Suspect Witnesses?

[caz]

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.

Hi c.d.,

I would go for the 'major league cojones' argument, if this is the same man who had the major league cojones to do what was done to Eddowes a little later, before swanning off with half her apron and disappearing into the night.

I'm always surprised at some of the efforts made to finger some unknown male with a sharp knife and an unknown reason for slicing Stride's throat with it, when we already had one right under our noses in Mitre Square, not far enough distance from Berner Street to cause us any difficulty whatsoever in making a likely link between two cases of a very rare crime: the violent murder of a helpless, penniless woman outdoors on her own.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Rookie Detective]

It's also important to note that Stride herself was no push over.

Any idea that she was a woman who was weak and unable to defend herself, is perhaps misguided.

As a woman who likely had to deal with men who were often aggressive, dominating, and violent, she would have had to have built up a level of guile and resilience to be able to deal with such behaviour, and survive.

That in itself is perhaps a tantalising clue as to the Ripper's identity...
The last person who she would have expected to suddenly cut her throat.

I believe she suffered from Cadaveric Spasm at the precise moment her brain realised her throat was cut and she was about to die. The combination of shock and fear then caused her hand muscles to spasm and lock into place, and inadvertently secure the Cachous that she had in her hand at the moment the killer chose to strike.

Cachous were marketed primarily toward women, who sought to freshen their breath after smoking.
This would have no doubt extended to a woman who went on a date.

When we combine what she was wearing, the sighting of her and a male companion in Settles St circa 11pm, and her holding Cachous (that were almost certainly HERS) all help to support the idea that she was in the company of her killer for a period of time up to her death; ergo, not soliciting.
Prostitution was her means of an income, and not a reflection of who she was as a person. In other words, just because she was a prostitute, doesn't mean she was soliciting 24/7 365 days a year.

Her killer likely came across as endearing, charming and attentive to her needs as a woman.
If he didn't, then it would have made her suspicious.

At the time, women who were soliciting to earn money, were fully aware of the fact there was a butchering killer out there on the streets.
On that basis, the killer would have adapted accordingly.

The idea that a drunken man who threw her to the ground would then be brassen enough to cut her throat, just doesn't fit with the way the killer operated. He wasn't some openly maniacal lunatic, or some random drunk.

Stride was tough enough to have dealt with drunks.

But she wouldn't have expected that soft speaking man with a friendly countenance and dreamy eyes whispering words of affection into her ear, to suddenly restrict her throat and then violently attempt to sever her head in just one deep cut.

Stride never saw him coming.

And for that reason, Bs man wasn't her killer.

And he certainly wasn't the Ripper.

I don't believe the Ripper necessarily chose his victims because they were weak, I think he chose them because they didn't suspect him until it was too late.

That was part of his sick game

Look at the case of Emily Smith who was attacked by the railway arch near Shadwell Station on 5th November 1892.
For me, it was the Ripper and he simply botched it up when Emily fought back and managed to avoid his knife attack.

All the signs of a Ripper attack.

[caz]

Hi Rookie,

Nice post. I do however think it's possible that the ripper was volatile enough to be charming all the while the woman he was with appeared to be charming in return - Eddowes to take the obvious example - but capable of losing his temper very quickly and very violently if things didn't go to plan and a woman started playing up.

I agree that Stride was completely taken by surprise, but whether that was because her killer was someone other than BS man, who acted kindly towards her, or just BS man going through a sudden, unexpected and fatal mood swing, I'm not sure we could ever know.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sunny Delight]

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.

Well he knows he has been seen no matter what. Why would he rush off because a couple of people could describe what he looked like to a PC?

I think it is almost impossible to figure out the exact timeline of events now. Even in 1888 the Police couldn't nail it down. Almost every conceivable scenario has drawbacks or variables that come into play. But then real life decisions made on the spur of the moment can be very difficult to understand. But to my mind these two scenarios I have suggested are fairly sensible with the info we have.

[c.d.]

Well he knows he has been seen no matter what. Why would he rush off because a couple of people could describe what he looked like to a PC?

If he rushes off after simply throwing Stride to the ground and is caught he would probably get a small fine and/or a lecture don't do it again.

If he stays and kills Stride after being seen by Schwartz and Pipeman and they describe him and what they saw took place to a PC he is now a prime suspect in a murder investigation for which he could be hanged and the police would be out in force looking for him.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

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

Hi George.

Thankyou, yes there are inconsistencies across the reports and police memo's.

We are mostly hindered by not having a direct witness statement from Packer himself. We are relying on what other people decided to write, mostly in paraphrase.

When we gather the sources we find the first mention of Packer's story is found in the Evening News of 4th Oct., yet the article begins by referring to "this morning", which may suggest the article was written on the morning of the 4th, but only published in the evening.

Insp. Moore of the police then reacted by sending Sgt. White to find Packer and take him to the mortuary to identify the victim. There are no details of the crime or the suspect in this memo.

Following this is a memo by Sgt. White describing how he became involved, and the result of his meeting with Packer.
This is where we read Packer said the victim came with a man and bought grapes about 12:00am, and him shutting up his shop about 12:30 am.

The report by Sgt. White is consistent with Packer's story in the Evening News, where Packer says the couple bought some grapes about 11:45 pm. and he prepared to close up his shop after 12:15 am.

The main inconsistency is the summary by A.C.B., this is where we find changes, here it is written that the couple came to buy grapes at 11:00 pm, instead of 11:45 pm.
We also read Packer closed his shop at 11:30 pm, instead of 12:30 am., or at least after 12:15 am.

The description of the suspect has also been changed from (in Evening News):
The man was middle aged, perhaps 35 years; about five feet seven inches in height; was stout, square built; wore a wideawake hat and dark clothes; had the appearance of a clerk;

To (in A.C.B.):
25-30 about 5.7. with long black coat buttoned up – soft felt hat, kind of Yankee hat rather broad shoulders . . . I put the man down as a young clerk. He had a frock coat on – no gloves.

These changes have been credited to Packer, but the truth is we do not know who changed the details.
When Swanson included Packer in his 19th October report, he was quoting from the summary by A.C.B. almost verbatim, instead of from an original witness statement, which is strange.

[Wickerman]

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.

I honestly do not understand that response.
It isn't what we prefer to accept, it is what the evidence indicates.
And, it indicates she was holding the cachous as she was strangled with her scarf, seconds before her throat was cut.

So, what was Diemshitz referring to?

It must have been the grape stalk that he saw. Given the darkness, and the number of people in such a small space, any grapes still attached must have been trampled on the ground in all the commotion.

Stride's handkerchief did have fruit stains on it.
Dr. Phillips - "I believe that the stains on the larger handkerchief are those of fruit."
We can't easily dismiss the grapes issue.

[Sunny Delight]

Well he knows he has been seen no matter what. Why would he rush off because a couple of people could describe what he looked like to a PC?

If he rushes off after simply throwing Stride to the ground and is caught he would probably get a small fine and/or a lecture don't do it again.

If he stays and kills Stride after being seen by Schwartz and Pipeman and they describe him and what they saw took place to a PC he is now a prime suspect in a murder investigation for which he could be hanged and the police would be out in force looking for him.

c.d.

Yes, which he became. I don't understand your point which seems to be based on what we know, but the Ripper did not know. I am surmising the Ripper tried to placate Stride after the initial assault. He is satisfied no one is returning with a Policeman. So in that moment he is not thinking much further ahead and certainly not teasing out variables like, oh if I do this I will be number one suspect and two men will go to the Police and describe me.

[Wickerman]

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.

I do not see that as an issue, the white petals were seen in the yard, and Packer likely only saw Stride holding the flower standing behind the man who he was serving through the lower half of his window.
Packer probably saw her holding the flower up to smell it, he likely saw a side view of the flower, where the perimeter petals were white, not the whole flower.

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.

I don't think that claim stands up to scrutiny.
If Packer really saw nothing, but decided to invent a story, he would find, for instance all three statements by those who say they saw grapes - Diemschutz, Kozebrodski & Mortimer were reported on Monday 1st Oct.
But, Packer also says he saw the prime suspect with the victim, who bought grapes from him.
If Packer decided to fabricate a story, surely it is necessary to describe the man he saw exactly how the suspect was described in the press, in the same paper as the grapes story?

Official suspect as published on 1st Oct.:
Age 28; height 5ft. 8in.; complexion dark; no whiskers; black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; carried a newspaper parcel; was of respectable appearance.

This theory of fabrication might be justified if Packer described the same details, but he doesn't.

The man seen by Packer (pub. 4th Oct.):
The man was middle aged, perhaps 35 years; about five feet seven inches in height; was stout, square built; wore a wideawake hat and dark clothes; had the appearance of a clerk;

Later, in the summary by A.C.B., the details change:
On Sat night about 11 pm a young man from 25-30 about 5.7. with long black coat buttoned up – soft felt hat, kind of Yankee hat rather broad shoulders . . . I put the man down as a young clerk. He had a frock coat on – no gloves.

Swanson copied the details from A.C.B. for his 19th Oct. report, which is where the confusion seems to have begun.
Packer's story, as taken by Sgt. White, and later given in full in the Evening News, is consistent.
Someone even tried to modify Sgt. White's report by changing the times he had been given by Packer.
It's the police summary taken down by A.C.B. that has caused all the criticism of Packer.

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.

Yes, but we have to remember the police were looking for a killer, someone loitering in the street.
We know of club members coming and going, and at least two couples in the street; Letchford passed through, Mortimer on her doorstep, Goldstein walking passed.
I think it's fair to say there was no-one seen loitering around the club, so Packer was not telling lies.

Sgt. White wrote:
I asked him if he saw anything of a man or woman going into Dutfields Yard, or saw anyone standing about the street about the time he was closing his shop.

Man OR Woman, going into the yard.
White was looking for a killer, a man by himself, or a victim, a woman by herself.
Packer said "No", which is true.
You have to remember, this meeting with Packer was on Sunday morning, 30th Sept. no-one knew they were looking for a couple, a killer with his victim at this point in time.
The police must have assumed a woman entered the yard, followed by her killer - hence the question regarding a "man OR woman".

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.

That story came out three days later, plenty of time for friends and neighbours, or even the two detectives, to jog his memory.
Why is conspiracy more preferable than just accepting we don't know the whole story?

I keep asking, how many men do you think were seen carrying a newspaper parcel, with the same woman, at the same time, in the same location?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Thanks Darryl, although the double negative has me worried. LOL

" 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 .

If she didn't like the look of him, would she be standing against that wall with him leaning against it, right next to her? This is not quite as intimate as Lawende's "She had one hand on his breast", but I don't get the sense this is some repulsive punter. Why keep his hopes up with "maybe some other night"?

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

Yes.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Well he knows he has been seen no matter what. Why would he rush off because a couple of people could describe what he looked like to a PC?

Why would Stride hang around? You haven't given a reason for her to do so, so at the moment she stays put because your hypothesis requires it.

I think it is almost impossible to figure out the exact timeline of events now. Even in 1888 the Police couldn't nail it down. Almost every conceivable scenario has drawbacks or variables that come into play. But then real life decisions made on the spur of the moment can be very difficult to understand. But to my mind these two scenarios I have suggested are fairly sensible with the info we have.

Your second scenario ignores the evidence of Mortimer, Goldstein and Kozebrodski.

We need to differentiate between what is physically possible, and what is realistic. It's physically possible that Leon Goldstein could have turned to look at Stride and BS Man in the gateway - the latter two obscured from Fanny Mortimer's location - and failed to mention this to the police. However, is it realistic to suppose so?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I honestly do not understand that response.
It isn't what we prefer to accept, it is what the evidence indicates.
And, it indicates she was holding the cachous as she was strangled with her scarf, seconds before her throat was cut.

Yes, that is what the evidence indicates. It's the force-fitting with other evidence that I object to.

It must have been the grape stalk that he saw. Given the darkness, and the number of people in such a small space, any grapes still attached must have been trampled on the ground in all the commotion.

Stride's handkerchief did have fruit stains on it.
Dr. Phillips - "I believe that the stains on the larger handkerchief are those of fruit."
We can't easily dismiss the grapes issue.

Diemschitz (IT): The woman appeared to me to be respectable looking by her clothes, and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets.

Diemschitz (LEN): Her hands were tightly clenched, and when they were opened by the doctor I saw immediately that one had been holding sweetmeats and the other grapes.

This is very strange, but perhaps it is compatible with my contention that Stride was lured into the yard with bait of one or more kinds.

In your case it seems the parcel needs to be opened, and the couple commence eating.

By the way, I still believe Stride and Parcelman could have been standing further up Berner St than we suppose:

Coroner (ref #404): ... the constable on the beat (William Smith) saw the deceased in Berner-street standing on the pavement a few yards from Commercial-street, and he observed she was wearing a flower in her dress.

At least far enough for Fanny not to realise who the woman was she saw lying in the yard. That would make sense of the "measured, heavy tramp" report, at least the first half of it. I would have to suppose that her roughly 10-minute sojourn on her doorstep was interrupted at one point, and that just happened to be when murderer and victim entered the gates. However, it would only take seconds to walk from the board school corner to the passageway.