Twinkle, twinkle, . . .
Hello GUT. Thanks.
I paste below the story from "The Star" 10 September.
Cheers.
LC
There are two general clues to the murderer at the present time. The first deals with the famous, or infamous "Leather Apron," whose name is on everybody's lips in the Whitechapel district. The case against "Leather Apron," briefly summed up, is as follows: - That the murders are evidently the work of a maniac, and this man is quite crazy enough to fall within that class. His beastly brutality, manifested in his attacks on Whitechapel street-walkers are quite in keeping with the late fiendish deeds. He disappeared from his accustomed haunts just about the time of the George-yard murder, has not been in any of the lodging-houses in which he has slept for years, and since that murder has been seen only once or twice in a district in which he is known by sight to many. Furthermore a man exactly answering his description was found one night sleeping on the steps in the very house and in the very passage through which the victim of Saturday was led to her death. Jews who are driven to sleep in passage ways are not common even in Whitechapel, and there is little question that the party with the Hebrew face who was found asleep in the passage at 29, Hanbury-street, was the redoubtable "Leather Apron."
THE OTHER CLUE
is that of the man who went into the Prince Albert public-house with bloody hands, a torn shirt, and a bloodstreak on his neck. Mrs. Chappell, who saw the man along with Mrs. Fiddymont, was a customer, not friend of the latter, and the two stories of the man, which were independent of each other, agreed perfectly. Mrs. Fiddymont yesterday added to her previous statement the fact that the back of the man's head was grimy, as if it had been bloody, and had been dampened or spit upon in the endeavor to rub the blood off instead of washing it. The dried blood between the fingers was thus clear, though the back of the hand held only three or four small distinct spots. The man did not look in the least like a butcher, and no theory born of his appearance could account for his bloody hands at seven a.m.
Joseph Taylor also had some facts to add to his account of Saturday. Mr. Taylor is a cautious and entirely reliable man, and freely told all he knew to two detectives on Saturday. He says that as he entered the public-house Mrs. Fiddymont said that a man had just left whom she would like to give in charge on suspicion of the murder. Taylor went out a moment later without any particular intention of
FOLLOWING THE MAN,
whom Mrs. Chappell pointed out to him. The man was going towards Bishopsgate, however, and, as this was Taylor's direction, he increased his pace.
"It was all I could do to overtake him," he said yesterday, "and I am not a bad walker myself. The man walked very rapidly, however, with a peculiar springy walk that I would recognise again. He carried himself very erect, like a horse soldier. He had a ginger-colored moustache, longer than mine and curling a little at the ends. His shoulders were very square and his neck rather long. He was neither stout nor thin, and seemed between 30 and 40 years old. His face was medium in stoutness. There were faint hollows under the cheekbones. One thing that impressed me was that the man
SEEMED BEWILDERED.
He crossed Brushfield-street three times in going from the Prince Albert to the next street, which was Bishopsgate. He clearly did not know where he was going. When he reached Bishopsgate, he stood at the corner and looked up and down the street undecided. Then he made up his mind and started across Brushfield-street rapidly, and kept on down Bishopsgate towards Liverpool-street. I followed as far as Half-Moon street, where my work was, and watched him for some time from the corner, but he kept straight on. I assure you that when I came alongside of him his look was enough to frighten any woman. His eyes were wild-looking and staring. He held his coat together at the chin with both hands, the collar being buttoned up, and everything about his appearance was exceedingly strange.
Who was the best witness to have seen Jack the Ripper?
Collapse
X
-
I find Mrs Fiddymont interesting as she seems to corroborate Mrs Long,
For example Hutchinson's JtR could equally have been wearing a pink tutu and skipping sprinkling fairy dust for all the relevance his description matters. Yet millions of words get written on the shape of the hat JtR wore (it was probably a tiara).
No one probably ever saw JtR clearly but common sense (to me) would be ask a simple question.
How many among the pantheon of primary witnesses are there that have a secondary witness independently confirm their description?
Leave a comment:
-
G'day Lynn
Could be, I just wonder if there is a fuller account of what scared her about him floating around that I have not read or absorbed.
Leave a comment:
-
The eyes have it.
Hello GUT. Great question. But one need look no further than the description of his eyes.
Cheers.
LC
Leave a comment:
-
I wonder just what it was about the man's appearance that Mrs Fiddymont found frightening.
Was it merely the blood spots on the back of his hand?
It doesn't seem enough of itself, to me.
Leave a comment:
-
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
Leave a comment:
-
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
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Damaso Marte View PostFiddymont 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sunbury View PostI 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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.’
Leave a comment:
-
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
Leave a comment:
-
Mrs Fiddymont
Originally posted by Damaso Marte View PostSome of you people think Mrs Fiddymont saw him, no?
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.
Leave a comment:
-
G'Day
Clearly the best witness was Jack.
Just the bugger won't tell us.
G.U.T.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: