Victims seen with Suspects just before death

[J6123]

We look at those with the murder perspective. But for the witness, there is no murder, they are seeing people in the street, doing what they do, like they probably saw dozens of them in the same night.
when they learn about the murder, now, they try to remember hard, but there are a lot of possible mistakes/confusions.

The only thing that would make a different impact, is if the witness saw something out of the ordinary, or was personally involved in the situation.

That's why I'm not quick to dismiss Schwartz. There are good reasons the event had a good stamp on his memory.

About Hutchinson, there is definitely something fishy. The story is too well constructed.

Could not agree more John. Great post.

[Bridewell]

Not trying to start another Hutchinson debate.

And nor am I, believe me!

My point is Schwartz is probably the best one to have a reason to remember more precisely what happened.

He probably is. What slightly concerns me about so many of the witnesses is that the Gentile witnesses seem to see only Jewish suspects, while the Jewish witnesses see only Gentiles. No-one seems to see a man from their own ethnic background.

[lynn cates]

mistake

Hello Mike. Thanks.

Well, if it WERE 5.30, why did it take her 30 minutes to arrive there? Many a time I've mistaken a quarter hour chime for a half. Common mistake.

And if so, both fit like hand in glove.

Cheers.
LC

[Harry D]

As you're probably aware Harry D, there are two accounts, one a slightly second-hand police one, being an executive summary by Swanson, (the original reports having disappeared down the ages), the other a slightly more lurid version presented by the Star, a radical newspaper with a reputation for, shall we say, less than accurate reporting...

Swanson's summary suggests a casting out towards the street, the Star suggests a casting into the yard...it depends upon who you give the most credence to, doesn't it? And things are complicated by the translational issue...

Personally I hold a view that either may be correct, and I tend to try and keep an open mind...

I hasten to add that I know other people have different views, and I would certainly not wish them to be labelled as having closed minds...far from it...there just comes a point where unless you're robotic, personal perspective plays a part...

Well, out of the two, I'd be tempted to give the chief inspector of the case the benefit of the doubt over the local rag. For argument's sake, let's say that Broad Shoulders was casting Stride into the yard, it's certainly a point in his favour but we still have the not-so-small issue of the fella drawing unnecessary attention to himself, attacking his victim in plain sight and shouting across the street. That doesn't jive with the shadowy Ripper of lore.

As for keeping an open-mind, quite right. That's why I'm willing to entertain that the Ripper entered the scene after Broad Shoulders roughed up Stride, and took advantage of her while she was still reeling from the attack, rather than just assume that the man Schwartz saw had to be the killer.

[DRoy]

It takes explanations like these to explain the differences in coloring and dress, but when people are asked to estimate a height and weight they do so based on their own stature. The height on the "suspects" varies by almost a half a foot.

Michael,

I agree. A bit further and what would the majority of the men's physical features be in 1888? I'm sure the majority would probably be around 5'6", moustache, dark vs light hair, shabby dressed, etc. That narrows things down doesn't it!

Cheers
DRoy

[Cogidubnus]

As you're probably aware Harry D, there are two accounts, one a slightly second-hand police one, being an executive summary by Swanson, (the original reports having disappeared down the ages), the other a slightly more lurid version presented by the Star, a radical newspaper with a reputation for, shall we say, less than accurate reporting...

Swanson's summary suggests a casting out towards the street, the Star suggests a casting into the yard...it depends upon who you give the most credence to, doesn't it? And things are complicated by the translational issue...

Personally I hold a view that either may be correct, and I tend to try and keep an open mind...

I hasten to add that I know other people have different views, and I would certainly not wish them to be labelled as having closed minds...far from it...there just comes a point where unless you're robotic, personal perspective plays a part...

[Harry D]

Just a shame there's little chance that Schwartz's man was the Ripper. 'Broad Shoulders' was reportedly trying to drag Stride onto the street, not into the yard and was creating a ruckus in public in front of at least two witnesses. Not exactly the actions of a stealthy killer.

[Cogidubnus]

My point is Schwartz is probably the best one to have a reason to remember more precisely what happened.

I tend to agree with you Sir John...but I fear we're in a minority...

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Maybe.......But, if Hutchinson was constructing a story to explain his presence for all that time opposite the entrance to Millers Court, what exactly was he waiting for if Astrakhan Man did not exist? If his interest was Kelly and she was alone, why wait at all? I think (and I acknowledge that it's purely surmise) that Hutchinson was waiting for a client to emerge; I see it as the only logical reason for waiting - and also for noting the heavy gold chain etc, earlier in the piece. I'm pretty much in a minority of one on this, but I've yet to see a convincing explanation of why Abberline believed his account if it was as unbelievable as many insist it to be. The claim that Abberline was desperate to believe anything sounds to me a little....desperate frankly. Abberline had worked the area for 15 years or so until his transfer to Scotland Yard; he may have known Hutchinson - and the sort of thing he got up to in his spare time.

Not trying to start another Hutchinson debate.

My point is Schwartz is probably the best one to have a reason to remember more precisely what happened.

[Harry D]

Here's the thing about Hutch's Mr. Astrakhan, it seems so implausible that it has a ring of truth to it. Unless Hutch had some kind of freakishly acute vision and photographic memory, he manifestly embellished his description of the man he saw with MJK. However, that doesn't mean there wasn't a nugget of truth to his tale, and that for whatever reason (publicity?) he decided to gild the lily (an expression I've only learnt since reading Ripper lit ). But to invent that suspect entirely from scratch? I'm not so sure.

[Michael W Richards]

All these witnesses saw men, momentarily in Lawende's case, in darkenened locales, under flickering gas-light.

All the same, there is a sinilarity between Lawende's description, version two, of about 30, fair complexion, fair moustache, and Schwartz's sighting of a man about 30, 5ft 5ins in height who was fair with dark hair and small brown moustache.

Even Hutchinson's A.M describes a man who is pale (fair skinned) 5ft 6ins in height with dark hair and slight moustache. Hutchinson thought this man was older than 30, Lawende thought his man was taller at 5ft 7 inches.

Witness testimony is notoriously iffy, but give or take a few inches, a few years, they could all have seen the same man.

Would a blonde moustache necessarily look different to a brown one under gaslight?

It takes explanations like these to explain the differences in coloring and dress, but when people are asked to estimate a height and weight they do so based on their own stature. The height on the "suspects" varies by almost a half a foot.

There is also the issue of dress, shabby to posh...explain those differences...and without assuming the killer changed his clothing for every kill.. If he lived in that area its likely he had very few clothes and therefore few wardrobe choices.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike.

"Accepting these stories removes Mrs Long and her suspect."

Not sure how? If she saw Annie and FLM at 5.15 (not 5.30), and if Albert heard the beginning of the murder around 5.20, it looks like a perfect match to me.

Cheers.
LC

Problem with that Lynn is that you would have to assume that Mrs Longs testimony was incorrect to make it work. She said she was "sure" it was 5:30...and the woman saying "no" in that backyard did so at around 5:15-5:20. I think we can be certain, as I said, that if Cadosche told the truth, Annie was being killed while he peed.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

The first hurdle to overcome,is agreement on those four sightings.I would suggest that the sighting by Brown is as important as any other,and in the case of Hutchinson there is a reasonable doubt to w hether the sighting was genuine.That still leaves four out of five,albeit two for the same crime(Stride)and I am sure there will be argument against my conclusions.

Hi Harry,

The obvious problem with accepting Browns sighting as a Stride sighting is the fact that she had a red/white flower arrangement on her jacket at 12:35, and he saw none at 12:45. Added to that is the fact that there indeed was a young couple in that area who was sighted by someone who does have some corroboration for her story...Fanny.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

I see a significant degree of similarity between Schwartz's sighting and Lawende's. They're not identical in every respect, but I wouldn't expect them to be. IMO they are close enough to consider the possibility that they are separate sightings of the same man.

But Lawende appears at the Inquest, and it seems obvious from the records that Israel, and his story, are absent from the Stride Inquest. So even if they are "similar", its probable that Schwartz's sighting was bogus.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Maybe because none of these witnesses saw Jack, but rather he struck after they parted from the victim.

In the case of Lawende and his companions, its doubtful that someone else showed up to kill Kate due to the very short time between sighting and discovery. If Israel saw what he says he saw, then he saw it at 12:45am...and the earliest estimate of the cut is 12:46am...so again, unlikely someone else shows up. Mary Ann Cox is likely the last person to see Mary alive but Mary is killed hours after that sighting...so its possible Blotchy left without being seen and someone else showed up. Same for Hutchinson. A woman made some noise from that court at around 3:45, so its likely that was Mary since no-one came forward to claim that voice.

Its clear that in at least the case of Lawende and Schwartz that there is not enough time to propose that yet another suspect enters the fray.

Cheers