Who saw 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

[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.

[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

[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

[perrymason]

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.

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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,

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]

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