Victims seen with Suspects just before death

[Abby Normal]

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?

Hi Rosella
One of my best friends has sandy/light brown hair and depending on the time of day/night, lighting conditions and positioning, his hair and facial hair can look like anything from dark brown to almost blond. considering that all the witnesses saw a man at night, under different lights etc. I'd take the apparent differences in hair color with a grain of salt.

I tend to focus more on things like body size, height (stout, short, broad sholders, etc)or outstanding headgear-like a peaked cap.

[Rosella]

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?

[lynn cates]

Long

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

[harry]

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.

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

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

Well, assuming he wasn't fibbing about being there at all (as some contend), it would depend on his actual reason for loitering opposite the court shortly before the murder. If, for instance, he was the actual murderer, he may have been waiting for the coast to clear, and for the recent Miller's Court arrivals (Lewis and Cox) to retire to bed and to sleep - a strategy similar to that employed by other serial killers targeting victims in their homes. That is one explanation. Alternatively, he may have wished to "legitimise" his presence there with a fictional account for others reasons that didn't involve murderous designs on his part.

No, it isn't very likely that Abberline knew Hutchinson. Had that been the case, he would have disclosed as much in his internal, confidential police report to his superiors. Incidentally, the notion that the police gave Hutchinson the benefit of the doubt owing to a paucity of strong leads and a willingness to "clutch at any straw" did not originate with anyone seeking to incriminate Hutchinson, but rather with authors like James Tully, who championed an entirely different suspect.

All the best,
Ben

[Bridewell]

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

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.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

The witness didn't know they were witness when they witnessed.

Hello all,


How is it that this Jack Fellow, an assumed singular killer of the Canonical Five, can seemingly change his coloring, weight, height, clothes and economic status at will? The reality is that if all these witnesses are to be believed then we have different men seen with each of the the victims shortly before death, not the same man.

Either the stories are lies,1, the witnesses were incorrect,2, the details are embellished,3, or the stories are true but without any corroborative accounts. If you remove the last possibility due to the fact that most uncorroborated accounts cannot be considered as de facto evidence in any real investigation, then what are you left with?

Best regards

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.

[Bridewell]

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.

I now argue against myself to some extent because I don't think the woman Lawende saw was Eddowes. His sighting doesn't allow sufficient time for the killer to have done what he did and get away before her body was discovered. I suppose the man seen could still have been her killer, but he would need an astonishing degree of nerve.

[GUT]

That, if true, would suggest to me that the victims were robbed because I would expect them, otherwise, to have a few pence in their possession.

G'day Bridewell

Possibly, or the transaction was for whatever reason aborted. After all at least a couple of Post Mortems [2 or 3 from memory]indicated no sex had taken place.

[Bridewell]

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

That, if true, would suggest to me that the victims were robbed because I would expect them, otherwise, to have a few pence in their possession.

[Bridewell]

Im sure you've noticed that the "suspects" seen with the victims just before their untimely deaths do not in any substantive way match each other in description.

Israels Suspect: "Age, about 30; ht, 5 ft 5 in; comp., fair; hair, dark; small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak, and nothing in his hands"

Lawende Suspect (Ver 1): "of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak".

Lawendes Suspect (Ver 2) :"age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair fair moustache, medium built, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor."

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.

[GUT]

How is it that this Jack Fellow, an assumed singular killer of the Canonical Five, can seemingly change his coloring, weight, height, clothes and economic status? The reality is that if all these witnesses are to be believed then we have different men seen with each of the the victims shortly before death, not the same man.

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

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

As has always been the case in my experience with Ripperology, whenever we have a witness who provides testimony that seems to establish a hard piece of evidence that we can use to answer some questions, someone will present another witness who has contradictory memories of the events and very different timings. And then the discussion becomes about who is really the correct witness to use, and which opinion carries more weight than another. We have witnesses for a suspect seen with the victim shortly before her death in 4 of the Five cases. Who if any of them are we to believe...which should carry more weight?

The reality is that your only real hope for the truth is to find statements that unknowingly corroborate other witness statements, on times, activities and what was noticed. If more than 1 person saw something that is validated by another statement from someone unconnected to the first witness, then you have at least something to start with. For example, in the case of the Berner Street murder there are no less than 3 people who corroborate each other on what they saw and when they saw it, all concerned with the discovery time of the body. At approximately 12:45. Yet the statements everyone uses as gospel are the ones that have no corroboration... from Eagle, Lave, Israel and Louis....even though we see that Eagle and Lave are essentially in the same place at the same time, by their own remarks. Fanny Mortimer is corroborated by her sighting of Leon Goldstein, it establishes her at the spot where she said she was at the time she said she was there. And she noticed or heard none of what the uncorroborated witnesses say they saw.

One murder that I think offers us some witness information that we can use to eliminate some "noise", is the Hanbury murder.

Case in point: Albert Cadosche and John Richardson


From the Star on September 10th;

"On Saturday the sun rose at twenty-three minutes past five; for half an hour previously the light would be such as to render it difficult for any one to distinguish even near objects. At a quarter before five o'clock John Richardson, son of the landlady, of 29, Hanbury-street, as usual, went to his mother's to see if everything was right in the back yard. Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot. The door would then partially hide the corner between the house and the fence. This man is quite clear that he saw nothing to attract his attention before he left. About twenty-five minutes past five Albert Cadosch, living at No. 31, the next house on the left-hand side, entered the yard adjoining that of No. 29. He states that he heard some talking on the other side of the palings, and he distinguished the word "No." There was then, he fancied, a slight scuffle, with the noise of something falling, but he took no notice, thinking that it was from his neighbors. It was half an hour later, at six o'clock, that John Davis, before going to his work, walked along the passage into the yard, and made the horrifying discovery of the mutilated body."

If these 2 witnesses are to be believed, and there is nothing that Im aware of that prevents us from taking them at their word, then we can establish within 45 minutes when Annie was actually killed, and that it was shortly after 5:15ish. One of these witnesses was in that yard that same morning before 5, the other in the adjacent yard shortly after 5. Surely witnesses that were almost on the murder scene just before it happens must take precedence over others who believe they may have seen the victim elsewhere. If Richardson told the truth, and Albert, then we can establish the murder as being between 5:15-6:am, not earlier, as many medical opinions seem to believe. Accepting these stories removes Mrs Long and her suspect. It also puts into question the degree of accuracy we can assume the medical personelle had with eviscerated bodys exposed to outdoor environments. It will also tell us just how quickly the killer had to do his dirty work, a murder which regardless of the time taken, seemed to indicate some real skill and knowledge.

That leaves us with just 3 of the murders with witnesses that saw the victim just before her murder with someone.....we have the completely uncorroborated Israel Schwartz and Broadshouldered Man, the corroborated account of Sailor Man, and either Blotchy Face or Astrakhan Man...of course depending on whom you believe saw Mary last...

Israels Suspect: "Age, about 30; ht, 5 ft 5 in; comp., fair; hair, dark; small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak, and nothing in his hands"

Lawende Suspect (Ver 1): "of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak".

Lawendes Suspect (Ver 2) :"age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair fair moustache, medium built, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor."

Mary Ann Coxs Suspect: " A short, stout man, shabbily dressed. All his clothes were dark. He had on a longish coat, very shabby, and carried a pot of ale in his hand...A dark coat, A round hard billycock, He had a blotchy face, and full carrotty moustache. Age-Six-and-thirty."

George Hutchinsons Suspect: "Description age about 34 or 35. height 5ft6 complexion pale, dark eyes and eye lashes slight moustache, curled up each end, and hair dark, very surly looking dress, long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astracan. And a dark jacket under. Light waistcoat dark trousers dark felt hat turned down in the middle. Button boots and gaiters with white buttons. Wore a very thick gold chain white linen collar. Black tie with horse shoe pin. Respectable appearance walked very sharp. Jewish appearance. Can be identified."

Im sure you've noticed that the "suspects" seen with the victims just before their untimely deaths do not in any substantive way match each other in description.

How is it that this Jack Fellow, an assumed singular killer of the Canonical Five, can seemingly change his coloring, weight, height, clothes and economic status at will? The reality is that if all these witnesses are to be believed then we have different men seen with each of the the victims shortly before death, not the same man.

Either the stories are lies,1, the witnesses were incorrect,2, the details are embellished,3, or the stories are true but without any corroborative accounts. If you remove the last possibility due to the fact that most uncorroborated accounts cannot be considered as de facto evidence in any real investigation, then what are you left with?

Best regards