Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Busy Beaver 45 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Do you think it will be solved? - by Busy Beaver 57 minutes ago.
Rippercast: False Flag: Jack The Ripper with author Stephen Senise - by Varqm 2 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Graham 4 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Herlock Sholmes 5 hours ago.
A6 Murders: scan of Hanratty statement re Rhyl alibi - by Spitfire 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Discussion: Do you think it will be solved? - (7 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (6 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Eddowes' gut cut - (4 posts)
Rippercast: False Flag: Jack The Ripper with author Stephen Senise - (4 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Dennis Nilsen - (4 posts)
Bury, W.H.: "...but because you are going to hang me you will get nothing out of me..." - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Witnesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-13-2015, 11:34 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,816
Default Packer and Schwartz

Hi to All,

Over in the 'broken window' thread the other day, Simon Wood said:

"Packer and Schwartz were not called to the inquest because their testimony would have given the lie to the "double event.""

I'm curious. Can anyone, including Simon if he is willing, tell me how Packer and Schwartz's testimony, jointly or separately, could have disproved the notion that Stride and Eddowes were murdered by the same person?

I have, incidentally, read Simon's book.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-13-2015, 04:07 PM
Premium Member
SirJohnFalstaff SirJohnFalstaff is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Abzurdistan or Canada, depends
Posts: 565
Default

I'm interested too. Schwartz has always been my favorite witness.
__________________
Is it progress when a cannibal uses a fork?
- Stanislaw Jerzy Lee
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-13-2015, 04:23 PM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 718
Default

I do think they are the only 2 witnesses of any importance in the stride murder and it was scandalous that they weren't called to testify. It's down to behaviour like this that many believe a cover up or conspiracy was in full flow.We get shouted down a lot but things like this shouldn't have happened, no smoke.....
But no, I don't know personally why it would dismiss the double event but I suspect that stride was mistaken for Liz long anyway, as you know from the other thread, so was an attempt to silence a possible witness but mistaken identity. Speculation obviously, a punt if you like
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-14-2015, 12:21 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,816
Default

I don't want to misrepresent him but, as far as I can make out from looking again at his book, the fact that Schwartz saw a man attacking a woman at 12.45am in Berner Street disproves what he calls the mutilandum interruptus theory, by which I think he means that, if the murder took place at 12:45am, Louis Diemshitz could not have interrupted the murderer at 1am, which in turns means that the absence of any mutilation was deliberate so that Stride wasn't killed by the same person who murdered and mutilated Eddowes.

I think that's the point. He seems to believe that the notion that Schwartz did not see Stride being murdered (and that two separate attacks took place on the same spot within 15 minutes that night) is an 'Alice in Wonderland' notion although if Schwartz was witnessing the murder in progress then I would have assumed that he was the cause of the mutilandum interruptus.

Alternatively, it seems to me, the murderer could have been interrupted by any number of (unknown) things.

Why Packer's testimony, which would only have been to the effect that he sold Stride some grapes at 11pm and last saw her at 11.30pm, would have made any difference to anything I am unable to fathom.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-14-2015, 12:34 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Hi to All,

Over in the 'broken window' thread the other day, Simon Wood said:

"Packer and Schwartz were not called to the inquest because their testimony would have given the lie to the "double event.""

I'm curious. Can anyone, including Simon if he is willing, tell me how Packer and Schwartz's testimony, jointly or separately, could have disproved the notion that Stride and Eddowes were murdered by the same person?

I have, incidentally, read Simon's book.
I have often wondered about that to, but never got an answer.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-14-2015, 12:44 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I don't want to misrepresent him but, as far as I can make out from looking again at his book, the fact that Schwartz saw a man attacking a woman at 12.45am in Berner Street disproves what he calls the mutilandum interruptus theory, by which I think he means that, if the murder took place at 12:45am, Louis Diemshitz could not have interrupted the murderer at 1am, which in turns means that the absence of any mutilation was deliberate so that Stride wasn't killed by the same person who murdered and mutilated Eddowes.

I think that's the point. He seems to believe that the notion that Schwartz did not see Stride being murdered (and that two separate attacks took place on the same spot within 15 minutes that night) is an 'Alice in Wonderland' notion although if Schwartz was witnessing the murder in progress then I would have assumed that he was the cause of the mutilandum interruptus.

Alternatively, it seems to me, the murderer could have been interrupted by any number of (unknown) things.

Why Packer's testimony, which would only have been to the effect that he sold Stride some grapes at 11pm and last saw her at 11.30pm, would have made any difference to anything I am unable to fathom.
Hi david
I agree.

and whether it was Schwartz or Diemshitz or sounds coming from the club or something else, or a combination of above, the killer being interrupted, ripper or not (Though I lean toward the ripper), seems reasonable to me.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-14-2015, 01:30 PM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 718
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I don't want to misrepresent him but, as far as I can make out from looking again at his book, the fact that Schwartz saw a man attacking a woman at 12.45am in Berner Street disproves what he calls the mutilandum interruptus theory, by which I think he means that, if the murder took place at 12:45am, Louis Diemshitz could not have interrupted the murderer at 1am, which in turns means that the absence of any mutilation was deliberate so that Stride wasn't killed by the same person who murdered and mutilated Eddowes.

I think that's the point. He seems to believe that the notion that Schwartz did not see Stride being murdered (and that two separate attacks took place on the same spot within 15 minutes that night) is an 'Alice in Wonderland' notion although if Schwartz was witnessing the murder in progress then I would have assumed that he was the cause of the mutilandum interruptus.

Alternatively, it seems to me, the murderer could have been interrupted by any number of (unknown) things.

Why Packer's testimony, which would only have been to the effect that he sold Stride some grapes at 11pm and last saw her at 11.30pm, would have made any difference to anything I am unable to fathom.
Hi David
If I'm right and stride was just a 'silencing' crime, the mutilations weren't intended anyway,there was no interruption.There was no intent to mutilate Stride.
Packers statement is only contentious once the hour was put back... As he was adamant of the time initially going by the closing of the pubs can you think of a sane reason why he personally would put the hour back? What would packer personally achieve by pushing the hour back?
Nothing.Yet on the official report the hour was pushed back!! Enough to make you think someone wanted to distance the grapes and witnessing from the TOD
Can't imagine why?
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-14-2015, 10:48 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,287
Default

I would imagine the reason Packer didn't appear at the inquest is probably the same reason Maurice Lewis didn't appear at the Kelly inquest: the authorities considered both of them to be highly unreliable witnesses.

I'm also far from convinced about the reliability of Schwartz as a witness, and I have significant doubts about Stride being killed by BS man.

Nonetheless, I agree that Stride's killer could have been agitated by all manner of things. In fact, he didn't actually have to be interrupted by anyone: just a belief that he was about to be interrupted, I.e. noises emanating from the club, may have been sufficient for him to have fled the scene.

Last edited by John G : 10-14-2015 at 11:07 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-14-2015, 11:16 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
I would imagine the reason Packer didn't appear at the inquest is probably the same reason Maurice Lewis didn't appear at the Kelly inquest: the authorities considered both of them to be highly unreliable witnesses.
But Mrs Maxwell dd, was she considered reliable?
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-15-2015, 12:03 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
But Mrs Maxwell dd, was she considered reliable?
Not by me, and clearly not by the coroner either! However, I suspect that it was a simple case of misidentification of someone she didn't know that well-and having come forward she probably felt obliged to stick to her guns, especially considering her reputation in the neighbourhood. However, as she didn't come across as an obvious attention seeker she was allowed to give evidence at the inquest. As Walter Dew put it: "If Mrs Maxwell had been a sensation-seeker-one of those women who live for the limelight-it would have been easy to discredit her story. She was not. She seemed a sane and sensible woman, and her reputation was excellent."
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.