidence was apparently ditched shortly after it emerged, and is extremely suspect for various reasons, as others have pointed out.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,Mrs longs timings conflict with other witnesses at 5.15am the gentleman in the garden next to where Chapman was found heard a thud which is quite possibly the murder taking place so her sighting at 5.30am can't be our killer.

[Tom_Wescott]

Would explain a lot also was not a reward offerd after Kelly's murder granting immunity from prosecution for any accomplice that will keep our conspiracy theorist happy.

What does that mean?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

Mrs longs timings conflict with other witnesses at 5.15am the gentleman in the garden next to where Chapman was found heard a thud which is quite possibly the murder taking place so her sighting at 5.30am can't be our killer.

I don't think that quite follows, Pink.

Neither witness was wearing a watch, although Liz Long was basing her estimate on the clock chime and Albert Cadosch never claimed he was doing similarly with his estimate. There's no reason to think that Cadosch couldn't have been out by a few minutes, or potentially longer.

Regards,
Ben

[harry]

From the information given,and the one observation of Brown,Long and Lawende,I be lieve all three saw victim and killer together,and that it was JTR,and he was known to victims.

[Wickerman]

Eye witnesses can be very unreliable and in some cases purely fraudulent attention seekers.I personally don't take any of the so called reported sightings of our killer seriously when you consider the light and distances and time spent observing our killer.

Quite correct, the police know today, and likely knew then, that eye witnesses can be notoriously unreliable (Pearly Poll?). But this is why it is important to have verification.
Like I pointed out elswhere, Cox could have been extremely unreliable as her sighting of Blotchy was not verified by any means. Yet Maxwell is deemed unreliable but her sighting was confirmed by Morris Lewis.
So there is no clear cut guide to this dilemma. Each circumstance must be judged on its own merit.

If you feel you cannot accept anything from any witness, how can you develop an interest in the case with little to use as your guide?

[Damaso Marte]

Oops, I forgot to mention Long.

Given the time of the sighting in relation to the probable time of death, it is likely that the man she saw with Chapman was the killer.

In fact, of the witnesses named in the poll, the only two who I would say with some confidence did not see the killer are Smith and Hutchinson. Smith because Schwartz's evidence of a different individual arriving on the scene ten minutes later and assaulting a solo Stride indicates that the man with the parcel had gone elsewhere. And Hutchinson because his three-day-late evidence was apparently ditched shortly after it emerged, and is extremely suspect for various reasons, as others have pointed out.

All the best,
Ben

Why does it follow that Schwartz must be right and Smith must be inaccurate? If those two are in conflict, it might just as easily be that Schwartz was a fabricator and Smith saw a viable suspect.

[Damaso Marte]

As for the definition of "best":

I view Lawende as the "best" eyewitness because I think he (and Long) are most likely to have seen the actual killer. This is almost entirely because of TIMING. Lawende's eyewitness testimony is indeed fuzzy, he didn't get a good look at them, he didn't think he could ID the man, etc. But given where he saw the couple, and what time it was, it's highly likely they were Eddowes and her killer.

If you define "best" as most useful in a court of law, or most useful to the police...yes, I can definitely see Lawende dropping out of the top ranks.

[Nick Spring]

Eye witnesses can be very unreliable and in some cases purely fraudulent attention seekers.I personally don't take any of the so called reported sightings of our killer seriously when you consider the light and distances and time spent observing our killer.

Hi Pinkmoon,

Given the timings I would suggest one of the witnesses did actually see the murderer. Descriptions are another matter given memory recall and lighting conditions. I would think Lawende and Long are the most blikely to have seen the killer.

Best

Nick

[Hunter]

I don't know about how "useful" he was, but Lawende was apparently used by police as late as 1895. He was also the only witness who's testimony was corroborated by two other witnesses.

Despite his "not knowing the man again" claim, his description was fairly detailed and considered a vital enough clue that he and his evidence were treated with special effort by the police.

[Nick Spring]

I don't know about how "useful" he was, but Lawende was apparently used by police as late as 1895. He was also the only witness who's testimony was corroborated by two other witnesses.

Despite his "not knowing the man again" claim, his description was fairly detailed and considered a vital enough clue that he and his evidence were treated with special effort by the police.

Hi Hunter,

I have always thought that was peculiar the way Lawende almost played down his testimony and yet gave a reasonable description.

Best

Nick

[Ben]

Why does it follow that Schwartz must be right and Smith must be inaccurate?

I never suggested that Smith was "inaccurate", Dam. I'm quite sure his statement was both truthful and accurate. I just doubt that the man he saw was Stride's killer, for reasons mentioned.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

If Cadosche was accurate with his statement then its probable Mrs Long did not see Annie Chapman at around 5:30....If Mr Lawende did in fact see Kate, (something not as yet proven...for myself anyway), then he most likely saw her killer....If Israel Schwartz did see what he claimed, (despite the lack of confidence the police showed in his statement by their total disregard for it at the Inquest and instead the use of Mr Browns statement for 12:45....although he didnt see Liz at all..), then he likely saw Liz Strides killer, and if Mary Ann Cox was accurate then she likely saw the man that killed Mary Kelly.....but none of those witnesses likely saw the man for which the nickname was created.

I believe that its very possible that the person who killed Polly and Annie, the man who was the inspiration for the Ripper nickname on the letter dated the 27th, didnt kill anyone else in the Canonical Five.

In which case, since no witnesses saw those 2 women just before their murder in the company of someone....(Cadosche only heard something)...I would say that its probable no-one saw the person who was nicknamed The Ripper.

Best regards

[Nick Spring]

Hello all,

If Cadosche was accurate with his statement then its probable Mrs Long did not see Annie Chapman at around 5:30....If Mr Lawende did in fact see Kate, (something not as yet proven...for myself anyway), then he most likely saw her killer....If Israel Schwartz did see what he claimed, (despite the lack of confidence the police showed in his statement by their total disregard for it at the Inquest and instead the use of Mr Browns statement for 12:45....although he didnt see Liz at all..), then he likely saw Liz Strides killer, and if Mary Ann Cox was accurate then she likely saw the man that killed Mary Kelly.....but none of those witnesses likely saw the man for which the nickname was created.

I believe that its very possible that the person who killed Polly and Annie, the man who was the inspiration for the Ripper nickname on the letter dated the 27th, didnt kill anyone else in the Canonical Five.

In which case, since no witnesses saw those 2 women just before their murder in the company of someone....(Cadosche only heard something)...I would say that its probable no-one saw the person who was nicknamed The Ripper.

Best regards

Hi Michael,

What makes you think that Polly and Annie are different from the rest? It is very likely Elizabeth Long saw someone prior to Annie's murder.

Best

Nick

[Wickerman]

Hi Hunter,

I have always thought that was peculiar the way Lawende almost played down his testimony and yet gave a reasonable description.

Best

Nick

It has been suggested that Lawende played down his role in front of the press, perhaps on advice from the police?
Yet Swanson includes the fact that Lawende was not as able as they would have liked, so we cannot accept Swanson pursuing the charade even into police reports to his superior.
Therefore, Lawende must have truly been unsure about the man he saw.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

We simply don't know the thinking of the police with regard to Schwartz and the inquest. To conclude that it was the result of lack of confidence in his statement is speculation.

c.d.