|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 59
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 12:13 am: |       |
Leanne,
I think the both of us are confused. I am talking about Lawende- the witness police officer.
Anyway, regarding Lawende's interest-I really think it is not so relevant. Lawende was paid to observe people. That was his job. He is not just some regular witness.
If he was interested in it or not it would not make a difference at the time he observed them-he had no clue they had anything to do with the case until after the discovery of the body.
I had never stated that he was called in to look at Barnett.
I think that if he saw Barnett, it must have been on accident.
Either at the police station or when Barnett was riding through town at Mary's funeral.
-Peter-
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 988
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 12:23 am: | |
G'day Peter,
Please point out where you read about this Lawende! He's not in the 'A-Z' and I've never read about him before!
LEANNE |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 60
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 12:35 am: | |
Leanne,
I am really confusing myself now.
Okay-Joseph Lawende. The police officer who had seen two people conversating before the death of Eddowe's.
This is what I am assuming:
After Mary got murdered, Barnett was taken and questioned by the police, specifically Abberline. Now, since Joseph Lawende had worked at the police station, I am assuming that he could have stumbled upon Barnett. He must have seen him there on accident or on purpose. If he didn't see him at the station, he could have seen Barnett when he was riding through town at Mary's funeral.
Now, if Barnett was the actual guy Lawende saw, you'd know what would happen from there.
It was a four hour interrogation, who knows what happened during it.
I hope you understand what I'm talking about now; please tell me if you don't.
Forgive me for the confusion.
-Peter-
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 989
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 1:35 am: | |
G'day Peter,
Joseph Lawende wasn't a police officer! Where did you dig that one up from? He was a commercial travellor who left the Imperial Club at 1:30a.m., with Harry Harris and Joseph Levy. The other two men took little notice of the couple.
Levy gave police a very general description of the man he saw, that could have fitted any 30 year old with fair hair at the time. It was the closeness to Kate's time of death, that made his sighting important. Plus the description of fair hair and fair complexion, was so unlike the other descriptions...unique!
LEANNE |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 61
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 1:44 am: | |
Leanne,
Really, thanks for clearing that up for me.
I feel extremely stupid right now and I'm sorry for wasting your time and the other users' time-I have no excuse for that mistake.
I really don't know how I got it. It was a stupid mistake on my part. I knew Lawende was a witness and I had never thought he was police man before, but recently I just had that impression.
I will be more careful from now on.
Thanks once again.
-Peter-
(Message edited by peter on December 05, 2003) |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 990
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 2:08 am: | |
G'day Peter,
No worries mate! I thought that you might have read about a constable Lawende somewhere and I missed it!
LEANNE |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 227
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 3:14 am: | |
Peter, the point is that there were two other entrances to the square. Just because the couple were at the end of Church passage at 1.35, if it wasn't Kate then she could have already been in Mitre Square with her killer having approached either from Mitre Street or from St James Passage any time from 1.30 onwards.
And once again, Lawende identified Kate from her clothes only, he did not see her face because she was turned away from him. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 453
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 3:43 am: | |
Hi,
I Cannot understand why time difference is being discussed, if Eddowes was getting across her point to the man dressed as 'appearence of a sailor'that she was not intrested.[ hand on chest as if to say 'sorry no' as Lawande and co were passing, the man they saw could have left within seconds of them passing.
It would be an obvious reaction , once the seaman left , to make herself away in a different direction then he was going, incase he decided not to take 'no' for a answer.
So within a few seconds of Lawande, leaving the scene, she could have took a walk through the square, and I believed she was then attacked by her killer, who approached her on her left, placed one hand over her mouth to stifle any noise, and dragged her by her left hand[ note recent bruising between her thumb and first finger]to the corner of the square.
The bruising of the hand in that position indicates that she was grapped extremely tightly.
Richard. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 474
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 4:19 am: | |
Shannon,
Granted, hand clench could point to a number of reasons.
Frank has pretty much covered what I was giong to say.
I will add though that it seems as if Martha was a victim of a blitz style attack.
Also, the bayonet as a murder weapon is very misleading. Kileen never states for definate that he thought a bayonet was used. Only that it appears to be...along with a penknife.
As this thread doesnt belong to Martha I shall cease posting about her on this thread but Im happy to take it over to Marthas thread.
Catch my thread ?
Monty
 |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 475
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 4:28 am: | |
Rich,
Please bare in mind Watkins and his beat.
Where would Kates killer have been hiding in the square ?
Monty
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1481
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 5:13 am: | |
Hi Leanne
This Dorset St connection - 3 out of the 5 canonical victims, although there's a dispute about Stride's address - is Joe supposed to have bumped into women he supposedly knew, just when he was ready to kill? Or is he supposed to have walked around until he spotted one of them?
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1482
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 5:19 am: | |
Sorry, forgot your other point : I imagine that a lot of men who've had a hard day etc come home and take it out on the missus - sometimes violently. But you're saying that Joe would have had a hard time from the missus, then gone and taken it out on someone else! It doesn't strike me as likely.
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 518
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 6:16 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
In an earlier post, you listed the victims to suggest how Jack ‘evolved his MO’, ending with:
‘Mary Kelly lived in the same room and slept on the same bed!’
The same as what? If you mean the same as Jack, I hope you will be very careful not to let circular arguments like this one slip into your book. If a reputable publisher spots one he/she will be understandably wary of other observations you make, however well argued they may be.
Robert’s point is a good one. If you are going to argue that a Dorset Street connection between the victims, if proven, would point to Joe’s guilt, then you have to explain this in the context of the various locations away from Dorset Street where the attacks actually took place.
Statistically, it might well be that a disproportionate number of run-down and particularly vulnerable specimens, forced to tramp the streets of Whitechapel after midnight, would have found lodgings at one time or another in, or close to, this lowest of low streets. If so, it would follow that their killer’s chances of having a direct connection with Dorset Street himself, or even knowing one or more of the victims, would certainly be no greater than the chances that he came from somewhere else entirely and had never seen any of the women before. And if you consider the possibility that a whore-hating Jack would not have lived in Dorset Street by choice, the chances could actually be less.
Have a great weekend everyone. Hope to see some of you at the Smoke & Stagger tomorrow – in costume. Bar extension to midnight! 
Love,
Caz
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 991
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 6:50 am: | |
G'day Caz,
Pardon? I'll have to print this out, take it with me tomorrow and try to understand what you are saying.
LEANNE. |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 62
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 4:52 pm: | |
Alan,
In fact, your statement can be backed up even more.
There were three entrances to Mitre Square.
But
I think that the couple was Jack the Ripper and Eddowe's. My reason is that she was identified as being the woman. That is the strongest clue I can give you. Yes, it was only by her clothes, but Lawende had just seen her and I think that was enough. If he had identified her at a lot later time-it would be a different story. Also, the timing just fits perfectly.
-Peter-
|
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 53
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 4:57 pm: | |
Caz,
You were right on the money so far as the addresses of the victims is concerned. The oft neglected point is that everyone has to live somewhere and whether that "somewhere" is statisticaly significant or not depends on how you order your set of possibilities.
Obviously, if your set is, say, anyone within a 62-mile radius centered on London Bridge, then the cluster of 4, 5, 6 (however many your canon allows) victims all living within a half-mile of each other is significant to an amazing degree. However, if you order the set instead to include only women living in London who are on their own, desitute, unskilled, homeless, hopeless and resorting when necessary to prostitution . . . well, that most of the victims then turn out to have lived on Dorset or Flower & Dean streets ought be no surprise (nor significant statistically) because that is where most of that set did live in 1888.
I am reminded of the remark by the notorious American bank robber of the 1950s, Willie Sutton. When asked why he robbed banks, Sutton famously replied "because that's where the money is."
Of course, the Dorset Street connection is far from solid fact anyway. Where Stride and Kidney resided is open to debate and Liz was living on Flower & Dean just before her death. Further, whatever the veracity of the Dorset Street shed anecdote, for the most part Eddowes and Kelly lived on Flower & Dean Street as did Nichols.
Perhaps Joe Barnett had a pied-a-terre on Flower & Dean.
Don. |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 54
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 6:16 pm: | |
Hi Don,
The last part of your post agrees exactly with what I see in Eddowes' case. Catherine was killed quite close to St. Botolph's Church (only some 120 yards away), and at the time this church was known as the 'Prostitutes' Church' because of unfortunates walking around it to attract clients.
With this in mind I'd say it's more likely that the Ripper was drawn to the church to find what he was looking for, than that he was going to that neighbourhood to find Catherine Eddowes and kill her Subsequently, the existence of the so-called 'connextion', which is supported by some of the posters on this thread, is to be doubted.
All the best,
Frank |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 65
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 7:13 pm: | |
Shannon,
Regarding your post about the supposed "slip up," how do you the tone in which Barnett stated this? Also, you seem to be analyzing it too much.
If there was something fishy about the tone, Abberline would have said something. Maybe he did and maybe he interrogated some more until he was satisfied.
-Peter- |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 230
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 7:25 pm: | |
Peter,
Sorry, I'm not trying to be pedantic but, define "a lot later time". Lawende was not found until quite late on the day after the murder. The City Police found Levy during a door to door search and he gave them Lawende's name as a fellow witness. Thus it was most likely at least late evening, somewhere around 18 hours later, before Lawende was shown the clothes to identify and it could well have been the following day again.
None of this is to say that I don't believe that it was Kate at the end of the passage, just that we have to question these things and not simply take them for granted. |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 67
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 7:37 pm: | |
Alan,
By "a lot later time," I had meant at least a week later. All of that chaos would have distracted the police and it wouldn't have surprised me if they took a while to have her identified.
But, let's not forget that the police had to come to Lawende, he didn't come to them-showing his disinterest and his reliability questioned.
-Peter-
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 288
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 7:38 pm: | |
Peter, Analizing it, yes, that IS how you come a a possible conclusion about what you belive happened. You play the "what if" game to see if it fits, or if the suspect fits, or if the context can be taken in another way. To me (not saying you have to see it that way) it APPEARS that Joe was very defensive with the coroner.
The coroner didnt ask Joe anything about his fighting with Mary. He asked her if she was afraid of anyone. So why did Joe responded the way he did unless he had a guilty consience? Thats is how I see it. You dont have to see it the same way, you can form your own opinion!
Shannon |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 68
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 7:44 pm: | |
Shannon,
In no way was I forcing my opinion down your throat.
I had just mentioned that it's difficult to analyze somebody's tone with just words. Like here on the boards.
Audio would have helped us a lot
Anyway, that is just what I think.
-Peter-
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 289
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 7:48 pm: | |
Peter, whe you read the testimony from the inquest you can get a "feel" for the tone of the responses much the same way you do when reading a good novel.
Shannon |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 71
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 8:03 pm: | |
Shannon,
How are we able to detect sarcasm? How can we detect when the person is angry. I did not see any exclamation points in the testimony. If there are some, please let me know.
I can't stand this day.
I can't stand this day.
I can't stand this day!
Many different meanings.
-Peter-
(Message edited by peter on December 05, 2003) |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 290
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 8:36 pm: | |
Peter: "How are you able to detect sarcasm?"
Here, sit beside me, open your book to page one and follow along as I read aloud. If you have problems with the big words just raise your hand...
Do you have any problem getting my meaning? I didn't use any exclaimation points did I?
Shannon |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
