Suspect Witnesses?

[Sunny Delight]

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.



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?

Why would Stride hang around? Well it appears from witness testimony that she in and around that area for quite a while that night. Maybe it was somewhere she felt safe or confident to do business. The assault on her by BS man was likely nothing she hadn't encountered before. It seems many have projected their own possible reaction onto Stride. But Stride was no shrinking violet and women on the streets would have faced violence and misogyny, the like of which is not seen publicly these days. Women didn't even get the vote until near 40 years later never mind actually be worth listening to in general.

My scenarios are not perfect but I favour the first one in that BS man attacks Stride almost as soon as Schwartz and Pipeman had left. He then either thought better of the mutilation or was disturbed. We can definitively place Mortimer at her door likely between 12:48-12:57 or so. Give or take a few minutes as is the case with all evidence. So it is likely that Stride was dead by then and Mortimer missed the Ripper by seconds.

A possible reason why Stride was holding cachous is that she is holding them when she meets BS man. There is a struggle. She drops them but picks them back up and as she does so is caught from behind with the scarf and killed by BS man who then as I say immediately leaves the area.

[Wickerman]

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.



Hi Andrew. (The quote feature doesn't seem to work this morning at my end)

Here, from the Daily News, 1st Oct.
Diemschutz - "Her hands were clenched, and when the doctor opened them I saw that she had been holding grapes in one hand and sweetmeats in the other."

What did he mean by "had been"? - past tense?

Here, in The Morning Advertiser, 1st Oct.
Diemschutz - "In one hand she had some grapes and in the other some sweets. She was grasping them tightly".

How do you grasp grapes tightly?

And again, The Times, 1st Oct.
Diemschutz - "In her right hand were tightly clasped some grapes, and in her left she held a number of sweetmeats."

I wonder if he saw crushed grapes?
And, what happened to them between the arrival of Diemschutz & Kozebrodski, and the arrival of the doctors, who couldn't find any grapes?

I'm not bothered one way or the other, whether she held any grapes or not has no bearing on the case. It's just that to have two witnesses make the same claim is odd if she really was not holding any grapes.

Some have claimed its just a 'fabrication' (ie; lack of imagination?), but none of these accusations come with a rational explanation as to why the witnesses would make that claim, or why the journalist intentionally inserted false details.
Trying to brush the issue aside by dismissing it is not helpful, it needs to be addressed.

[Wickerman]

. . .

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.

But, why not check how other publications describe what PC Smith saw?

The two stood a few yards up Berner street.
Daily News, 6 Oct.

Was she on the pavement? - Yes, a few yards up Berner-street on the opposite side to where she was found.
Times, 6 Oct.

Isn't that clearer?, nowhere near Commercial Road (not street).

[Wickerman]

Sorry Jon, but Packer was asked the direct question, whether he "saw anyone standing about the street about the time he was closing his shop." He replied, "No, I saw no-one standing about...". That is a direct answer to a direct question.

I know what was said, but you are interpreting "no-one" as "anyone", Packer has interpreted "no-one" as a single person by himself.
This is only to be expected, the police are looking for a lone killer, they have not yet learned that the victim was in the company of a man.

What conceivable reason would Packer have to lie about seeing the killer with the victim?
None.
He didn't mention them because he didn't know the couple he saw were the victim & her (potential) killer.
Like I said before, this question was asked Sunday morning, before anyone knew the details of what happened, and before Packer had been taken to see the body.

I've made my position clear. Just about every part of Packer's story changed as time went by and fresh information became available to him. Yes, Packer's timescale changed massively as a result of his interview with A.C.B. This made his story in the para above a little less unacceptable perhaps, and it was Packer who supplied the information, A.C.B. didn't invent it.

What A.C.B. wrote is not an official witness statement, it is a summary of pertinent details.
Our question should be, how did he get the times wrong, and why change the description of the suspect
We can see he got the details wrong because what Packer told Sgt. White, and then the Evening News, is consistent. This was Packers story.
It is the summary by A.C.B. that is defective.

The fact that Packer appeared to have been controlled by Le Grande doesn't help him. Of course, we also have to consider the fact that the changes occurred only after the reward increased massively. As The Star said, people "turn in descriptions on the chance of coming near enough to the mark to claim a portion of the reward."

I wrote on another thread recently that I don't think that the same points should be repeated over and over again. I have made it clear why I think Packer is a suspect witness, and you've explained why you think he is reliable. I've said all I want to say.

Yes, so why don't you give us a reason for this deception, you believe Packer may have been coerced into changing his story?
Ok, so how does that help anyone claim a reward?
By the way, I'm not trying to defend Legrand, I just want to pursue that line of reasoning.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Packer was in his little window front shop hoping to make some sales. He had no foreknowledge of what was going to happen that night so he would not have been siting at the window observing the coming and goings of people in the street and making notes. It had rained earlier and, even though the rain had stopped, he was contemplating the likelihood that the rain had encouraged his potential customers to stay home, and whether it was worth his while to stay open. A customer buying grapes raised no red flags until grapes were raised as part of the murder details - if there were grapes involved and he had sold grapes there would have certainly been reason to make a connection. But Packer wasn't creating a connection, he was responding to a report to which he had a connection.

IMO Packer has been unfairly maligned. I do think he fell prey to a "private detective" scam which, considering his age and probable bewilderment, could attract some empathy.

Cheers, George

I think you are right on most points George, and I agree things took a different tack once Grand & Batchelor became involved. I'm just not seeing a potential motive for the apparent changes in his story.
What was the scam you envisage?, if Grand & Batchelor were coercing Packer to offer a story to enable them to collect a ransom, how?

Were Grand & Batchelor trying to frame someone?
If so, there's no cause to blame Packer for anything.

Were Grand & Batchelor trying to divert attention from someone?
PC Smith has already identified the last man in Stride's company, how could inventing grapes, changing the times & description of the suspect help them?

Everyone knows when the murder took place, so changing the times in Packers statement only means Packer's story would no longer be applicable - so why invent the story of grapes in Stride's hand?

Plenty of ex-police officers have been on here telling us that it is not at all unusual for witnesses to first say they know & saw nothing, only to change their minds later.
Sometimes this is due to them not recognising the importance of what they had seen, other times it is because they learned something that jogged their memories. Some witnesses need to be encouraged by family and friends before they come forward.
There's nothing suspicious here, but some members like to pretend there must be malicious intent.
Anything to create an unwarranted mystery.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Yes, so why don't you give us a reason for this deception, you believe Packer may have been coerced into changing his story?
Ok, so how does that help anyone claim a reward?
By the way, I'm not trying to defend Legrand, I just want to pursue that line of reasoning.

I did say that I've had enough of this discussion, because I dislike endless repeats of the same facts, and have made all of the points I wish to make....

Sorry Jon, I thought that I had made the probable reason quite clear. Between Packer's first interview with Sgt White and the second interview a very substantial reward had been offered, and he had teamed up with Le Grand, an established con-artist. They seemed to be after a potential share of the reward should JtR have been caught. Packer's description was changing, especially with respect to age, as new evidence appeared. Some scheme was certainly underway, because Le Grande was shielding Packer from the police, and ensuring that he controlled everything - sighting the body, arranging a visit to Scotland Yard etc.

I don't know why Packer changed his times when talking to A.C.B, but surely A.C.B. must have recorded what Packer said. The revised timescale is, of course, completely wrong. Stride and a companion could not have been listening to the singing coming from the club between 11 and 11. 30 pm, as the inquest evidence is that the debate finished some time between 11. 30 and midnight, and the singing started shortly after that. Eagle who led the debate, left about 11. 45 pm, so 30 minutes of listening to music wouldn't have been earlier than about 11. 45 - 12. 15.

Packer's story is that he saw the murderer and Stride a few minutes before the murder, and a few yards from the murder site, behaving oddly, and he watched them for thirty minutes, telling the rest of the household that the couple were fools to stand about in the rain. Then the following morning not a single person in the household remembered the incident. Obviously, he didn't know Stride was going to be killed, but how could he, and the rest of the household forget such an incident? Nobody was standing around in the street at that time, he said!

I really don't want to repeat this again, Packer's evidence is very doubtful.

[Wickerman]

I did say that I've had enough of this discussion, because I dislike endless repeats of the same facts, and have made all of the points I wish to make....

Sorry Jon, I thought that I had made the probable reason quite clear.

I'm not expecting you to repeat yourself.
You have not explained how changing the times from 11:45/12:00 to 11:00 for selling his grapes, and from 12:15/12:30 to 11:30 for shutting up his shop window, could possibly help in pursuing the reward.
The murder still took place moments before 1:00 am.
What it does do, is quite the opposite - it means Packer could not have seen Stride & her killer.

Changing the times blows the 'seeking a reward' angle completely out of the water.


Then there is the issue of the changing suspect description.

The police suspect was already published in the Monday morning papers - it was the man seen by PC Smith.
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

Packer suspect, 1st desc. from the Evening News:
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; had a rough voice and a quick, sharp way of talking.

Packer suspect, 2nd desc. from the summary by A.C.B.:
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 – rather quick in speaking, rough voice. I put the man down as a young clerk. He had a frock coat on – no gloves.

Neither description attributed to Packer can be said to be an attempt at duplicating the established suspect description in the papers.

I hope you can see this 'seeking a reward' hypothesis is total nonsense.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But, why not check how other publications describe what PC Smith saw?

The two stood a few yards up Berner street.
Daily News, 6 Oct.

Was she on the pavement? - Yes, a few yards up Berner-street on the opposite side to where she was found.
Times, 6 Oct.

Isn't that clearer?, nowhere near Commercial Road (not street).

Like I've never read those. My question is why would the coroner phrase it that way, giving the impression she had been standing closer to Commercial Rd than the murder location, if that was not the case? Did he get a clarification from Smith that the press missed?

Had Fanny gone to her doorstep just after hearing Smith pass, she would have seen the couple if they were indeed a few yards up the street, which in her case would be more or less straight across the street. She didn't, so where were they? Perhaps that report is total 'misinformation', or perhaps they were far enough toward Commercial Rd for her not to realise who she was seeing lying in the yard. If that were true, it doesn't explain why she doesn't see them walking along Berner at any time. Perhaps the couple walked through the court into Batty St, before departing, or continuing back to Berner St via Fairclough. Recall that Letchford's sister didn't see them either.

[Wickerman]

My question is why would the coroner phrase it that way, giving the impression she had been standing closer to Commercial Rd than the murder location, if that was not the case? Did he get a clarification from Smith that the press missed?

Given that you must have read Smith's statement more than once. You should be able to deduce for yourself the summary from the Coroner, which is actually the words of the journalist, is either a misstatement, a misprint, or a clue the Coroner is not well acquainted with the area.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew. (The quote feature doesn't seem to work this morning at my end)

Try the Post Reply button if it happens again.

Here, from the Daily News, 1st Oct.
Diemschutz - "Her hands were clenched, and when the doctor opened them I saw that she had been holding grapes in one hand and sweetmeats in the other."

What did he mean by "had been"? - past tense?

Here, in The Morning Advertiser, 1st Oct.
Diemschutz - "In one hand she had some grapes and in the other some sweets. She was grasping them tightly".

How do you grasp grapes tightly?

And again, The Times, 1st Oct.
Diemschutz - "In her right hand were tightly clasped some grapes, and in her left she held a number of sweetmeats."

I wonder if he saw crushed grapes?
And, what happened to them between the arrival of Diemschutz & Kozebrodski, and the arrival of the doctors, who couldn't find any grapes?

I'm not bothered one way or the other, whether she held any grapes or not has no bearing on the case. It's just that to have two witnesses make the same claim is odd if she really was not holding any grapes.

Some have claimed its just a 'fabrication' (ie; lack of imagination?), but none of these accusations come with a rational explanation as to why the witnesses would make that claim, or why the journalist intentionally inserted false details.
Trying to brush the issue aside by dismissing it is not helpful, it needs to be addressed.

It is reasonable to suppose that the clenching action of her hands resulted in her grabbing small pieces of rock from the ground? These could be grasped tightly, unlike grapes. When the hands were opened, these small rocks and other debris fell out.

It might make more sense for someone like Diemschitz to suppose these objects were grapes, considering that the other hand held cachous, and he is not familiar with the clenching action that can result from being attacked.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Given that you must have read Smith's statement more than once. You should be able to deduce for yourself the summary from the Coroner, which is actually the words of the journalist, is either a misstatement, a misprint, or a clue the Coroner is not well acquainted with the area.

Weren't maps displayed at the inquest, when discussing street lighting and to get the jury acquainted with the area?

As for journalist error, are you sure the summing up we see in the Times isn't a transcript?

[Wickerman]

Try the Post Reply button if it happens again.

Yes thanks, I recognised the problem, whenever I discard a post instead of posting it, I can't get the quote function to work on any thread until I do post something.

It is reasonable to suppose that the clenching action of her hands resulted in her grabbing small pieces of rock from the ground? These could be grasped tightly, unlike grapes. When the hands were opened, these small rocks and other debris fell out.

Not really, the spasm begins during strangulation/suffocation, the victim is still on her feet at that point.
Only when she is unconscious is she laid out on the ground.
The yard was cobblestones, not pebbled. I think cartways are usually swept clear of small stones and pebbles, they can wedged in the horses hoofs.

In Stride's case it was suggested her throat was cut while falling?, in practice, this is difficult to imagine.
Pulling the scarf tight requires both hands. As soon as her legs buckle, her knees bend, she is collapsing. He doesn't have the time to let go of one end of the scarf and take the knife out of his pocket. She would be on the ground before he was able to pull the knife out.

It might make more sense for someone like Diemschitz to suppose these objects were grapes, considering that the other hand held cachous, and he is not familiar with the clenching action that can result from being attacked.

Yes, I really don't know what to think.
Grapes are what, 99% water?, or something close. Given the post-mortem was some 38 hours after the murder, any grape flesh would have long been dissolved by stomach acids.
As for pips & skins, men would spit them out, but women tend to remove them from their mouth with a tissue, or handkerchief.
Stride's handkerchief bore fruit stains, according to Dr Phillips.

[Wickerman]

Weren't maps displayed at the inquest, when discussing street lighting and to get the jury acquainted with the area?

In some cases maps were called for, but we often have some reference to one by a witness if a map is provided.

As for journalist error, are you sure the summing up we see in the Times isn't a transcript?

This summary is written in the third-person, it begins with - "The Coroner said", the last line reads - "He left it to the jury to say . .".

A previous member, I think it was Joshua, discovered the Coroner did have his summary typed up and sent out to newspapers, or perhaps to an agency? Which would arrive several days after the inquest ended.
This inquest ended on 23rd Oct. 1888, and the summary was published the next day 'today' (as I write this - 24th Oct.), 137 years ago.
It had to have been taken down by a journalist present at the Inquest.

[GBinOz]

I think you are right on most points George, and I agree things took a different tack once Grand & Batchelor became involved. I'm just not seeing a potential motive for the apparent changes in his story.
What was the scam you envisage?, if Grand & Batchelor were coercing Packer to offer a story to enable them to collect a ransom, how?

Were Grand & Batchelor trying to frame someone?
If so, there's no cause to blame Packer for anything.

Were Grand & Batchelor trying to divert attention from someone?
PC Smith has already identified the last man in Stride's company, how could inventing grapes, changing the times & description of the suspect help them?

Everyone knows when the murder took place, so changing the times in Packers statement only means Packer's story would no longer be applicable - so why invent the story of grapes in Stride's hand?

Plenty of ex-police officers have been on here telling us that it is not at all unusual for witnesses to first say they know & saw nothing, only to change their minds later.
Sometimes this is due to them not recognising the importance of what they had seen, other times it is because they learned something that jogged their memories. Some witnesses need to be encouraged by family and friends before they come forward.
There's nothing suspicious here, but some members like to pretend there must be malicious intent.
Anything to create an unwarranted mystery.

Hi Jon,

"Scam" was probably a poor word choice. I think Grand & Batchelor put themselves between Packer and the police, and for the first time in his life Packer had his 15 minutes of fame. But it wasn't Packer than originated the story of grapes in Stride's hand. He only responded after the story broke in the news media. While it may not be unusual for witnesses to first say they know & saw nothing, only to change their minds later, I believe that Packer initially thought that he saw nothing unusual or suspicious, and he didn't, but when the news broke that included grapes his memory was jogged. There is nothing less unusual than the usual, and serving customers in a shop is the supreme case of the usual (and forgettable).

With regard to the inconsistencies in the times, I suspect he was feeling overwhelmed and, at his age perhaps confused, and mixed up the times, perhaps mis-collating the time that the rain stopped with the time that he decided to close his shop due to the rain having discouraged potential customers. I am certainly not one that entertains the possibility of malicious intent. I think that when he was initially shown the body of Eddowes and declined to identify her as the woman he saw he established that he was genuine.

Cheers, George

P.S. - In the land down under today is 25th October. Does this mean Australia is ahead of its time?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Not really, the spasm begins during strangulation/suffocation, the victim is still on her feet at that point.
Only when she is unconscious is she laid out on the ground.

Not sure how you can claim to know that she was strangled; let alone in what position she was in at the time.

The yard was cobblestones, not pebbled. I think cartways are usually swept clear of small stones and pebbles, they can wedged in the horses hoofs.

Diemschitz: The gutter of the yard is paved with large stones, and the centre with smaller irregular stones.

A fist full of stones?