The Berner Street Con(spiracy)

[Harry D]

For me, the biggest mysteries of Berner Street will be why the killer decided to dispatch Stride if he was seen by Schwartz (and Pipeman?). At that point, all they've witnessed is a scuffle in the street. He could've cut his losses (so to speak) and moved on. Are we dealing with a disorganised killer with low impulse-control? Not according to many commenters on here.

Second of all, no one saw or heard the struggle or a scream as Stride's supposed killer manhandled her and forced her into a dark alley to slash her throat. Why would Stride still be clenching the cachous in her hand if she was being roughed up? The evidence suggests she had let her guard down, which conflicts with Schwartz's sighting.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The Grapes of Wrath

[...]

For good measure the police denied Packer for a third time in the press.

Evening News, 1st November 1888—

"The police authorities do not attach any importance to the statement attributed to Matthew Packer, the fruiterer, who says he sold grapes to the deceased woman Stride on the night of the murder."

Matthew Packer was now completely discredited. His grape-selling story didn't stand a chance.

Regards,

Simon

Oddly though, the police may have remained interested in Packer's opinions. Evening News, Oct 20:

The police called on Mr. Packer, of 44, Berner-street, yesterday morning. Mr. Packer, when asked his opinion as to where the murderer lodged - for he had seen him several times before the fatal night - remarked, "In the next street." It is considered he is not far wrong in his conjecture; but the police do not deem it prudent to say what steps are being taken in the matter.

What was the next street?

Hi Tom,

Detail from the Evening News, 4th October 1888—

Packer was interviewed by the Evening News on the evening of Wednesday 3rd October.

Earlier the same day he had been taken to Golden Lane mortuary—

"With a view of testing the accuracy and honesty of Packer's testimony, the detectives obtained an order to view the body of the woman murdered in Mitre square, and took Packer to see it, leaving him under the impression that they were taking him to see the Berner street victim. On seeing the body he at once declared that it was not the woman for whom the grapes had been bought, and not a bit like her."

I am willing to concede that these detectives were Le Grand and Batchelor.

However, this does not automatically make them the same two detectives encountered twice the following day by Sergeant Stephen White [and without a mention in the Evening News].

Regards,

Simon

FYI: The WVC had three detectives, at around the time the Packer story broke.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

This is odd. An essay I've worked off and on with for the last couple of years happens to be called 'The Berner Street Conspirary'. Maybe it's not so odd since 90% of Michael's ideas originated from posts I made here back in '06 or '07. I wonder now if I shouldn't have published the ideas first before discussing them, but perhaps some good observations will come out of these debates.

In any event, there's very little doubt in my mind that a) a conspiracy occurred in Berner Street following the murder, and b) the Club was in serious damage control mode. But do I think there was a vast and immediate conspiracy on the part of the club to cover up the murder? No. Because it didn't matter if they had anything to do with the crime, they knew they were in a vulnerable position merely by the fact that a gentile woman had been murdered in their yard.

Was Schwartz attached to the club? Possibly, but let's consider for a moment that he was not and that what he reported seeing was accurate. He may have witnessed Morris Eagle returning home and removing a prostitute from his way into the yard. Would he have yelled an anti-Semetic epithet like Lipski? I don't see why not as the club was within spitting distance of where the Lipski crime had occurred a year before, and only a couple hours earlier, Eagle gave a speech about why Jews such as Schwartz should abandon their religion and become Socialists.

When Morris Eagle saw Stride's body in the yard, he reeled in shock. Was this because he was more squeamish than the others, as he claimed, or because he recognized the woman from 20 minutes earlier?

Do I think Eagle killed Stride? Of course not. But the implication is there, and he was witnessed by Schwartz. According to Mrs Diemschutz and others, he was the last man to enter the club before the body was discovered.

It's interesting to compare Eagle's timing, to that of Joseph Lave, from the DN of Oct 1:

Joseph Love, a man just arrived in England from the United States, and who is living temporarily at the club until he can find lodgings, says:-I was in the club yard this (Sunday) morning about twenty minutes to one. I came out first at half-past twelve to get a breath of fresh air. I passed out into the street, but did not see anything unusual. The district appeared to me to be quiet. I remained out until twenty minutes to one, and during that time no one came into the yard. I should have seen anybody moving about there.

If no one came into the yard, then Eagle must have returned after Lave went back inside. Here are three timing scenarios:

1. Lave was correct about the time, give or take a minute or two: Eagle returns between 12:40 and 12:45. Did Lave just miss seeing Stride with Parcelman? Did Eagle see Stride, and if so, where and with who?

2. Lave was 'behind time' by 5 to 10 minutes: He is out on the street somewhere in the range of about 12:25 and 12:35 - similar to the times given by Smith for when last on Berner street. Does Lave see Stride?

3. Lave was 'ahead of time' by 5 to 10 minutes: He is out on the street somewhere in the range of about 12:40 and 12:50. Does he see the Schwartz incident? What does Eagle see? Does Mortimer see Eagle?

If Lave genuinely did not see Stride, then only #1 would seem to be compatible with the Schwartz incident. This would have Stride reaching the gateway at about 12:45, or just after. In that case, who did James Brown see on returning home from the chandlers shop? If it were:

A) Stride and some man, then the Schwartz incident must be pushed back to say, 12:50. Has Goldstein been seen by this point? If yes, then Fanny must have been there to see Eagle enter the yard. Was she ...?

There was certainly no noise made, and I didn't observe anyone entering the gates.

If no - the Goldstein sighting is yet to occur - then Fanny is on her doorstep at 12:50.

B) Not Stride and a man, then they did not hear any screams either, nor recall seeing a man running from the scene, conceivably being chased by another.

Posters like Herlock like to claim that I rely in exact times, in making my arguments. Yet here I have given range of times and scenarios, to consider.

And what of PC Smith's man?

12:35 AM: Police Constable William Smith sees Stride with a young man on Berner Street opposite the International Working Men's Educational Club. The man is described as 28 years old, dark coat and hard deerstalker hat. He is carrying a parcel approximately 6 inches high and 18 inches in length. the package is wrapped in newspaper.

What the young man was carrying was possible a stack of Der Arbeter Fraint that the clubmen handed out at these meetings. The papers were about 17 or 18 inches long and 6 inches wide. A stack of these could reasonably be mistaken for a parcel wrapped in newspaper.

This is a young man standing opposite the club. Even though PC Smith obviously didn't recognize the young man as a clubman, I imagine Wess and the others did.

In short, while I don't think there was a major cover-up, I think it's quite possible that Eagle, Wess, and perhaps a couple of other men did see Liz there that night, interracted with her, and kept it to themselves.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Other than Tom, has anyone actually seen a copy of Arbeter Fraint? A picture of one next to a couple of rulers, would be nice to see.

....
'It is worth noting that no kind of suspicion fell upon the anarchists in this connection.'

That sounds quite a bit like a situation where the Jewes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing AP.

Best regards.

[Cap'n Jack]

Tom's delicious chicken conspiracy begins to taste a bit fowl me thinks.
On April 7th 1897 the 'Illustrated' published the rambling account of a retired police officer, concerning generally the activities of anarchists in London during his service, but more specifically concerning the Berner Street Club, and the night of Stride's murder there.
Referring directly to the members of the IWEC, and the murder he says:

'It is worth noting that no kind of suspicion fell upon the anarchists in this connection.'

The officer was First Detective Sergeant Patrick McIntyre of the Political Department of Scotland Yard.

So go and count your chickens, Tom, for your theory ain't worth a cluck.

Oh, OK. Who gave false testimony about what? Because if they did not know the identity of the killer, then what you have here is a Conspiracy to Nowhere.

Roy

If they lied about anything as a group to protect club interests, as the thread premise suggests....then lying about whether the yard was really empty, or what happens when Diemshutz pulled in,... or about who was in a position to see something but says they didnt....perhaps like Goldstein, ..is all you need then to show the club acting in self interest tailoring the event details to better serve an "empty yard and no members anywhere near" story, to ensure no suspicion falls on them.

Whether the murderer came from the club as a member or an attendee that night, I dont know. I do know I shouldnt trust a story that was apparently deemed inconsequential before the Inquest.

They had the opportunity and the motive to tailor the details to show the club in its most positive light.

Best regards Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

Knowingly giving false witness testimony in conjunction with other parties by prior agreement....is indeed a Conspiracy.

If the club members decided on a story, instead of telling what they saw or knew, then they conspired to break the law......thats only the story.....they may have had nothing to do with the murder itself.

Oh, OK. Who gave false testimony about what? Because if they did not know the identity of the killer, then what you have here is a Conspiracy to Nowhere.

Roy

[Tom_Wescott]

Ah, Michael

You're starting to get it. Alice McKenzie was a typical JTR victim.

The fact that she wasn't regarded as such by Sir MM in his secret memorandum (not seen until the 1960s) proves a certain thing.

Which is that JTR was under lock and key in early 1889.

To my mind, anyway.

This is a very interesting idea. Makes me wish I had all my materials with me to look at what the doctors and cops had to say about her murder and how they handled it to see if perhaps there's some substance to Stephen's idea. Perhaps Stephen can help us out if he's been following this line of inquiry for a while. On a different thread, of course.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Ah, Michael

You're starting to get it. Alice McKenzie was a typical JTR victim.

The fact that she wasn't regarded as such by Sir MM in his secret memorandum (not seen until the 1960s) proves a certain thing.

Which is that JTR was under lock and key in early 1889.

To my mind, anyway.

Hi Stephen,

Im not sure that the above is borne out in the actions taken in 1889, the police patrols started up again, they requisitioned numbers of men seen the previous Fall, and Bond was asked in for his expertise. Like he was the Ripper authority....having actually seen and touched only 1 of the 5.

And Bonds comments suggest that the reasons he rules against Jack with Alice is by using a premise of skill and knowledge shown by Jack with the Canonicals....the very skill and knowledge he denounced the year before.

I cant see any reason for doing the above if anyone with budgetary responsibilities knew the culprit known as Jack was in the can.

I believe Nats had it correctly....they had no idea who he was, what he wanted, where he came from and how many he kills.

Ive never had issue with a head count of 5 or even larger by one man....I do with the 5 prescribed by the Canonical Group.

Best regards Stephen

[Mascara & Paranoia]

How do you know that Jack knew how to kill like that?

I don't. I never claimed to. Those were quite clearly examples.

[Stephen Thomas]

I believe some can be discarded, and perhaps one or more added in their place....for example Alice Mckenzie has more in common with Polly, Annie and Kate than either Ms C3 or Ms C5.

Ah, Michael

You're starting to get it. Alice McKenzie was a typical JTR victim.

The fact that she wasn't regarded as such by Sir MM in his secret memorandum (not seen until the 1960s) proves a certain thing.

Which is that JTR was under lock and key in early 1889.

To my mind, anyway.

Yes Michael, and none of the investigators had any idea whatever who the ripper was.None of them.And if they said they did they were living in the land of fantasy not fact.

I fully agree Miss Nats .... Nice to see ya too.

All the best.

[Natalie Severn]

Yes Michael, and non of the investigators had any idea whatever who the ripper was.None of them.And if they said they did they were living in the land of fantasy not fact.

Although many investigators freely offered their own opinions on who the Ripper killed, and most agreed that Liz should be involved, the records officially do not suggest that.

They suggest Mr Shabby Genteel likely killed Annie,... Mr Broadshouldered Man likely killed Liz Stride with Schwartz, Mr Long Coat if Browns account is used,...... Mr Sailor Man almost for certain killed Kate, and Blotchy Face is the last man seen with Mary Jane alive.

Best regards

Im not sure why the semantics bother you so much Roy...

Wikipedia;

"A conspiracy is an agreement between natural persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join "the plot" later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted and/or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence."

Knowingly giving false witness testimony in conjunction with other parties by prior agreement....is indeed a Conspiracy.

If the club members decided on a story, instead of telling what they saw or knew, then they conspired to break the law......thats only the story.....they may have had nothing to do with the murder itself.

As for Mr Sugden, my favorite source, he neglected to point out that Mr Israel Schwartz and his Broadshouldered Man altercation are not official records. We have only a reminiscence of the details. The records suggest that Mr Brown saw Liz last, and with a man seemingly blocking her path with his arm on the wall, nowhere near the front gates at 12:45am.

Best regards all.