Author: richard nunweek
Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 07:22 am |        |
Hi everyone.
Various people claimed to have seen the victims at a time near there deaths , but most of these sightings there is a time gap, so we can not be sure that the discriptions given were a definate likeness,of the killer.
Their are only two that we can be as sure as it is possible that it reliable ,that being of Mrs elizabeth darrell, who saw Annie Chapman at 5.30a[mrs long also could be accurate yet she only saw him from behind] Darrells time matches very near Albert cadoush hearing noises in the yard.
And Joseph Lawande seeing eddowes with a man who must have been her killer at 1.30 am.
None of the other witnesses can be treated as positives.
The berner street sightings are not near enough to be confident on ,not even Israel Schawartz. and hutchinsons discription is worthless as we do not know if his suspect was the last that kelly saw. So what have we got A man of shabby jewish appearence aged about 40 . wearing a deerstalker just over 5 foot tall . And a man of sailor appearence aged about 30 years of fair complexion appearence of a sailor. height 5 feet 7-8 inches
NOT a lot to go on.
Regards richard. |
Author: Dan Norder
Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 01:46 pm | |
Please oh please take off your caps lock key when typing titles of new threads. Typing with all capital letters makes it look like you are shouting.
And I don't think we can treat any single supposed witness as having actually seen the Ripper. Out of the bunch it's possible someone might have seen the killer, but I think it's wrong to assume any one of them did, even the two you mention.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Walter Timothy Mosley
Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 06:10 pm | |
Getting the spelling of a new thread right wouldn't hurt either, Dan.
WTM |
Author: richard nunweek
Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 06:44 am | |
I must beg your forgiveness, on my spelling,and thread capitals, it was not meant to offend, or show ignorance.
Regarding witnesses reliability ,of course it is possible that any one of them could have seen the killer. I was merely suggesting the most likely based on reports made at the time.
The reason i started this new thread ,was to try to understand why the two people ie; elizabeth darrell and joseph lawende who must have seen the victims shortly before they were killed gave completely different descriptions.
Mrs darrell says a man of 40 years of genteel appearence ,whilst lawende a man of 30years of fair complexion, appearence of a sailor.
This would suggest to me that either these were two seperate murders ie; not related to each other [most unlikely] or there were two people involved in the ripper killings. Thus the theory that there was an acomplice could hold some truth.
regards richard. |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 12:44 pm | |
You forget the most obvious choice: That one or both of the witnesses didn't actually see that victim's killer, but someone else entirely, and that's why the descriptions don't match up.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: richard nunweek
Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 01:12 pm | |
Hi dan,
The word coincedence crops up yet again.
The woman known as Darrell or Long,claims to have seen a man and a woman outside no 29 leaning against the shutters.Albert cadoush hears voices around the same time in the yard, Surely not a different couple.joseph lawande sees a woman whom he says is the deseased with a man standing only a few yards where the body was found only a few minutes before it was discovered .
I do not think it is conceivable that she dumped this man and found her killer after.
I accept that we will proberly never know the truth , but just like a jigsaw ,one keeps trying to make the pieces fit.
Regards richard. |
