Why No Stride Mutilations ?

[Wickerman]

This seems rather too far fetched. Firstly we have to believe Matthew Packer who seemingly contradicted himself and offered evidence that also seemingly described someone else.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, all descriptions are vague, the age he gave, the height & attire are all consistent.

He described a woman wearing a white flower.

You will recall white petals were found scattered in the yard?
We also have a police statement where he described the flower as white outside, red inside.

He was never asked to identify the body.

In the same police statement he said he was taken to St. George's Mortuary, and identified the victim as the woman he saw.

He had initially told Police he had seen no one in Berner Street on the night.

Police today will tell you, a witness will often first claim to have seen or heard nothing, but under pressure will finally decide to tell the truth. It's often a case of not wanting to have anything to do with the matter.

I think a problem for those advocating another assailant is Fanny Mortimer. If she came to the door at say 12:49am then the assailant would have only had a few minutes to approach, be propositioned or proposition and take Stride into the yard after the B.S man incident.

I think you'll find Mortimer came to the door twice, there is a gap of several minutes between her first surveillance at the door, and her second.

The main issue with Packer is that he was confused between seeing Stride & the client roughly between 11:00-11:30, or 12:00-12:30.
We know the 11:00-11:30 time window had to be incorrect because Stride was seen at the Bricklayers Arms around 11:00pm, in the company of a male.
Therefore, Packer had to have seen Stride & Co. between 12:00-12:30, and the police would likely have known this too, but they cannot correct the witness, Packer had to do that himself. If Packer cannot figure it out he is not a valid witness for that incident, which is a shame because we have the evidence that shows the correct time he saw Stride, and it is confirmed by PC Smith.

[FISHY1118]

This seems rather too far fetched. Firstly we have to believe Matthew Packer who seemingly contradicted himself and offered evidence that also seemingly described someone else. He described a woman wearing a white flower. He was never asked to identify the body. He had initially told Police he had seen no one in Berner Street on the night. There is no way we can take Packer seriously.

I often wonder if the person PC Smith saw Stride talking to was someone known to her. It seems that way from the brief description we have. She doesn't seem to have been propositioning him. Of course they may have modified their behaviour until the Policeman passed. Smith doesn't elaborate on whether they seemed friendly or like they knew each other- just that they were both sober.

I think a problem for those advocating another assailant is Fanny Mortimer. If she came to the door at say 12:49am then the assailant would have only had a few minutes to approach, be propositioned or proposition and take Stride into the yard after the B.S man incident. This is why I see events transpiring like this:

12:44-12:46am- Israel Schwartz witnesses B.S man assaulting Elizabeth Stride at the entrance to Dutfields Yard.

12:46- 12:48am- B.S man strangles Stride with her scarf and cuts her throat. He is spooked into fleeing and Fanny Mortimer hears him pass her house.

12:49-12:50- Fanny Mortimer goes to her door and stands there for 8-9 minutes. This means she is at her door from say 12;49am- 12:58am. She only sees one person in the street.

12:55am- Leon Goldstein passes by Berner Street. Fanny Mortimer sees him and this co- orborates her statement as he shows up to the Police station the next day to clear himself of suspicion.

1:00am- Louis Diemschitz returns to Dutfields Yard and find the body of Liz Stride.

Well done sunny ,the most probable solution to strides murder.

[GBinOz]

What seems to be missing in all these scenarios is the possibility that Stride was not alone in the gateway.
Packer speaks to the time Stride arrives in Berner st., and accepting his times are not reliable, he does at least provide a sequence of events. Stride & her man buy some grapes from his shop on the west side of Berner st. They then cross the road and stand there for approx 30 mins, only to cross back to the club side, and stand there. This is where Packer looses sight of them.

Now, for an approx. time we only need look to the evidence of PC Smith, who described Stride at about 12:30-35 in Berner st. in the company of a man carrying a parcel. Stride was not alone, and if we retrace her steps backwards we find that from 11:00pm at least, she had been in the company of a man. So it is not too outrageous to accept that Stride was still standing in the gateway with parcel-man when BS-man & Schwartz approached the gateway from Commercial Rd.
It is Packer who placed Stride in the gateway in the company of a man, who must have been carrying a package of some kind.
We know the man she was with was not BS-man because Schwartz saw him arrive, he followed BS-man down Berner st., and he arrived alone.
Stride was with Parcel-man, standing in the gateway of Dutfield's Yard.

Schwartz being so focused on the altercation, he had not noticed Paecel-man standing in the shadows.

This then offers Parcel-man as the prime suspect in the Stride case.

Hi Jon,

I think that if Stride was being subjected to an assault her screams would have been very loud indeed. IF BS took her by the arm to attempt to pull her from the gateway and she protested and pulled away with a swivel motion just as he let go, she may very well have just fallen, rather than being "thrown", to the ground. Schwartz was crossing the road to avoid the situation so may have been just glancing back intermittently and filling in the gaps in his mind. I also agree with your assessment of Packer as a witness.

There has been endless discussion on whether and/or when the Schwartz incident took place but, as you say, Parcelman is usually forgotten. He seems to have been with her since 11PM, and was assuredly the man seen by Smith, and probably Packer allowing for the time error. If the Schwartz incident happened earlier, as suggested by Herlock, or didn't happen at all, as suggested by NBFN, then Parcelman is the last person with whom Stride was seen alive. There seems to be four possibilities for Parcelman after Smith continued on his beat.

1. He said goodnight to Stride and went on his way. Stride then proceeded to the gateway alone. Why? Maybe she was soliciting, or maybe she had acquired a cleaning job in the club after the meeting/party.

2. He went with Stride to the gateway to continue listening to the music and was standing in the shadows when the dispute with BS took place.

3. He went with Stride to the gateway and she waited for him while went into the yard for some purpose....perhaps to speak to someone in the print shop, or the club, or to use the lavatory in the yard.

4. The Schwartz incident was unrelated leaving Parcelman as the last person seen in the company of Stride.

For options 1 and 3 the possible suspects would be BS, Parcelman or someone else. For options 2 and 4, probably Parcelman.

Schwartz is favoured by many as Anderson's witness who supposedly identified BSman, but I don't recall anything that would preclude him having been presented with Pipeman and identifying him. Both men were in the vicinity and both should have been considered persons of interest by police.

Best regards, George

[Sunny Delight]

I'm not sure what you mean by that, all descriptions are vague, the age he gave, the height & attire are all consistent.


You will recall white petals were found scattered in the yard?
We also have a police statement where he described the flower as white outside, red inside.


In the same police statement he said he was taken to St. George's Mortuary, and identified the victim as the woman he saw.



Police today will tell you, a witness will often first claim to have seen or heard nothing, but under pressure will finally decide to tell the truth. It's often a case of not wanting to have anything to do with the matter.


I think you'll find Mortimer came to the door twice, there is a gap of several minutes between her first surveillance at the door, and her second.

The main issue with Packer is that he was confused between seeing Stride & the client roughly between 11:00-11:30, or 12:00-12:30.
We know the 11:00-11:30 time window had to be incorrect because Stride was seen at the Bricklayers Arms around 11:00pm, in the company of a male.
Therefore, Packer had to have seen Stride & Co. between 12:00-12:30, and the police would likely have known this too, but they cannot correct the witness, Packer had to do that himself. If Packer cannot figure it out he is not a valid witness for that incident, which is a shame because we have the evidence that shows the correct time he saw Stride, and it is confirmed by PC Smith.

Packer never formally identified the body with the Police. If they had even remotely thought he had something to offer this would have been the first port of call. His story changed multiple times. It is obvious to my mind that his evidence is unsafe and we cannot use it. Contradictory and seemingly he enjoyed the notoriety. Nothing in the official record backs up Packers account. As for the flower it was red, Packer may have said white with red inside. I have seen accounts where he just said white. More contradicting.

Mortimer is a difficult one because she said she was at the door in one account almost the whole time between 1:30am-2am. That could not be possible given the traffic through the street. What we know for sure is that she was at her door at 12:55am. Leon Goldstein backs this up as she saw him and he came forward. She said he was the only person she saw. We know Schwartz saw an assault at around 12:45am. So we know between those times she was at the door. I have speculated a possible timeline which to me makes sense.

[GBinOz]

Packer never formally identified the body with the Police. If they had even remotely thought he had something to offer this would have been the first port of call. His story changed multiple times. It is obvious to my mind that his evidence is unsafe and we cannot use it. Contradictory and seemingly he enjoyed the notoriety. Nothing in the official record backs up Packers account. As for the flower it was red, Packer may have said white with red inside. I have seen accounts where he just said white. More contradicting.

I don't have time at present to dig out links, but my recollection is that Packer was shown a different body to try to catch him out, but he did not identify that body as Stride. He was then shown Stride's body and correctly identified her as the woman he had seen. As Jon said, Packer made an error on time and initially didn't want to be involved, but his sighting is corroborated by PC Smith. Macnaghten named three suspects and got everything wrong about all three, and yet he is still being used as an authority to justify the suspicions about Druitt as JtR. Why pick out Packer on the description of the flower? Everyone had a different description, and some didn't even see a flower. If you are going to dismiss Packer for inconsistencies in his story you would also need to dismiss Schwartz for the same reason.

Cheers, George

[Sunny Delight]

I don't have time at present to dig out links, but my recollection is that Packer was shown a different body to try to catch him out, but he did not identify that body as Stride. He was then shown Stride's body and correctly identified her as the woman he had seen. As Jon said, Packer made an error on time and initially didn't want to be involved, but his sighting is corroborated by PC Smith. Macnaghten named three suspects and got everything wrong about all three, and yet he is still being used as an authority to justify the suspicions about Druitt as JtR. Why pick out Packer on the description of the flower? Everyone had a different description, and some didn't even see a flower. If you are going to dismiss Packer for inconsistencies in his story you would also need to dismiss Schwartz for the same reason.

Cheers, George

Packer went to identify Stride with the two Private Detectives not the Police. The report in the paper that covered this said he was shown Eddowes body first in an attempt to see if he identified her which he did not. He said it was nothing like the woman he had seen. Then he was shown Stride instead whom he identified. There is no co-orboration of this story and indeed one would ask why Packer was taken to identify Eddowes yet Lawende was only shown clothing. It is a report that is difficult to take seriously.

I have singled out no one as I haven't poster on the other thread but McNaghten's three suspects and the descriptions of them seems strewn with error. I am not picking out Packer because of the flower specifically but because of the inconsistencies is his statements. For someone not looking to get involved he was quite happy to milk the publicity once it came. How can that be reconciled?

I think some on here like to paint the man seen by PC Smith as someone lurking in Dutfields Yard as Stride was assaulted by B.S man. The idea being from what I can see that if Packer is to be believed and we move his statement to 12am-12:30am rather than his initial 11am-11:30am then it is likely the man seen by PC Smith was the same as Packer. Then a case can be made that this man was in her company for quite a while so it would make sense that he continued to walk with Stride over to Dutfields Yard. Rather than the other suggestion that the man was gone by the time Schwartz saw B.S man attack. That is why Packer is believed by some- in order to try and push a suspect rather than looking at the evidence we have and trying to reconcile it to events.

[Sunny Delight]

Correction- Fanny Mortimer said she was at her door almost the whole time between 12:30am-1am. She couldn't have been though as she missed so many people going about. As I say we can be sure that sometime between Schwartz witnessing the assault on Stride and Leon Goldstein passing she came to the door and stood there for up to ten minutes.

[Wickerman]

Packer never formally identified the body with the Police.

I don't think you have read the police summary of Packer's statement.

As for the flower it was red, Packer may have said white with red inside. I have seen accounts where he just said white. More contradicting.

Maybe you should read all the accounts.

[Wickerman]

Packer went to identify Stride with the two Private Detectives not the Police. The report in the paper that covered this said he was shown Eddowes body first in an attempt to see if he identified her which he did not. He said it was nothing like the woman he had seen. Then he was shown Stride instead whom he identified. There is no co-orboration of this story and indeed one would ask why Packer was taken to identify Eddowes yet Lawende was only shown clothing. It is a report that is difficult to take seriously.

You really want to talk about "corroboration", in a case like this?
Who corroborates Mortimer, Spooner, Marshall, Brown, Kidney, or for that matter Cadosche, Long, Donavon, Richardson, or even Barnett, Bowyer, Cox, you bring up corroboration in a murder case that depends on single witness statements?

I think some on here like to paint the man seen by PC Smith as someone lurking in Dutfields Yard as Stride was assaulted by B.S man. The idea being from what I can see that if Packer is to be believed and we move his statement to 12am-12:30am rather than his initial 11am-11:30am then it is likely the man seen by PC Smith was the same as Packer.

Packer's first statements were taken down 4th Oct. by Sgt. Stephen White who took down the time as 12:00-12:30, then someone added marginal notes changing the time to 11:00-11:30.
Sgt. White also supplied a cutting from the Evening News which equally provided the 12:00-12:30 time window.
On the same date (4th Oct.) Assistant Comm. Alex. Carmichael-Bruce took down a summary of Packer's account where he only used the 11:00-11:30 time window. No-one knows what his source was.

The point being, Packer seems to have given the time as 12:00-12:30 (the grapes being bought about 11:45), but the summary by A.C.B. only used the 11:00-11:30 window, for no known reason. This latter account is the one most remembered by theorists.

That is why Packer is believed by some- in order to try and push a suspect rather than looking at the evidence we have and trying to reconcile it to events.

Yet you have not been quoting the correct evidence, either you have pre-selected what you want to believe, or there are accounts you are not aware of.

With regard to the colour of the flower, we have this account.

East London Advertiser, 6 Oct. 1888.
Miss Eva Harstein gave corroborative evidence as to the finding of the grape stalk close to where the body lay. She also stated that, after the removal of the body of the murdered woman, she saw a few small petals of a white natural flower lying quite close to the spot where the body had rested.

[Abby Normal]

phantom rippers, suspect eliminating cashoo, witnesses who lied(packer) or didnt see anything(fanny), physical assaults being claimed as no big deal.
is this what some really want to hang there hat on? lol

its not rocket science. bs man was tje ripper and he killed stride, but was interupted before he could mutilate, so he left to find another victim in Eddowes where he did. theres enough mystery in this case, no need to invent more.

[c.d.]

What exactly is a "Phantom Ripper" and how does that compare to simply being the Ripper? If you accept that the Ripper killed the other four in the C5 and he was unseen and his identity unknown isn't he a "Phantom Ripper."

c.d.

[c.d.]

is this what some really want to hang there hat on? lol

Only if it is peaked.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

is this what some really want to hang there hat on? lol

Only if it is peaked.

c.d.

your catching on!!

[Sunny Delight]

You really want to talk about "corroboration", in a case like this?
Who corroborates Mortimer, Spooner, Marshall, Brown, Kidney, or for that matter Cadosche, Long, Donavon, Richardson, or even Barnett, Bowyer, Cox, you bring up corroboration in a murder case that depends on single witness statements?




Packer's first statements were taken down 4th Oct. by Sgt. Stephen White who took down the time as 12:00-12:30, then someone added marginal notes changing the time to 11:00-11:30.
Sgt. White also supplied a cutting from the Evening News which equally provided the 12:00-12:30 time window.
On the same date (4th Oct.) Assistant Comm. Alex. Carmichael-Bruce took down a summary of Packer's account where he only used the 11:00-11:30 time window. No-one knows what his source was.

The point being, Packer seems to have given the time as 12:00-12:30 (the grapes being bought about 11:45), but the summary by A.C.B. only used the 11:00-11:30 window, for no known reason. This latter account is the one most remembered by theorists.




Yet you have not been quoting the correct evidence, either you have pre-selected what you want to believe, or there are accounts you are not aware of.

With regard to the colour of the flower, we have this account.

East London Advertiser, 6 Oct. 1888.
Miss Eva Harstein gave corroborative evidence as to the finding of the grape stalk close to where the body lay. She also stated that, after the removal of the body of the murdered woman, she saw a few small petals of a white natural flower lying quite close to the spot where the body had rested.

The simple fact is Packit's story changed in almost every interview he gave. Not to mention he said Stride had been standing in the rain eating the grapes with the man. If that were true the sighting had to have been before 11:30am as almost every witness stated there was no rain or very little after that time. Stride's clothes when she was found were not wet with rain. As for co-orboration that is in regards Packer being shown Catherine Eddowes body first in order to call his bluff. Non co-orboration of his story is not problematic for me. A constantly changing story is. You also didn't answer the most important question. For a man who told Police he had seen no one in Berner Street to have said so in order to not get involved is plausible. However once Packer does get involved he gives multiple interviews- when intrerest is his story dwindles he concocted a new one involving two men visiting his shop saying their cousin may have been the man who bought the grapes. It is obvious Packer was interested in picking up a few shillings for selling his stories and that he enjoyed the five minutes of fame.

I mean how complicated do people want to make this. There was another man lurking in the shadows whilst B.S man assaulted Stride. Not one shred of evidence to back that up. A different couple enter Mitre Square unseen by anyone and Lawende and his friends see someone else. Eddowes wasn't wearing an apron. Mary Kelly was seen by Mrs. Kennedy. Its utter madness.

[GBinOz]

I mean how complicated do people want to make this. There was another man lurking in the shadows whilst B.S man assaulted Stride. Not one shred of evidence to back that up.
PC Smith saw Stride with a man that had probably been with her since 11PM. What is your opinion as to his whereabouts when Stride was standing in the gateway, and upon which shred of evidence do you rely for that opinion?

A different couple enter Mitre Square unseen by anyone and Lawende and his friends see someone else.
Lawende et al didn't see the face of the woman and, according to Lawende, could not identify the man. They just saw a couple.

Eddowes wasn't wearing an apron.
Yes she was!

Mary Kelly was seen by Mrs. Kennedy. Its utter madness.
This was a witness statement, declared in the face of a hostile coroner and unable to be broken by Abberline.

If it wasn't complicated we might have it solved by now.

Cheers, George