Who saw Jack ?

[Nothing to see]

I believe there were 5 JTR murders and there was a 'double event' because Stride is one of Jack's gets. The police placed faith in Hutchinson's story and description - me, I'm not on the Met so it doesn't much matter but something has always seemed 'off' about the description, in particular, to me. Tie pin, ring, astrakhan lined coat, strolling around Whitechapel on a rainy night in November actually soliciting the local tarts? Sounds more like a private bordello type to me but then JMO.

Who saw Jack? Lawende. Mitre Sq is waiting, Jack has been thwarted, Eddowes is coming out of a binge after sleeping in the cop cells. I wonder just how impaired she herself still was after her drinking session. Could have affected her ability when sizing up a joe but then again, she may have been dead sober by then and just needed the money.

[perrymason]

Based solely on the amount of time available from the last witness sighting to the dead victim discovery, Lawende almost assuredly saw the man that killed Kate. I would say based on the circumstances and timing at Dutfields Yard, I believe Schwartz may have seen Liz Strides killer.

That leaves us with Lawende, between those 2 witnesses, with the most likely sighting of Jack the Ripper...cause Liz Strides killer could well be the drunk Broadshouldered Man based on the event preceding the murder, that event location as relates to the actual murder site, the time, and her injuries.

Problem is, of all the witnesses in all the 5 cases, he strongly suggested that he would not recognize the man again and didnt get a good look at him only weeks later.

So he was in the best position of any witness we know of to have seen Jack, but anything he gives us is suspect based on his own words on the quality of his identification and his memory of it.

Best regards all.

[Aristocles]

I'll take Long and Lawende for a thousand.

In an extremely tentative sort of way, as it were.

JG

[tnb]

Am currently in the middle of writing up a very detailed analysis of all the witness statements, and their contradictions - or otherwise! - which I will be posting on the 'disguises' thread, but as this is on my wavelength at the minute so to speak I couldn't resist dipping my oar in here too.

In my opinion, if any of the witnesses saw 'Jack', they were:

(Chapman) Long; (Stride) Marshall, Schwartz; (Eddowes) Lawende and Levy.

Of course Marshall and Schwartz depend on whether you believe Stride to be a 'Ripper' victim; if so, I personally have a feeling Packer may have seen her killer too, and that the more dubious elements of his (two) statements are the result of trying a bit too hard under pressure to remember detail he, understandably, hadn't registered at the time. But that's just me I think!

Best, Gardner, and Ede win the prize for most unlikely sightings - even beating out Hutch (imo).

No-one saw him around the time of the Nicholls murder (again my interpretation only) and Kelly is such a mess of confusion I'm not even going to begin here...if Hutchison saw 'Jack' then Cox didn't...if Hutchison wasn't there then maybe she did...and in that case who did Lewis see...but was she a Ripper victim after all...and if so and Cox saw the killer, how does that fit with the man in the Prince Albert thought to be Isenchmmid after the Chapman murder...and, but, if...aaaaagh!!!

[lynn cates]

problematic

Hello TNB. It also depends on whether Long saw Chapman--or someone else.

The best.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Has it ever occurred that the killer/killers made sure they were not seen.

There are may case of serial killers selecting their victims in public and not ever being seen by a witness. Peter Sutcliffe is a good example.

One also has to take into account that these prostitutes were desparate for money and would therefore proposition almost every man who came their way. So in view of that and after 121 years the descriptions are of no evidential use.

Over the past 121 years every man and his dog has looked at these descriptions and depending on who their chosen suspect is would say one of the descriptions loosely fits that suspect.

[tnb]

Lynn - fair point. This is why I shy away from getting into the whole MJK 'witness' mess - so many 'what if's you don't know where to begin!

Trevor - I completely agree about people moulding the facts (and not just of the descriptions) to fit their chosen suspect, this is one of the biggest problems with a lot of suspect-centred books; people use the same arguments to dismiss everyone else's suspects that they then overlook in order to push theirs. The witness statements are just one such area, in that people say 'witness A's description fits my suspect so they saw the killer, suspect B's doesn't so they didn't'. One word - lazy. My intention in my re-examination of the witness statements is to attempt to debunk this, in showing that actually a lot of the descriptions are not as divergent as they at first appear, and thus hopefully landing a little blow in the fight against shoddy research.

With regard to other serial killers and Sutcliffe, as an example, I would point out that what we know, and what a police investigation throws up, is not necessarily equal to everything that happens. That may sound pedantic, but how do we know that no-one saw Sutcliffe, but didn't realise he was anything but an ordinary Joe?

How many people that you passed in the street today would you think to go to the police about if you heard of a murder, or a robbery, or whatever, around the corner later that day? If the person coming along the street behind you, on the other hand, is more observant, or has their suspicion piqued, they may. The police would get lucky. Which they may have in 1888, or us now looking back - we would be naive to dismiss the possibility.

It is quite possible no-one saw 'Jack', but the question, at least as I read it, was 'if anyone saw him, who was it?'. It is a 50/50 shot, he was seen by one or more people, or none. I personally lean towards that he was seen, but that is just a personal preference: I feel that the whole quasi-supernatural, dissapearing into the darkness from whence he came image of the Whitechapel murderer is itself one of the most unhelpful myths about the case. I am not suggesting you, or anyone else here for that matter, subscribes to that view, but perhaps that is why I lean towards believing 'Jack' was seen, as it would do away with one of the most frustrating elements of the public perception of the case.