Was Liz's "Date" Necessarily a Romantic One?

[Cogidubnus]

Can't tell a cranesbill from a hawksbill...tsk...

Now are you sure this was really a geranium? Because what we now call a geranium is actually a pelargonium...geraniums are totally different!

A rose by any other name (was that fair Rosamund?)



Cheers

Dave

[Wickerman]

To Wickerman:
Yes, I have totally bought inspector Swanson's notes pertaining to Packer's “testimony“,

Certainly, but I said "no-one" called Packer a liar, not even Swanson.
It is clear from Packer's different accounts that he was unsure about a number of details.
Why do people here choose to be so agressive by labelling uncertainty as lying?

I'm not clear on why you so blindly insist on trying to see the Packer "testimony" as a fact, going as far as imagining he mixed up his times. But I've grown accustomed to the fact that this is a typical Wickermannism. :-)

From what I can see, he was a 57 year old man who was unsure about the time and likely, because he was 57, had failing eyesight. That is not unusual at 57.
Therefore, Packer was not a good witness, and as a result of changing his story, Swanson couldn't use his statement.

Now, accusing him of lying is far too extreme, just mistaken. When did you last make a mistake Maria? should you have been accused of lying?

Go easy on the old man, not everything in the "real world" is Black and White!


Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

Colour blind

Go easy on the old man, not everything in the "real world" is Black and White!

Speaking as a colour-blind man, not even red and white cranesbills and hawksbills (oops sorry and ducks!)

[Wickerman]

Hi Lynn.
What Maria said..

PC Smith saw someone else, very likely an IWEC member carrying a package of the AF. (I know Lynn will back me up on this. :-)

You believe PC Smith's suspect was delivering a package, at 12:30 am, while engaging a prostitute?

The police did know everyone who was at the club that night, from interviewing the members. Are you suggesting they were not able to identify this member?

Thanks, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

agree

Hello Maria.

"the way I see it, both the IWEC and its members were using each other for their own agendas."

Could not disagree with that--even if I wanted to.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Packer

Hello Maria, Jon. I think Packer's biggest problem may be, not just shifting times, ages, etc. (which is why the police considered his testimony without value), but his initial denial that the police had chatted him up.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Lynn

On a more serious note and after reading the invective, I'm sure you're right...I hope someone said thank you to you for funding the Arbeter Fraint translations...if not, they ought to have!

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

respondeo quod

Hello Jon.

"You believe PC Smith's suspect was delivering a package, at 12:30 am, while engaging a prostitute?"

1. I do not regard him as a suspect.

2. Delivering a package? No, more likely taking home some papers with him.

3. Engaging a prostitute? What prostitute? What engaging? More like A. She is asking how to get into the club--front door locked. Or, B. "Want a paper, lady?"

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

AF

Hello Dave. Yes, they have.

By the way, at this moment, a detailed discussion of the crimes by the club hierarchy (from AF October, 5, 1888) is undergoing translation. Hope it's not just a rehash from the London press.

At any rate, I can hardly contain my excitement.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

You believe PC Smith's suspect was delivering a package, at 12:30 am, while engaging a prostitute? The police did know everyone who was at the club that night, from interviewing the members. Are you suggesting they were not able to identify this member?

Not delivering a package, obviously carrying around AF issues from/to William Wess. (Like Lynn said.) The description was not detailed enough for the police to identify the man in question. Otherwise, why did the police not identify Leon Goldstein from Fanny Mortimer's description BEFORE Goldstein "turned himself in", so to say?

Hello Maria, Jon. I think Packer's biggest problem may be, not just shifting times, ages, etc. {...} but his initial denial that the police had chatted him up.

Spot on. And this is precisely why the police did not accept Packer's testimony as credible. For this and the planted newspaper story accusing the police.

More like A. She is asking how to get into the club--front door locked. Or, B. "Want a paper, lady?"

Or possibly, she was hitting on him. There's even a possibility that BS was simply an IWEC member throwing Stride out of the Yard. I doubt that they would have allowed Stride to enter the club, Lynn. Even if she spoke Yiddish.
Unless you want to allude that Stride was a Mata Hari. :-)

[jason_c]

Hello Jason. OK. Further. A greener worked almost for food. They were worse off than the average working person in Whitechapel.

A good source of information on this topic is Fishman's "East End: 1888." A must read for social conditions and the plight of the greeners.

Cheers.
LC

Thanks for the information. I cant but help but think that there will have been some attending the club who earned a decent living, even if they were a minority.

[lynn cates]

meeting

Hello Maria. Thanks. I still suppose BS to be just that. I think her 12:35 spotting by Smith was with a club member--possibly Lave.

Still think she was to meet someone there.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Wess

Hello Jason. To be sure. Wess was on top of things as were a few others.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Maria, Jon. I think Packer's biggest problem may be, not just shifting times, ages, etc. (which is why the police considered his testimony without value), but his initial denial that the police had chatted him up.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.
There's a human side to these cases that so often gets overlooked.
We have some witnesses who did not wish the get involved, then we have others who are pressured to recall details, descriptions & times that they had initially payed no attention to. So they come up with estimates, which when quoted are repeated as if written in stone.

We have witnesses who make mistakes, at a distance a deerstalker hat can look like a peaked cap, especially at night when the rear peak is hidden by a collar, or simply in the shadow.
A good many witnesses had to have poor eyesight, payed little to no attention when they saw someone, and may have used incorrect terms for the types of clothing, and one mans overcoat is another mans cutaway-coat.

All these discrepancies are purely human nature, the police are well aware that eyewitness testimony can be notoriously unreliable. This fact of life does not mean one witness must be lying, or that another witness didn't even exist.
It's all too easy to dismiss that which contests personal theories, we've seen plenty of examples of this approach.

The real problem with the Stride case is Schwartz, his story confirms no-one else's, and no other person saw Schwartz, or anyone he claims to have seen.
Neither is his story consistent with Stride carrying anything in her hands, being pushed or pulled about and still able to retain sweetmeats?

The Schwartz story is the fly in the ointment here, what Packer saw or didn't see has no impact of the assault on Stride, but there is no reason to dismiss the man he saw as non-existant.

In fact PC Smith places a well-dressed man with Stride opposite Dutfields Yd right about the time Packer said he saw his couple standing in the same location. So, a well-dressed man existed, at that time, at that location.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"The real problem with the Stride case is Schwartz, his story confirms no-one else's, and no other person saw Schwartz, or anyone he claims to have seen."

There is actually an article that offers some sort of possible corroboration, Jon. It was published in "The Scotsman" on the 2nd of October and the relevant part goes like this:

"The club itself, which is next door to the large gate, was yesterday closed; but all the forenoon members and others who have special business there were admitted after knocking at the door. The committee of the institution held a meeting yesterday morning, at which the crime was talked over, and it was decided not to admit any stranger without the payment of a fee. This fee, the secretary explained, was to assist the propaganda. The committee, it seems, did not fix the amount to be charged, but, in reply to a question, the secretary said he thought 5s. would not be too much. In the course of conversation the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had, no doubt, been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen - or, at least, a man whom some persons regard as the murderer - being chased by another man along Fairclough Street which runs across Berner Street, close to the club, and which is interesected on the right by Providence Street, Brunswick Street, and Christian Street, and on the left by Batty Street and Grove Street, the two latter running up into Commercial Road. The pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body."

The suggestion that this would have been Schwartz and Pipeman is a tantalizing one to my ears. The timing is spot on.

The best,
Fisherman