Suspect Witnesses?

[FISHY1118]

This is from the Star report:

It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved.

Taken literally, his wife is moving out. It's not a situation of her moving lodgings for both of them. She is moving, he is staying. Having been absent from their existing lodgings for many hours, he claims to have gone down Berner St to see if she had completed the expected move (presumably the move wasn't 'in the bag' when he left).

Here's the problem. Schwartz gave his address to the police as 22 Ellen St, not an address in Berner St. As Wickerman has pointed out, the Backchurch Lane referred to by the Star is compatible with an Ellen St address. However, it is not compatible with a Berner St address, as these are not connected thoroughfares. For a Berner St address, one would say for example, 40 Berner St, Commercial Rd. This means his wife's moving must be from 22 Ellen St, not too it. So, where is she going? Well, it would seem that if the move is not from Berner St to Ellen, and Schwartz is on Berner St of his own admission in the middle of the night 'investigating' his wife's move, that she is moving too Berner St. So, what number Berner St is this young Jewish immigrant woman moving to?

Thanks for that .

[Sunny Delight]

You may have a bias against Packer, but what you write above is not strictly true.
To fabricate, suggests intent. Swanson did not say Packer fabricated his evidence.
Making different statements is not necessarily intentional.

Quote:
"Packer who is an elderly man, has unfortunately made different statements so that apart from the hour at which he saw the woman (and she was seen afterwards by the P.C. and Schwartz, as stated) any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence."
Insp. Swanson.

Swanson's main concern was not so much the differences in attire, this happens frequently enough among witnesses.
Neither would it be Packer first saying he saw no-one suspicious, only to change it to him serving a couple at his window.
What could be thought as 'suspicious' by him serving a man & woman - neither were acting suspiciously.

Swanson will know from experience that the probabilities Stride was seen with two different men, both carrying a parcel, at the same location, barely 15 minutes apart, is highly improbable.
It is far more likely they are the same person, regardless of any differences described by witnesses. The package of grapes wrapped in newspaper, and a parcel wrapped in newspaper, more likely describe the same article - therefore, the same person.

Swanson would prefer to have Packer say he remembered the time, but as it turns out, he was not sure.
Swanson will have known Stride was at the Bricklayers Arms around 11:00 pm, so Packer couldn't be serving her grapes at that time.
It becomes clear for us, and likely Swanson too, that Packer must have served them around 11:45 pm, and then shut up his shop around 12:30 am.
This is the story Packer told the Evening News on 4th Oct., its just a shame he gave two conflicting times to police.

There's no cause to accuse Packer of fabrication here.

You also have bias towards Packer as his statement can be construed to tie in with this man seen with a parcel talking to Stride by PC Smith. It allows you to surmise that Stride and Parcelman had spent some time together already, thus making it more likely he stayed around after PC Smith had left. Lurking somewhere in the shadows whilst BS man assaulted Stride.

Packer told multiple different stories. I dont know if he liked the attention or if he was looking for a few bob or even if he was just a fantasist who enjoyed leading people up the garden path. I do know that he was not trusted by Police nor by any of the top Ripperologists.

[FrankO]

We are left to ponder why two men have run off in fear, while Stride feels safe and secure enough to pull out her packet of sweets.

Usually, you seem to have no problems pondering away, Andrew.

But seriously, what I suggested was just one possibility for how she ended up holding the cachous in her hand - i.e. Mr. BS was Michael Kidney, who tried to force Stride into coming home with her, she didn't want to but didn't want to make a scene, so somehow got him to take it just into the alley, where they argued some more, then at some point she thought she had ended/won the argument, turned to walk towards the street whilst pulling out the cachous and then was pulled back by the scarf, etc. The way I see it, this possibility would explain the not screaming loudly and the pressure marks on her shoulders/collar bones, especially the right.

And, btw, we only know that Schwartz ran off in fear, we don't know whether Pipeman also ran off or just walked away, not wanting to get mixed up.

[Trevor Marriott]

Usually, you seem to have no problems pondering away, Andrew.

But seriously, what I suggested was just one possibility for how she ended up holding the cachous in her hand - i.e. Mr. BS was Michael Kidney, who tried to force Stride into coming home with her, she didn't want to but didn't want to make a scene, so somehow got him to take it just into the alley, where they argued some more, then at some point she thought she had ended/won the argument, turned to walk towards the street whilst pulling out the cachous and then was pulled back by the scarf, etc. The way I see it, this possibility would explain the not screaming loudly and the pressure marks on her shoulders/collar bones, especially the right.

And, btw, we only know that Schwartz ran off in fear, we don't know whether Pipeman also ran off or just walked away, not wanting to get mixed up.

Michael Kidney must be the main suspect for the murder of Stride, there were many discrepancies in his testimony which the police it seems did not investigate

it was documented that they had a torrid and often violent relationship. During the inquest, there was conflicting evidence given by witnesses, and by Michael Kidney himself, relating to when he stated he had last seen her alive, see below excerpts from inquest testimony of Kidney and other witnesses.

Michael Kidney inquest testimony Telegraph
[Coroner] You had a quarrel with her on Thursday? –
[Kidney] I did not see her on Thursday.
[Coroner] When did you last see her? –
[Kidney] On the Tuesday, and I then left her on friendly terms in Commercial- street. That was between nine and ten o'clock at night, as I was coming from work.
[Coroner] Do you know whether she had picked up with anyone?
[Kidney] I have seen the address of the brother of the gentleman with whom she lived as a servant, somewhere near Hyde Park, but I cannot find it now.
[Coroner] Did she have any reason for going away?
[Kidney] It was drink that made her go on previous occasions. She always came back again. I think she liked me better than any other man. I do not believe she left me on Tuesday to take up with any other man.


Michael Kidney inquests testimony- The Times
[Coroner] You had a quarrel with her on Thursday?
[Kidney] No I last saw the deceased alive on Tuesday Week

Mary Malcolm Inquest testimony- Telegraph/Times
[MM]I last saw her alive last Thursday evening Telegraph Inquest Report
[MM]I last saw her alive at 6.45 last Thursday Times Inquest Report

Catherine Lane - Telegraph Inquest report
[Coroner] Did you speak to her last week?
[CL] On Thursday and Saturday.
[Coroner] At what time did you see her first on Thursday?
[CL] Between ten and eleven o'clock.
[Coroner] Did she explain why she was coming back?
[CL] She said she had had a few words with the man she was living with.

Despite his and the other conflicting witness testimony evidence, Kidney was never arrested or even interviewed at length and her murder remained unsolved, but even today her murder is still regarded by some as having been committed by Jack the Ripper, despite the overwhelming evidence to suggest it may have been domestically motivated and that Kidney could have been her killer.

Extracts from my book "Jack the Ripper - The Real Truth"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[New Waterloo]

For me Pipeman is so annoying in that his presence just seems to muddle everything. Wouldn't it be great if BS was Kidney (decent suggestion) and Pipeman was parcelman. Either Kidney kills Stride or he (being drunk) clears off when he sees Pipemans knife and Pipeman(Parcelman) kills her. Why because he is JTR.

But it doesn't look as if Pipeman is Parcelman as Schwartz states that Pipeman had a red moustache.

NW

[Wickerman]

So, human memory is fallible. Who knew?



When in doubt, refer to the coroner's summing up.

You think I wouldn't check the court record?


The Standard, 6 Oct. 1888.

"Eight inches long and six or eight inches wide".

[GBinOz]

You think I wouldn't check the court record?


The Standard, 6 Oct. 1888.

"Eight inches long and six or eight inches wide".

Thanks for that reference Jon, It has prompted me to review my opinion on this subject.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

You also have bias towards Packer as his statement can be construed to tie in with this man seen with a parcel talking to Stride by PC Smith. It allows you to surmise that Stride and Parcelman had spent some time together already, thus making it more likely he stayed around after PC Smith had left. Lurking somewhere in the shadows whilst BS man assaulted Stride.

Yes, I am bias towards Packer, though I accept his flaws also.

Packer told multiple different stories. I dont know if he liked the attention or if he was looking for a few bob or even if he was just a fantasist who enjoyed leading people up the garden path. I do know that he was not trusted by Police nor by any of the top Ripperologists.

Packer's credibility does go down the tubes as the months passed.
All I am concerned with is this particular encounter, whether his imagination eventually ran away with him later in November, or not, I'm not sure, but nothing in that period is of any consequence.

Bare in mind also, when we read that 'packer made different statements', it needs to be recognised that everything we have is second-hand. We have no direct statement from Packer, and what really made him look unreliable is the summary by A.C.B. - all the times given in that set of notes contradict his earlier claims.

We have a memo by Insp. Moore, then notes by Sgt. White, followed by a summary by Alexander Carmichael Bruce, who was possibly acting as Head of CID in Anderson's absence.
All the rest are press reports.
Which means we do not have an accurate record of what Packer did say.

Whether we choose to believe Packer or not, the overriding question in this issue is - how many men do we imagine carried a parcel wrapped in newspaper; standing in front of the same address, with the same woman, around the same time (12:15-12:30 am)?
Common sense demands they are more than likely the same man.

[GBinOz]

You also have bias towards Packer as his statement can be construed to tie in with this man seen with a parcel talking to Stride by PC Smith. It allows you to surmise that Stride and Parcelman had spent some time together already, thus making it more likely he stayed around after PC Smith had left. Lurking somewhere in the shadows whilst BS man assaulted Stride.

Packer told multiple different stories. I dont know if he liked the attention or if he was looking for a few bob or even if he was just a fantasist who enjoyed leading people up the garden path. I do know that he was not trusted by Police nor by any of the top Ripperologists.

Hi Sunny,

Having Parcelman "lurking somewhere in the shadows whilst BS man assaulted Stride" is a somewhat harsh assumption. Why could he not have been in the Loo during this confrontation? Or the couple may have said goodnight and he had gone home. Factually, this is an unknown.

Jon (Wickerman) has, in another thread, presented some very viable alternatives for Packer that show him in an entirely more favourable light, and I agree with Jon on those points.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Usually, you seem to have no problems pondering away, Andrew.

But seriously, what I suggested was just one possibility for how she ended up holding the cachous in her hand - i.e. Mr. BS was Michael Kidney, who tried to force Stride into coming home with her, she didn't want to but didn't want to make a scene, so somehow got him to take it just into the alley, where they argued some more, then at some point she thought she had ended/won the argument, turned to walk towards the street whilst pulling out the cachous and then was pulled back by the scarf, etc. The way I see it, this possibility would explain the not screaming loudly and the pressure marks on her shoulders/collar bones, especially the right.

That's fine, Frank. It's just the contrast between her response and that of the two men that bothers me. Possible, yes. Probable, no.

And, btw, we only know that Schwartz ran off in fear, we don't know whether Pipeman also ran off or just walked away, not wanting to get mixed up.

#18

[Wickerman]

Michael Kidney must be the main suspect for the murder of Stride . . .

I just can't imagine the actual murderer showing up in court to face all the witnesses (Brown, Marshall, Smith) c/w the fact the story of the Hungarian (Schwartz) was published as a witness to the altercation, so may have been in court also.

Kidney wouldn't know if he could be immediately recognised - of all the suspects, he is among the poorest for that fact alone.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You think I wouldn't check the court record?


The Standard, 6 Oct. 1888.

"Eight inches long and six or eight inches wide".

I would suggest checking the difference between a parcel and a food wrapping. Even 'parcel' and 'packet' have different meanings.

A parcel or package is an object or group of objects wrapped in paper, that can be carried somewhere or sent by post. The two words have almost exactly the same meaning in British English, but a parcel usually has a more regular shape than a package.

A parcel is generally larger than a packet and refers to an object or group of objects wrapped for mailing or shipping. It is commonly used in the context of postal services. In British English, "parcel" is the preferred term, while in American English, "package" is more frequently used.

The man was holding some sort of delivery item, not a wrapping of grapes. The couple who bought grapes would have them open for eating.

[Trevor Marriott]

I just can't imagine the actual murderer showing up in court to face all the witnesses (Brown, Marshall, Smith) c/w the fact the story of the Hungarian (Schwartz) was published as a witness to the altercation, so may have been in court also.

Kidney wouldn't know if he could be immediately recognised - of all the suspects, he is among the poorest for that fact alone.

I think the police in the Stride murder were swayed by Eddowes murder a short time later and probably relaxed the Stride investigation in the belief that she was a ripper victim. It is plainly clear that they did not investigate Kidney fully as they should have done. There is clear evidence to at least subject him to intense questioning.

As to the question of him being ID at court. All the so called ID descriptions were so vague and nondescript, and had the police arrested him on suspicion which I belived they should have done, they could have put him on an ID parade.

Even today we see many murders of women committed by their estranged partners or jealous boyfriends

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

I think the police in the Stride murder were swayed by Eddowes murder a short time later and probably relaxed the Stride investigation in the belief that she was a ripper victim. It is plainly clear that they did not investigate Kidney fully as they should have done. There is clear evidence to at least subject him to intense questioning.

Hello Trevor,

Do we actually know anything at all about the police investigation of Kidney and what it entailed?

c.d.

[Wickerman]

I would suggest checking the difference between a parcel and a food wrapping. Even 'parcel' and 'packet' have different meanings.

A parcel or package is an object or group of objects wrapped in paper, that can be carried somewhere or sent by post. The two words have almost exactly the same meaning in British English, but a parcel usually has a more regular shape than a package.

A parcel is generally larger than a packet and refers to an object or group of objects wrapped for mailing or shipping. It is commonly used in the context of postal services. In British English, "parcel" is the preferred term, while in American English, "package" is more frequently used.

The man was holding some sort of delivery item, not a wrapping of grapes. The couple who bought grapes would have them open for eating.

Oh good grief, here comes the dictionary . . .

You'd do better to get yourself down to an old country market and watch them fold newspapers into pouches and parcels.
You've heard of Origami I'm sure, well this is the same process and typical of 19th century market vendors.