Suspect Witnesses?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Being a violent man and slitting someone's throat cutting all major arteries in the process are entirely different things I am afraid.

The most likely scenario believe it or not is the obvious one. Israel Schwartz unawares follows JTR down Berner Street. He witnesses him make his initial attack on Stride. Stride is then killed by BS man after Schwartz and Pipeman are gone but thinks better of things as he fears Schwartz maybe returning with a Policeman. He flees the area.

All the while, Liz holds on to her packet of cachous. It's as though she were more concerned with protected this than her own life.

As usual, there is friction between Schwartz's story and common sense.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

To be brief, the grapes story comes from the press and the con-artist Le Grande, whereas the no grapes story comes from the sworn testimony of responsible officials who were in the yard. The grapes story appeared in the newspapers before Packer "remembered" his alleged grapes story.

Ok Doc, lets touch on that first point - the story about the grapes being noticed by Diemschutz & Kozebrodsky, and mentioned by Mortimer, in the London Evening News of 1st Oct.
I recall reading something about LeGrand writing for, or working with the London Evening News to get a story he wrote published, have I remembered correctly?
I know the writer (was it Tom?) speculated some kind of conspiracy between LeGrand & Packer?

You must be aware the Evening News is and evening paper, but this story was first published in the morning papers. So it did not originate with the Evening News.

One of the people who allegedly saw grapes, Louis D, contradicts this in his sworn testimony.

Does he?

It was a red rose according to PC Smith, and the official evidence of Inspector Reid who examined the body.

Today's roses are more hardier due to horticultural experimentation, but in the 19th century a rose was just a rose, as far as I know.
I even asked AI about this, the rose is mostly all done by Sept/October, and my wife said the same. That it was unlikely to have been a rose due to the time of year.
Apparently there is now a Dog-rose that still blooms into November, there is also a Pavement Rose, but it was only developed in the 1980's. It's a complicated subject, but it doesn't look promising that we would have a red rose in early October in the 19th century, in UK.

Packer's flower was white first, but when he saw Bruce on 4th October it was red and white, and Spooner had by then given his evidence on 2nd October about a red and white flower.

Yes, but Packer didn't say the flower was white, he said is was due to the white of the flower against the dark material of the jacket (bearing in mind this was around midnight). The flower could have been multi-coloured, but the white caught his eye.

Quote:
" . . and his attention was particularly caught by the white flower which the woman wore, and which showed out distinctly against the dark material of her jacket."
London Evening News, 1 Oct.

The same paper also explains what Packer meant:
"There is one seeming discrepancy between the story of Packer and the facts as published; it has been reported that a red flower was found in the murdered woman's bosom, and Packer states that she wore a white flower. This is sufficiently easy of explanation since Packer does not say that the woman wore only a white flower, but that the attention was particularly drawn to the white flower from its standing out against the black of her dress,"

As an explanation is offered right there in the same article, why are modern theorists trying to create a mystery over it by changing what he said into a lie?

So, that is not the same as saying the flower was white.
I think you would understand that the red would not stand out against a dark jacket, when it is dark outside.
It was the white that caught his eye.
I know some have used this as an excuse to accuse Packer of lying, these posters are just trying to dumb the argument down.

Packer or Le Grande are likely to have seen this in the papers. Unfortunately, the evidence of the two sisters seems to belong only in the press and with Le Grande. I don't believe we have any official evidence, which is extremely unhelpful.

Ok, so if the story of the grapes was already in the papers before LeGrand saw it, then presumably Diemschutz & Koz. must have really seen grapes?
I may have misremembered but, I thought the theory was that LeGrand invented the grape story?

Le Grande controlling Packer and keeping him away from Sgt White is suspicious, and at the end of his carriage journey to Scotland Yard with Le Grande, Packer's timings for all events had changed. Had he been briefed?

I can't see a motive for LeGrand in all this, obviously there is a great deal we do not know. But what advantage is there to LeGrand in feeding false details to Packer?

Sgt White at the first interview asked if Packer had seen anybody standing about the street, and Packer said he saw no-one standing about. But days later he said that he saw a man and a woman - exactly what the police wanted to know about - hanging about for half an hour!

Packer's reply to Sgt. White, was:
“No I saw no one standing about neither did I see anyone go up the yard. I never saw anything suspicious or heard the slightest noise, and know nothing about the murder until I heard of it in the morning.”

Note - "Anything suspicious".

Packer really did not see anyone go up the yard, and those he saw were not acting suspicious.
Packer does change his story, yes, but he doesn't say anyone was acting suspicious - and that was the point of White's initial questions.

[Wickerman]

The reference to Comrade Yaffa in Arbeter Fraint would suggest Yaffa was the last name.

It was customary to address a male by their last name, but that was not the custom with females.