Who saw Jack ?

[celee]

Hi All,

In 1903 Abberline told the Pall Mall Gazette—

"One discrepancy only have I noted, and this is that the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty-five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view."

George Hutchinson saw the 34 or 35 year old Ripper suspect Mister Astrakhan from the front.

On 12th November 1888 Abberline wrote in an official report [publicly unseen in 1903]—

"I have interrogated him [Hutchinson] this evening and I am of the opinion his statement is true."

If I ever reach that place where all truths are known, I would like to ask Abberline how he reconciles these two comments.

Regards,

Simon

mmm tough question,

Abberline could have believed Hutchinson. However he may not have believed the man Hutch saw was the Ripper. or Hutchinson could have been discredited later causing Abberline not to believe his story.

Bottom line, if there was a witness who saw and identified the Ripper then the case would have been solved and the Detectives would all have agreed on a suspect. It is obvious that who ever Anderson's witness was, they did not convince other Detectives that they saw the Ripper.

Your friend, Brad

[Ben]

Good point, Simon.

I normally wheel that one out whevener it's argued that "Abberline believed Hutchinson, so we must". The two statements you quote can only be reconciled if he drastically revised his opinion of Hutchinson some time between 12th November and 1903. Fortunately, there is external support for that drastic revision from other senior police officials.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Simon,

I suppose one explanation is that the second quote is perhaps incomplete, based on the fact that it doesnt say "completely", or "wholely" true. Fred did have Sarah Lewis's Wideawake on record, and perhaps he felt that corrobertated that portion of Hutch's story.

His solid backing though is fairly remarkable, considering Abberline's profile to that point regarding witness testimony. Doesnt seem to be the sort to muck about with conjecture too much.

I do believe that it is quite possible that two investigations were taking place regarding 13 Millers Court and the murder, both with Abberline as a lead man, and that mis-direction of the press would have been a handy move.

The story of Garrett? was it,....I dont have a source book handy and cant recall his name, a few days after the Inquest, spotted who he thought was Blotchy Face and when seeking a constable to chase him down, was told to forget him, they were looking for someone completely different. Did that mean Blotchy had no value as a witness? Did that mean a toff in Astrakan was now the only man sought in connection with this crime, then how do you reconcile that with the fact that we have a Get out of Jail free card for a second man, from Warrens desk?

I would think one of the only defenses they had against press interference was to mislead them on occassion, perhaps the mixed messages might indicate that sort of situation.

Best regards Simon, and to the family.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

In 1903 Abberline told the Pall Mall Gazette—

"One discrepancy only have I noted, and this is that the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty-five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view."

George Hutchinson saw the 34 or 35 year old Ripper suspect Mister Astrakhan from the front.

On 12th November 1888 Abberline wrote in an official report [publicly unseen in 1903]—

"I have interrogated him [Hutchinson] this evening and I am of the opinion his statement is true."

If I ever reach that place where all truths are known, I would like to ask Abberline how he reconciles these two comments.

Regards,

Simon

[celee]

Hi,

Abberline seems to suggest that no one got a good look at the Ripper and those who did claim to see him only saw him from behind. Anderson claimed he had a witness who Identified the Ripper, and I believe he did have such a witness. However his witness could not have been totally accepted or we would have had an agreement by all the Detectives involved on the Rippers identity. I feel Anderson's witness was Shwartz.

I doubt that anyone got a real good look at the Ripper. We have witnesses Identifing the women not the Killer. Lawende identified Eddowes by the cloths she wore. He did not know her personally and women did dress alike. In the dark without personal knowledge of the women it would be easy to make a mistake.

Cox may have got a look at the Ripper when he entered Kelly's room. At least Cox Knew Kelly and she actually spoke to her.

Your friend, Brad

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Due to the timing of things, I'd say Lawende was the most likely out of all the witnesses to have seen Jack.

[fido]

If accepted, Major Smith's testimony further supports the idea of Lawende, since he describes a witness who was some kind of foreigner (I think he says something like "hybrid German") and was seen as extremely reliable because he was unwilling to say he would recognize him again. This all fits Lawende.
And while I haven't read the dissertation to which Dan refers, and am not sure whether I've ever published the opinion, I certainly share the view that Swanson's "City Pc near Mitre Square" was most likely a slip for "City Police witness near Mitre sqaure".
All the best,
Martin F

Liz was seen assaulted by a drunk man, weaving when he walked, and she is dead less than 14 minutes later a few yards away from that site.

Hi Michael,

Well at least you didn't state the time as 13 minutes and 50 seconds. I'm still holding out hope for you.

c.d.

Hi cd,

Since you know I already believe she was cut before 12:55, no point in tormenting you. Hope youre steady on two good knees my friend.

Cheers mate.

[c.d.]

Liz was seen assaulted by a drunk man, weaving when he walked, and she is dead less than 14 minutes later a few yards away from that site.

Hi Michael,

Well at least you didn't state the time as 13 minutes and 50 seconds. I'm still holding out hope for you.

c.d.

Long and Schwartz each ID'ed the victim's body in mortuary as the woman they saw with a man.

Roy

Which translates to witness seeing probable killers with victims, not that they saw "Jack". Lawendes man could have parted in the square with Kate and her killer was in there waiting is also a possibilty.

Liz was seen assaulted by a drunk man, weaving when he walked, and she is dead less than 14 minutes later a few yards away from that site. Its not rocket science, nor is it a case of a spooky madman suddenly appearing and then forgoeing his trademark mutilations.

Did anyone see "Jack"? My guess is that Lawende is the most probable due to the timing, but hardly assured.

Best regards.

[DVV]

Hi Uncle Jack,
Maurice Lewis said he saw Mary between 10 and 11pm...but described her as "five foot three, stout and dark" (P. Begg).
So there are not "sightings" of Mary Kelly...after her death, and only Mrs Maxwell's stestimony is worth discussing... But as you know, MK's body has been identified, and Mrs Maxwell, if not a liar, has certainly mistaken the day.
With all due respect, I don't understand how you can give more importance to Maurice Lewis and Mrs Maxwell than to Lawende.

Amitiés,
David

[Uncle Jack]

Long and Schwartz each ID'ed the victim's body in mortuary as the woman they saw with a man.

Roy

Good point Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

The Long and Schwartz of it

Long and Schwartz each ID'ed the victim's body in mortuary as the woman they saw with a man.

Roy

[Ben]

Whether evidence or proof, I do not personally think there is either to suggest that the men seen with the victims are the Ripper

Oh, there's certainly evidence, Adam, and strong circumstantial evidence to boot. We just lack final "proof" - a distinction wisely highlighted by David earlier. It's remotely possible that the man observed was someone other than the killer, but it isn't probable.

Best regards,
Ben

[Uncle Jack]

Hi David,

Whether evidence or proof, I do not personally think there is either to suggest that the men seen with the victims are the Ripper or even, in some cases, that the women seen were the victims themselves. While Lawende clearly saw a man and women outside the passage into Mitre Square, he didn't see them go into the Square, so the is a chance it wasn't even Eddowes, even though it is, as you say, likely that it was.

The sightings that intrigue me the most is that of Mary Kelly, seen by a number of people, after her apprently time of death. Can everyone be ingnorant that we can pass off these sightings as pure mistaken identity? There are other explanations of course...

...01. That the time of death given was wrong and that she was seen on the murning of the 9th and was murdered afterwards, which would point against MJK being a Ripper victim, as he/she only murdered in the early hours.

...02: The woman seen wasn't MJK but then why would she converse with people as MJK?

...03: The woman seen was MJK and that the victim murdered at Miller's Court was someone else, leading to some sort of connection to the murders with MJK.

...04: The woman seen was the killer, therfore leading us to a "Jill the Ripper" type theory....

But I definately would not rule out the sightings as pure mistake or fabrications, especially in the case of the woman who knew Kelly.

Kind regards,

Adam