Suspect Witnesses?

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, the above sounds like you are talking about a different pair of press reports to what I mean.

This is the interview with the female who was on the corner with her manfriend.

When the alarm of murder was raised a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty-minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

Mortimer refers to her (and her manfriend)

A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

The above two accounts refer to the same couple, my Couple #2.


The earlier couple is mentioned in this next report, my Couple #1.

It is established almost beyond doubt that the poor creature met her death some time between twelve and one o'clock. And yet no one seems to have heard a struggle, or a groan, or the slightest indication of what was going on. From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart.

"We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."




Yes, I know the flower could have been obscured, but that is conjecture. The fact remains Brown said he did not see a flower in her jacket.



Nice of you to say so, I wonder which 'very old' threads they are.
Now I'm looking at the number of posts, almost 15,000 good grief, I've probably written a book and don't realize it.


A sign of a miss-spent retirement, as well as a miss-spent youth.

Anyway, I'm hoping this exchange over the 'sweetheart' couples has just been a bit of a misunderstanding.

All one couple, Wick. There was only the one young sweetheart couple. But the woman Brown saw was the not so young Stride.
As to the threads I've read recently, they've been all over the place in terms of content, but some that stand out had to do with Dorset Street - Hutchinson, Lewis, Prater, etc. That's one area of the case I've never spent a lot of in depth time in until now and I've really enjoyed perusing old comments from an era when the contributors actually contributed. Of course, I was taking notes and your name ended up in my notes quite a bit. I look forward to reading through the notes again at a near date now that I've separated the wheat from the chaff.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Like it or not Tom, there is plenty of elbow room with the stated times.
"About 12:45"
"three or four minutes"
"about quarter of an hour".

What is your definition of 'about'?

Most members have been around long enough know how inexact stated times can be, especially when most people didn't have a watch, and the common means of time-keeping was the local quarter-hour chimes from the nearest church bell.

Brown did say he had not looked at a clock in the chandlers shop (Telegraph). He also said he first came home at 10 minutes past 12, which seems sufficiently precise to suggest he may have had a clock at home, but that is of no help with sighting this couple.

Given the circumstances above, "about 12:45" could be 12:40-12:50, plus "3 or 4 minutes", could offer a time when passing this sweetheart couple at a minimum of 12:43 or a maximum of 12:54.
And we are in no position to determine what the exact time was when Brown saw the couple.

To me its irrelevant, as the woman was not Stride in my view.

I'm no less cogent of the elbow room in the timings given by virtually all witnesses, including constables. I always take that into consideration. However, as I mentioned before, James Brown must have been corroborated to some extent by the chandler. And, having a clock in his home, he's likely to be accurate as to the time he left the house. My guess (and it's only that) is that the chandler chop closed at 1a.m. and he was anxious to get there before it did. He likely got a discount on perishables.

Perhaps I haven't made the source of my frustrations clear. What frustrates me is that since the dawn of Ripper books - or at least the influential ones from 1987 on - James Brown has been automatically discounted by authors on the grounds that he saw his couple at 12:45 and his evidence isn't as compelling as Schwartz, who was on the street at the same time. He's further disregarded because of some phantom 'young couple' standing at the corner of Fairclough Street and Berner Street. As I demonstrated in Ripper Confidential using a variety of sources - including the Times report that is consistently edited by authors to misrepresent Brown's words - he left his house at 'about 12:45' and did not witness his couple until several minutes later. And, of course, there was no young couple by the board school at this time. I see no reason to doubt that Brown was the last person to have seen Stride as this is the conclusion reached from the best evidence and is not (to my knowledge) contradicted by anything else. But what irks me is when all this information is ignored for some outdated and error-riddled Martin Fido version that is demonstrably untrue. To the best of my knowledge, authors who have published since my book came out in 2018 have uniformly repeated the lie - either through ignorance or dishonesty (I'm not sure which is worse). I'm not asking for everyone (or anyone) to agree with me, but only to present all the evidence honestly and then make your counter argument for why BS Man and not Overcoat Man is the more likely suspect. Because he may very well be! Please note this rant is not directed at you (Wick) at all. It's more towards authors publishing books or articles who feel their theory needs to prop BS Man as Stride's killer. Please do so honestly by presenting both sides of the argument and explaining why you're propping for one over the other.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

It's because the young couple, as the woman herself stated, was long indoors before anything happened. As far as the historical record goes (which we can all agree is incomplete), Brown was the last person to see Stride alive other than her killer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom.

You can't let personal bias influence your thinking.
Regardless of your preferences, both Packer and PC Smith saw Stride with the same man about 12:30.
Your belief that Brown saw Stride is not a fact, but merely one interpretation.

At least Mortimer saw the body in the yard, and spoke to the female who had been standing on the corner. So Mortimer would know they were different women.

What you prefer to believe presents an awkward scenario where Stride is already placed beside the club, then she crossed the road to stand opposite, then walk back over to the yard to stand in front of the club.
But now you have her walking back down the street to the corner at 12:45, yet we have her being assaulted in the entrance to Dutfields Yard also at 12:45.

There's no benefit in placing her at the corner, away from the scene, at the same time as she is assaulted at the entrance to the yard.
It is an unnecessary diversion, with no justification.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom.

You can't let personal bias influence your thinking.
Regardless of your preferences, both Packer and PC Smith saw Stride with the same man about 12:30.
Your belief that Brown saw Stride is not a fact, but merely one interpretation.

At least Mortimer saw the body in the yard, and spoke to the female who had been standing on the corner. So Mortimer would know they were different women.

What you prefer to believe presents an awkward scenario where Stride is already placed beside the club, then she crossed the road to stand opposite, then walk back over to the yard to stand in front of the club.
But now you have her walking back down the street to the corner at 12:45, yet we have her being assaulted in the entrance to Dutfields Yard also at 12:45.

There's no benefit in placing her at the corner, away from the scene, at the same time as she is assaulted at the entrance to the yard.
It is an unnecessary diversion, with no justification.

This is circular reasoning. Of course Mortimer spoke to a young woman who was not Stride...a young woman who was very clear where and when she was with her young man. And a young woman Mortimer did not herself see near the board school after 12:30a.m. This is because the young woman was at the other end of Berner Street and had gone in by that time. This is simple stuff, Wick. It really is. Packer also stated he saw no one at that time. These are phantoms, my friend. Phantoms. Call me a purist, if you will, but I see no reason for all this fantasizing in the face of sworn testimony. Which is what James Brown offered.

And that Brown saw Stride was his sworn statement...not my interpretation. He was taken to the mortuary and identified her. Under Baxter's questioning he said, "I am almost certain she is the woman I saw," which is to his credit, given the short glimpse he had and all that had transpired since that night. But when he saw her face in the mortuary, he was certain.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott