Who saw Jack ?

Jack the ripper has always been seen by many as a will of the wisp figure coming and going useen in the night yet the vidence files contain many witness accounts of possible sightings.
The Chapman killing gives us Elizabeth Long who saw a man she describes as dark, about 40, and a foreigner (all this although she admits not seeing his face!),a little over 5 feet ina dark coat and deerstalker.
Numerous witnesses at the Stride killing include P.C. Smith,Israel Schwartz (who saw 2 men in the area at the time).James Brown and Mrs Mortimer who apparently saw Leon Goldstein (does anyone know if Goldsteins story was checked out) and Mathew Packer although much doubt has been cast on his account.
Edowes's killing gives us Joseph Lawende and although the coroner at the inquest seemed to regard his identification as significant it actually seems pretty useless.
From Kelly's death we have possible sightings of the killer by Mary Anne Cox,as well as Hutchinsons highly detailed description and the sighting by Mrs Maxwell (again dismissed by some)
So who from this list do we think saw the actual killer, personally i think Elizabeth Longs sighting in Hanbury Street the most likely although we must treat her description with care. Also Hutchinson was believed by Abberline at the time, although his description is almost to good to be true.

I have seen also the different witness accounts of who the Ripper might have been, they do vary except for some similarities of only some or a couple of witnesses including that of the Red handkerchief, a couple stating approx 5ft in height etc and also the moustace which one account said it was brown or carrotty, short or bushy etc but even with the similarities they all differ in the description of the actual person on a whole. The Doctors who stated that the Ripper had medical knowledge, plus the one that changed his mind from saying he didn't have medical knowledge to that he did have medical knowledge, something about a membrane covering the organ and that someone with medical knowledge would only have managed to know that, not your ordinary slap dash mutilator, so with that established JTR must have known about the medical side and more likely a Doctor, so why would a blotchy faced salt & pepper cap sailor looking fellow be the ultimate in identification as JTR the medically knowledgable guy? Most genteel men were not stopped by police, the police would even address them as Sir, i would personally go with more of the guy who was aged around 40 yrs with the deerstalker hat than the one that Lawende, Levy & co came up with, maybe he was one of thier local Doctor's and a sailor type description was a generalisation that they came up with, as many a prostitute went with a sailor or army guy and would certainly put them off finding a Doctor.
Those last words were just a thought on it.

[DVV]

Indeed.
Ask Abberline and Badham.

[Stephen]

Lunatic

A cunning lunatic

[BLUE WIZZARD]

No two witness could identify a person the same way, even if they saw him at the same time.

Sometimes it is relevant to there own height or how much light they had at that time.

Jack may have changed his clothes to go out killing, probably because he may have thought a witness saw him wearing a particular outfit.

If that were so then he was not insane as some would say but cunning.

BW

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Wasn't sure where else to ask this (which has probably been asked a thousand times before) but:

Aged 25-30, 5'7", long black coat buttoned up, soft felt hawker hat, broad shoulders. Maybe a young clerk, frock coat, no gloves.

Aged 30, 5'5", brown haired, fair complexion, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.

Is this the same person?

The only things differing them from one another otherwise is the coat/jacket and hat, but he could've changed before returning back on scene in order to remain inconspicuous. Heights are a bit tricky to determine to be precise; they're obviously just estimations given by the witnesses.

[Wickerman]

On balance, Hutchinson's sighting of 'Mr Astrakan' comes in a distant third. By Hutch's own admission he left the court a good 45 mins to an hour before the suggested time of the cry of "Oh murder".

Mrs Long's sighting was 15 to 20 minutes before Davis stumbled over the corpse of Annie C.

Lawende's sighting was within 9 minutes of PC Watkins finding the body of Catherine Eddowes.

Why go with a long-shot? , maybe thats what Abberline finally concluded...

[Ben]

Hi Brad,

Okay, I see your point but even if you are right the witness was unreliable because of his or her uncertainty

Yes, although that uncertainly doesn't reflect at all negatively on the witness, especially if the ID attempt took place two or more years after the initial sighting.

I believe no one got a good look at the Ripper. except maybe Hutchinson.

Depends if there were any mirrors installed in the Victoria Home.

Cheers,
Ben

[celee]

Wow, Ben quick responce,

Okay, I see your point but even if you are right the witness was unreliable because of his or her uncertainty and in keeping with the topic of the thread, I believe no one got a good look at the Ripper. except maybe Hutchinson.

Your friend, Brad

[Ben]

Hi Brad,

It is Swanson who explains in detail why the witness refused to give testimoney. Why would Swanson make those notes if they were not true.

Well, it's essential to examine the implications of the statement. Swanson stated that the witness refused to swear to the identification on the grounds that the suspect was a fellow Jew. Was this another "definitely ascertained fact" of the order touted by his superior, or was it merely his interpretation of events? Why would a witness who had initially identified the suspect "the instant he was confronted with him" suddenly decline to swear to the identification, and actually admit that he was declining on the grounds of the suspect's "Jewishness"?

That behaviour doesn't compute in the slightest, unless the witness was actively looking for as much trouble as possible.

I have a far easier time believing that the witness refused to swear to the identification on the grounds of uncertainty (hardly surprising given the time that elapsed since the initial sighting), and that Swanson and Anderson simply assumed it was because they were both Jewish and didn't want this or that left on his mind.

Best regards,
Ben

[celee]

Hi Brad,



It was the first one - Hutchinson was later discredited.

If Abberline "simply did not believe the man Hutchinson saw was the Ripper", he was entitled to that view, but it wouldn't have been good enough excuse to discard his evidence entirely in favour of using "weaker" witnesses for subsquent identity attempts. There had to be a good reason behind the police decision to use one (or more?) of the Jewish witnesses in preference to Hutchinson, and an assumption that maybe someone else arrived after the Astrakhan man at the Kelly murder wouldn't have constituted a "good reason" - far from it.



I agree, but I don't believe any witness "unhesitatingly" identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him, not after two years, and certainly not if he was unwilling, ultimately, to swear to the identification. I've no doubt that an ID attempt took place and that a Jewish witness was wheeled in for that purpose, but I doubt very much that it happened as Anderson described. "Yes, that's absolutely 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt the man I saw, but no, I won't swear to it" sounds astonishingly implausible to me.

Major Smith is critical of Anderson's "Polish Jew" theory, not the witness allegedly used to implicate that Polish Jew.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Everyone gets cought up with Anderson but it is Swanson that gives us the name Kosminski. It is Swanson who explains in detail why the witness refused to give testimoney. Why would Swanson make those notes if they were not true. I mean I doubt that he thought his comments would ever be published. Swanson seems to support Anderson. Macnaghten put forth the Name Kosminski as a suspect. I assume the same Kosminski. In my mind there can be no doubt that a man named Kosminski was identified by a witness. So, it must have been the witness that was not crediable. It just stands to reason. If someone Identifies a suspect the police are not going to say, "Well, I believe the witness, but I do not think he Identified the right man"

Maybe a witness identified the suspect but he was not positive enough to testifiy against the suspect but Anderson took his identification as 100% fact. However, were does Swanson and his claims fit.

your friend, Brad

[Ben]

Hi Brad,

Either Hutchinson was later discredited or Abberline simply did not believe the man Hutchinson saw was the Ripper

It was the first one - Hutchinson was later discredited.

If Abberline "simply did not believe the man Hutchinson saw was the Ripper", he was entitled to that view, but it wouldn't have been good enough excuse to discard his evidence entirely in favour of using "weaker" witnesses for subsquent identity attempts. There had to be a good reason behind the police decision to use one (or more?) of the Jewish witnesses in preference to Hutchinson, and an assumption that maybe someone else arrived after the Astrakhan man at the Kelly murder wouldn't have constituted a "good reason" - far from it.

He sounds like a far cry from the man who unhesitatingly identified the ripper.

I agree, but I don't believe any witness "unhesitatingly" identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him, not after two years, and certainly not if he was unwilling, ultimately, to swear to the identification. I've no doubt that an ID attempt took place and that a Jewish witness was wheeled in for that purpose, but I doubt very much that it happened as Anderson described. "Yes, that's absolutely 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt the man I saw, but no, I won't swear to it" sounds astonishingly implausible to me.

Major Smith is critical of Anderson's "Polish Jew" theory, not the witness allegedly used to implicate that Polish Jew.

Best regards,
Ben

[celee]

As I indicate above though, Brad, an assumption that Hutchinson's man may not have been the killer wouldn't have been enough to discard his evidence as they apparently did. Whatever the actual reasons were for dismissing his evidence, it couldn't have been that one.

I don't know of any detective who expressed doubts over Anderson's witness, but there were certainly those who took exception to the conclusions of Anderson himself. I don't know if Anderson lied or not, but I'd sooner believe that than accept that a witness "unhesitatingly" identified the suspect "the instant" he was confronted with him, especially if the witness was Joseph Lawende.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

I agree with you Ben there had to be a reason why Aberline seemed to dismiss Hutchinson. Either Hutchinson was later discredited or Abberline simply did not believe the man Hutchinson saw was the Ripper. Abberline may have thought the time of Death was later,like I do, around 3:45 He may not have dismissed the cry of Oh murder. He may have thought, again like I do, that Jack would not have spent over an hour with Kelly before attacking her. Who knows Ben.

Ben, if Anderson is telling the truth then other Detectives had to doubt the witness. If someone Identifies a murderer and is believed by the Detectives, then case closed. However, we have all sorts of different suspects put forth.

Alot of people say Lawende was the witness. However, I feel that Lawende was to crediable a witness, I dont know why. I guess I have been swayed by the boards. However Lawende himself claimed that he could not Identifiy the man he may have seen with Eddowes. He identified Eddowes by her clothing not from personal knowledge of her. He sounds like a far cry from the man who unhesitatingly identified the ripper.

Your friend, Brad

[Ben]

They simply may not have believed he actually saw the Ripper.

As I indicate above though, Brad, an assumption that Hutchinson's man may not have been the killer wouldn't have been enough to discard his evidence as they apparently did. Whatever the actual reasons were for dismissing his evidence, it couldn't have been that one.

I don't know of any detective who expressed doubts over Anderson's witness, but there were certainly those who took exception to the conclusions of Anderson himself. I don't know if Anderson lied or not, but I'd sooner believe that than accept that a witness "unhesitatingly" identified the suspect "the instant" he was confronted with him, especially if the witness was Joseph Lawende.

Best regards,
Ben

[celee]

Hi Brad,



That wouldn't have provided incentive enough to discard his evidence completely, though. In the absence of any suspect observed in Kelly's company after "Mr. Astrakhan", the police were obliged to keep the description in circulation if only to eliminate the man from their inquiries. They would only be justified in discrediting Hutchinson's account, as they appear to have done, if they had compelling reasons to believe the suspect either didn't exist or was definitely not the killer.



I don't think it's the witness that the other detectives had problems with (or the assumption that Anderson's witness saw the ripper), but rather Anderson's assertion that the man seen was definitely Kosminski.

Best regards,
Ben

Hey Ben,

I agree the police must of had a reason for dismissing Hutchinson's man. However it does not mean they did not believe Hutchinson's story. They simply may not have believed he actually saw the Ripper. Alot of Different reasons.

Anderson wrote, "The only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him." Sounds to me like the witness was sure. So, if Anderson is telling the truth, I think he was, then it must have been the witness the Detectives doubted.

Your friend, Brad

[Ben]

Hi Brad,

However he may have not have believed the man Hutch saw was the Ripper

That wouldn't have provided incentive enough to discard his evidence completely, though. In the absence of any suspect observed in Kelly's company after "Mr. Astrakhan", the police were obliged to keep the description in circulation if only to eliminate the man from their inquiries. They would only be justified in discrediting Hutchinson's account, as they appear to have done, if they had compelling reasons to believe the suspect either didn't exist or was definitely not the killer.

It is obvious that who ever Anderson's witness was, they did not convince other Detectives that they saw the Ripper.

I don't think it's the witness that the other detectives had problems with (or the assumption that Anderson's witness saw the ripper), but rather Anderson's assertion that the man seen was definitely Kosminski.

Best regards,
Ben