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.

[Wickerman]

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.

Andrew, its almost like you have never read about victims of strangulation. It is well documented that the victim grasp, or hold on to a wide range of innocuous objects when the attack begins. It isn't because they value what is in their hand, its a reaction born of an attempt to resist by straining muscles, in this case a clenching of the fists. The arms and legs also tense up, but the larger muscles relax, the smaller muscles do not.

Quote:
Cadaveric spasm is a rare, instantaneous muscular stiffening that occurs at the moment of death, unlike the slower, gradual onset of rigor mortis. It is often seen as a rigid grip on an object that was being held during the final moments, such as a weapon in a suicide, the hair or clothing of an assailant, or objects in cases of drowning. While the exact mechanism is not fully understood and some have debated its existence, cadaveric spasm is significant in forensic medicine for providing clues about the manner of death.

If she'd have had grapes in her hand too, they'd have been mush

[GBinOz]

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.

Excellent post Jon.

At one stage my wife and I owned and ran a retail outlet. There is nothing suspicious about a customer buying something from the outlet. It is not in anyway even notable.....it's at best..boring. It would have been when grapes entered the considerations that Packer's memory would have been jogged. Given his age, which would have been considered old at that time, some inconsistencies could be expected. However, I seem to recall one of your posts where you established that most of Packer's inconsistencies were actually attributable to inconsistent press reports? Or am I having a "Packer" moment?

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

Well, AF did refer to comrades Louis Dimshits and Morris Eygel, but if Yaffa was a woman, then perhaps she worked for/on the paper.

There was no one in the printing shop. Comrades Krants and Yaffa were busy in the editor’s office.

Is that a reasonable possibility?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Andrew, its almost like you have never read about victims of strangulation. It is well documented that the victim grasp, or hold on to a wide range of innocuous objects when the attack begins. It isn't because they value what is in their hand, its a reaction born of an attempt to resist by straining muscles, in this case a clenching of the fists. The arms and legs also tense up, but the larger muscles relax, the smaller muscles do not.

Quote:
Cadaveric spasm is a rare, instantaneous muscular stiffening that occurs at the moment of death, unlike the slower, gradual onset of rigor mortis. It is often seen as a rigid grip on an object that was being held during the final moments, such as a weapon in a suicide, the hair or clothing of an assailant, or objects in cases of drowning. While the exact mechanism is not fully understood and some have debated its existence, cadaveric spasm is significant in forensic medicine for providing clues about the manner of death.

Irrelevant, as whatever caused her to hang on to the packet is occurring as the murder occurs, not when she was (supposedly) thrown onto the footway. Are we really to believe that she either had the packet in hand at that point, or that having suffered that indignity, she took out the packet and went quietly into the yard with the same man, while two men who had stood nearby watching, run off like startled rabbits? Turn on your bullshit detector, Jon.

If she'd have had grapes in her hand too, they'd have been mush

So, what was Diemshitz referring to?

[Sunny Delight]

Hi Sunny,

But if BS man thinks better of things why would he go on to kill Stride after being seen by Schwartz and Pipeman and realizes Schwartz may return with a PC? If we say well he was in a rage and not thinking logically or simply didn't care then he did a very quick 180 in mind set and abandons the idea of mutilation and quickly flees.

c.d.

Yes but here is the thing, if we believe that Stride was killed by the Ripper then she was not mutilated for a reason. We don't know the mindset he was in but the two most sensible options are:

A) The Ripper attacks Stride and cuts her throat. He has second thoughts on mutilation due to the encounter with Schwartz where he considers his location, if a Policeman were to return with Schwartz he is caught red handed. He is long gone before the body is found.

B) The Ripper attacks Stride as witnessed by Schwartz. However he does not immediately kill her. Fearful of Schwartz returning with a Policeman he attempts to placate Stride. When he is satisfied enough time has passed and no Policeman would be returning he attacks again and cuts Stride's throat. At this moment Diemschutz is coming down Berner Street and the Ripper is disturbed hiding in the yard and escaping when Diemshutz goes inside the club.

[Doctored Whatsit]

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.



Does he?



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.



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.




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?




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?



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.

The changing colour of the flower is only a small part of the changed stories. According to the Evening News Packer said that Stride had "a white flower in her hand". It wasn't red and white, and she wasn't wearing it at that time, so she presumably got another one somehow later.

Packer's timing of events changed as fresh facts became available, the age of his suspect changed, he became possibly American, what Packer saw changed. All after fresh information appeared in the newspapers. I don't know whether Le Grande fed stories to the press or not. He quite possibly did.

Packer was specifically asked if he "saw anyone standing about the street about the time he was closing his shop", and told White "I saw no-one standing about", and the other members of the household confirmed this. Then, days later, he said that he saw a man and a woman - exactly what was being asked about, and exactly the time he was asked about - and not a fleeting glimpse, but standing around in the rain for thirty minutes, resulting in him telling the others what fools the couple were! This isn't something that is likely to slip his mind or the recollections of the rest of the household. It is positively a total, and very suspicious change of story.

Packer's evidence has a large question mark against it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes but here is the thing, if we believe that Stride was killed by the Ripper then she was not mutilated for a reason. We don't know the mindset he was in but the two most sensible options are:

A) The Ripper attacks Stride and cuts her throat. He has second thoughts on mutilation due to the encounter with Schwartz where he considers his location, if a Policeman were to return with Schwartz he is caught red handed. He is long gone before the body is found.

B) The Ripper attacks Stride as witnessed by Schwartz. However he does not immediately kill her. Fearful of Schwartz returning with a Policeman he attempts to placate Stride. When he is satisfied enough time has passed and no Policeman would be returning he attacks again and cuts Stride's throat. At this moment Diemschutz is coming down Berner Street and the Ripper is disturbed hiding in the yard and escaping when Diemshutz goes inside the club.

While on my travels several years ago, another interesting story emerged from a middle-aged woman. This was interesting because I had never heard this mentioned before. She told the story that her great, great- grandmother was walking home with several other women the night of the Stride murder in Berner Street, and they heard all the commotion following the discovery of the body. They looked up and saw a male shinning across the rooftops. This is an interesting story because it is believed that the killer was disturbed carrying out this murder and therefore could have made his quick and hasty getaway down to the bottom of Dutfield’s Yard and up and across the rooftops.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes but here is the thing, if we believe that Stride was killed by the Ripper then she was not mutilated for a reason. We don't know the mindset he was in but the two most sensible options are:

A) The Ripper attacks Stride and cuts her throat. He has second thoughts on mutilation due to the encounter with Schwartz where he considers his location, if a Policeman were to return with Schwartz he is caught red handed. He is long gone before the body is found.

B) The Ripper attacks Stride as witnessed by Schwartz. However he does not immediately kill her. Fearful of Schwartz returning with a Policeman he attempts to placate Stride. When he is satisfied enough time has passed and no Policeman would be returning he attacks again and cuts Stride's throat. At this moment Diemschutz is coming down Berner Street and the Ripper is disturbed hiding in the yard and escaping when Diemshutz goes inside the club.

Consider the picture being painted here. The Ripper was supposedly a man who would:

* Attack a woman while a witness stands watching, a few yards away, and another man is on the street in the near vicinity

* Call 'Lipski' to one of these men, virtually outside the door of a club whose membership and visitors consisted mostly of young Jewish men

* Proceed to kill the woman or ...

* Take the chance that he can placate the intended victim and not be witnessed for several minutes, indeed right up to the point that Diemschitz is on Berner St


Stealthy: behaving or done in a cautious and surreptitious manner, so as not to be seen or heard

Not our Jack, it would seem.

[c.d.]

The Ripper attacks Stride as witnessed by Schwartz. However he does not immediately kill her. Fearful of Schwartz returning with a Policeman he attempts to placate Stride. When he is satisfied enough time has passed and no Policeman would be returning he attacks again and cuts Stride's throat.

Hi Sunny,

While that scenario might eliminate the chances of the B.S. man (be he the Ripper or not) having Schwartz return with a PC, it doesn't eliminate the fact that Schwartz and Pipeman could describe him to the police.

c.d.

[Darryl Kenyon]

The Ripper attacks Stride as witnessed by Schwartz. However he does not immediately kill her. Fearful of Schwartz returning with a Policeman he attempts to placate Stride. When he is satisfied enough time has passed and no Policeman would be returning he attacks again and cuts Stride's throat.

Hi Sunny,

While that scenario might eliminate the chances of the B.S. man (be he the Ripper or not) having Schwartz return with a PC, it doesn't eliminate the fact that Schwartz and Pipeman could describe him to the police.

c.d.

Indeed c.d

And just in case people didn't get a good luck at him he shouted Lipski to remind Schwartz and possibly pipeman that he had just thrown his intended victim down after pulling her out from the gates into the street above a three storey building where there was a lot of noise emanating from and were anyone could look down onto said street from an upstairs window.

Up until that point what could Broad shoulders be arrested for if a policeman happened on the roughing up of Liz ? Certainly not murder nor attempted . Broad shoulders had been seen at very close quarters by someone he proceeded to insult, after he had passed. Why then murder her ? Jack or otherwise

Regards Darryl

[c.d.]

Agreed Darryl.

Except that we can't eliminate the possibility that he might simply have been willing to risk it or just didn't didn't give a damn. He wanted Stride dead for whatever reason.

Look at the recent jewel heist at the Louvre. Who in their right mind would have attempted that? Some people have major league cojones.

c.d.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Sorry for the late reply. Regarding James Brown, I believe there was a good chance he saw Liz but the person talking to her was probably, though not definitely not her killer.
" Not tonight, some other perhaps " Sounds like Liz brushing off a potential punter to me. If this is what happened, for whatever reason it's probably because Liz didn't like the look of him. Three murders had occurred recently and there was a madman in the vicinity. Poor women like Liz would have been on their guard somewhat despite the impoverishment of them .
I believe Jack put his victims at ease somewhat and projected himself that way, money or otherwise . Deerstalker hat, appearance of a sailor, talking quietly in church passage etc Completely against the way Broad shoulders acted

Regards Darryl