Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why No Stride Mutilations ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    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 Wickerman,

    Maybe, but now we have to introduce someone with Stride for whom we have no direct evidence, although I accept that's only Schwartz's statement in this case. All the same, we have to speculate that Stride's companion makes no appearance during B.S. throwing Stride around that Schwartz sees. It's possible, of course, but it seems we're introducing complications in what is already complex. But then, maybe the truth is something that includes things we don't have on record? Sadly, if that's the case, we'll never know if we get it or not.

    - Jeff

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      There are several important factors in her murder which point to another killer other than JTR

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Hi Trevor,

      There are, but none of them are definitive. If they were, at least to me, I wouldn't be on the fence. I see too many loose ends that allow for just about anything with regards to Stride, but I accept that others weigh that differently. I'm not about to say anyone is right or wrong, as I really have no idea.

      - Jeff

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

        Hi Trevor,

        There are, but none of them are definitive. If they were, at least to me, I wouldn't be on the fence. I see too many loose ends that allow for just about anything with regards to Stride, but I accept that others weigh that differently. I'm not about to say anyone is right or wrong, as I really have no idea.

        - Jeff
        Hi Jeff
        I have to disagree I think they are important enough to point to a different killer for Stride

        The Time of the murder, much earlier than the rest of the murders
        The crime scene location a few steps off a main street where people were still moving about
        The only murder committed south of the Whitechapel Road
        No mutilations
        It is believed a much smaller knife was used than with the other victims
        If JTR killed Stride then he did something not seen in any of the other murders and that is allowing himslf to be seen with the victim, if it is believed that one of persons described by the various witnesses was in fact her killer.

        Her murder has all the hallmarks of a domestic murder

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

          Hi Wickerman,

          Maybe, but now we have to introduce someone with Stride for whom we have no direct evidence, although I accept that's only Schwartz's statement in this case. All the same, we have to speculate that Stride's companion makes no appearance during B.S. throwing Stride around that Schwartz sees. It's possible, of course, but it seems we're introducing complications in what is already complex. But then, maybe the truth is something that includes things we don't have on record? Sadly, if that's the case, we'll never know if we get it or not.

          - Jeff
          Hi Jeff,

          I am with Jon on this one. I don't believe that Stride was "thrown down". Her screams would have been loud if she were actually being assaulted. I believe that Schwartz mistook her breaking free from BSMan and falling down as an assault. Which ever case one believes, Smith's evidence places Parcelman with Stride shortly before the Schwartz incident so any hypothesis has to contain a speculation as to where he went after Smith proceeded on his way. The easy option is that he left and went home, but that gives rise to the question, what was Stride then doing standing in the gateway by herself. While Schwartz does not relate anything about what happened after Stride fell/was-thrown to the ground, that would be because he was by then too busy running away to know what happened after that event.

          Nobody else saw the incident related by Schwartz, so there have been questions about the if and when of his story. I do not believe that Smith's evidence can be disputed, so, inconvenient as it may be, we are compelled to deal with the fact that Parcelman was in the immediate vicinity very close to the time that Stride was murdered, and we need to consider his location at the actual time of that event.

          Best regards, George
          “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

          Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

            Hi Wickerman,

            Maybe, but now we have to introduce someone with Stride for whom we have no direct evidence, although I accept that's only Schwartz's statement in this case. All the same, we have to speculate that Stride's companion makes no appearance during B.S. throwing Stride around that Schwartz sees. It's possible, of course, but it seems we're introducing complications in what is already complex. But then, maybe the truth is something that includes things we don't have on record? Sadly, if that's the case, we'll never know if we get it or not.

            - Jeff
            Hi Jeff.

            I think there is a difference between introducing a figure for which there is no evidence, and drawing attention to a figure who never left the scene.

            Take the assembly in the yard directly after the discovery of the body, how many people were there?
            How many witnesses who were present (like Diemschitz, Lamb, Kozebrodski, Spooner, etc) how many mention everybody?
            The answer is 'none'.
            We are required to take all their statements to compile a list of everyone who was present, even today we likely do not have all their names.
            Did they leave the scene?, no. These people were still there, but in the shadows, not particularly doing anything, so no-one mentions them.
            To me, parcel-man is the same, he didn't get mentioned by Schwartz because this figure wasn't involved in the fracas, and partly because Schwartz was likely more concerned for his own welfare in those few seconds as he passed.
            PC Smith places Parcel-man at the scene (and I think Packer does also), but we have no indication that he left.

            Do you remember the police notice that was published in the press?

            The notice is headed: "Apprehensions sought. Murder. Metropolitan Police District"; and it proceeds:

            "The woodcut sketches, purporting to resemble the persons last seen with the murdered women, which have appeared in The Daily Telegraph, were not authorised by police. The following are the descriptions of the persons seen:

            "At 12.35 a.m., 30th September, with Elizabeth Stride, found murdered at one a.m., same date, in Berner-street - A man, aged 28, height 5ft 8in, complexion dark, small dark moustache; dress, black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; respectable appearance; carried a parcel wrapped up in a newspaper.

            At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street, a man, aged about 30, height 5ft 5in, complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.


            The police also clearly believed Parcel-man may have never left the scene before the crime was committed. Parcel-man is a suspect.
            Last edited by Wickerman; 06-19-2022, 12:52 PM.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post

              The simple fact is Packit's story changed in almost every interview he gave.
              We don't have a direct statement from Packer himself, it's either a press article, possibly embellished, or Sgt. White telling us what Packer said, or A.C.B. summarizing his account. We know the police wanted him to identify the body, Sgt. White was told to make that happen. A.C.B. wrote that Packer had identified the body, and we have a press statement saying that he did just that, outside of his own press story. So there is no basis for claiming otherwise.

              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...
              Yes, but "raining very little" is not "no rain at all", that is a very Black & White issue, it either did rain, or it didn't. The fact we are told her clothes were not "wet with rain" must mean they were not soaking wet. PC Smith said "it rained very little", which means it rained, right?, big or little, it rained, just like Packer said.

              Dr's. Blackwell & Johnston, Diemschitz, Kozebrodski, Spooner, Mortimer, etc. were all still hanging about after 1:00 right?, Blackwell arrived about 1:16, so do you think it very likely they were all still in the yard investigating this murder by 1:30?
              Of course they were, the gates were closed, the assembly taken into the club and interviewed.
              Lawende said it was chucking it down at 1:30, which kept him & his buddies from leaving the club.
              Did anyone in Berner st. mention the rain while investigating Stride's murder?
              No.


              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 didn't see a question there.
              Regardless, I agree, at first he didn't want to get involved, but as he got used to the attention he seemed to revel in it. Whether his story of two men who visited him claiming to know the killer was true or not, Packer said the photo they showed him did not look like the man he saw buying grapes on the night of the murder.
              So, I'm not sure why we should blame Packer for that story when he himself put the dampers on it by rejecting the supposed mystery man.

              I mean how complicated do people want to make this.....
              If the case was simple, it would have been solved, we know there were complications, we just do not know the extent of those complications.

              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                Hi Jeff.

                I think there is a difference between introducing a figure for which there is no evidence, and drawing attention to a figure who never left the scene.

                Take the assembly in the yard directly after the discovery of the body, how many people were there?
                How many witnesses who were present (like Diemschitz, Lamb, Kozebrodski, Spooner, etc) how many mention everybody?
                The answer is 'none'.
                We are required to take all their statements to compile a list of everyone who was present, even today we likely do not have all their names.
                Did they leave the scene?, no. These people were still there, but in the shadows, not particularly doing anything, so no-one mentions them.
                To me, parcel-man is the same, he didn't get mentioned by Schwartz because this figure wasn't involved in the fracas, and partly because Schwartz was likely more concerned for his own welfare in those few seconds as he passed.
                PC Smith places Parcel-man at the scene (and I think Packer does also), but we have no indication that he left.

                Do you remember the police notice that was published in the press?

                The notice is headed: "Apprehensions sought. Murder. Metropolitan Police District"; and it proceeds:

                "The woodcut sketches, purporting to resemble the persons last seen with the murdered women, which have appeared in The Daily Telegraph, were not authorised by police. The following are the descriptions of the persons seen:

                "At 12.35 a.m., 30th September, with Elizabeth Stride, found murdered at one a.m., same date, in Berner-street - A man, aged 28, height 5ft 8in, complexion dark, small dark moustache; dress, black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; respectable appearance; carried a parcel wrapped up in a newspaper.

                At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street, a man, aged about 30, height 5ft 5in, complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.


                The police also clearly believed Parcel-man may have never left the scene before the crime was committed. Parcel-man is a suspect.
                Hi Wickerman,

                Fair enough, particularly the reminder that the police considered parcelman a suspect at the time. It's possible that parcelman and B.S. are the same person as the descriptions are sufficiently similar to consider the differences in details to reflect eyewitness error. He may have left, Stride waited for his return, and Schwartz sees him returning at which point an altercation with Stride begins. i.e. he was sent off to fetch beer and returned empty handed, to which Stride rebukes him, and off it goes?

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Hi Trevor,

                  I know we all weigh things differently, but here's some things to consider:

                  Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  Hi Jeff
                  I have to disagree I think they are important enough to point to a different killer for Stride

                  The Time of the murder, much earlier than the rest of the murders
                  Eddowes is less than 1 hour later.
                  The crime scene location a few steps off a main street where people were still moving about
                  I don't think Berner Street is really a main street is it? Commercial was, but the crime scene is quite far from there. Otherwise, Buck's Row is quite close to Whitechapel Road, and at a time when people were moving about (i.e. Cross/Lechmere & Paul to name but two). Even Mitre Square isn't far off main roads.
                  The only murder committed south of the Whitechapel Road
                  And Chapman is the only one in a backyard, and Nicoles the furthest east, and Kelly the only one indoors, and Eddowes the only one in a square .... It's always possible to find something about a crime that is different from the others. They all have unique characteristics. Being south of Whitechapel Road just happens to be a unique aspect for Stride.
                  No mutilations
                  It is believed a much smaller knife was used than with the other victims
                  The description of the wounds to Stride and Eddowes throat are so similar it is clear the same knife could have been used in both cases.
                  If JTR killed Stride then he did something not seen in any of the other murders and that is allowing himslf to be seen with the victim, if it is believed that one of persons described by the various witnesses was in fact her killer.
                  There's the possibility that he was seen prior to Chapman's murder, and prior to Eddowes, and prior to Kelly's. Possibly being seen isn't unique to Stride.

                  Her murder has all the hallmarks of a domestic murder

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  The two I think are important are the lack of mutilations, and as you say, it could be domestic. The former gets discussed a lot and there are clear arguements why that alone isn't sufficient to rule out JtR. The latter, though, tends to be because of the lack of mutilations, and so if the first falls so does the second.

                  Again, as I say, I'm not convinced Stride was killed by JtR, and I'm not arguing she must have been, just not sure the case against that is strong enough to go with it as a conclusion.

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                    We don't have a direct statement from Packer himself, it's either a press article, possibly embellished, or Sgt. White telling us what Packer said, or A.C.B. summarizing his account. We know the police wanted him to identify the body, Sgt. White was told to make that happen. A.C.B. wrote that Packer had identified the body, and we have a press statement saying that he did just that, outside of his own press story. So there is no basis for claiming otherwise.



                    Yes, but "raining very little" is not "no rain at all", that is a very Black & White issue, it either did rain, or it didn't. The fact we are told her clothes were not "wet with rain" must mean they were not soaking wet. PC Smith said "it rained very little", which means it rained, right?, big or little, it rained, just like Packer said.

                    Dr's. Blackwell & Johnston, Diemschitz, Kozebrodski, Spooner, Mortimer, etc. were all still hanging about after 1:00 right?, Blackwell arrived about 1:16, so do you think it very likely they were all still in the yard investigating this murder by 1:30?
                    Of course they were, the gates were closed, the assembly taken into the club and interviewed.
                    Lawende said it was chucking it down at 1:30, which kept him & his buddies from leaving the club.
                    Did anyone in Berner st. mention the rain while investigating Stride's murder?
                    No.




                    I didn't see a question there.
                    Regardless, I agree, at first he didn't want to get involved, but as he got used to the attention he seemed to revel in it. Whether his story of two men who visited him claiming to know the killer was true or not, Packer said the photo they showed him did not look like the man he saw buying grapes on the night of the murder.
                    So, I'm not sure why we should blame Packer for that story when he himself put the dampers on it by rejecting the supposed mystery man.



                    If the case was simple, it would have been solved, we know there were complications, we just do not know the extent of those complications.
                    Fair enough I was unaware he had formally identified the body with the Police present.

                    Packer said in his interview that it was raining heavily as he remarked to his wife that he couldn't believe they were standing in such heavy rain eating the grapes. That is difficult to reconcile with little rain or Stride's clothes not being wet with rain.

                    I am unsure what your point is in regards no one mentioning the rain in Berner Street- rain that had kept Lawende and co from leaving the Imperial?

                    Again another one difficult to reconcile. A man reticent to get involved and tells Police he saw nothing and no one and had shut early due to rain(heavy rain had stopped at half 11, if he really did see the couple it must have been then, but Stride's clothes should still have been wet) then all of a sudden is never out of the papers so to speak. He tells his story to numerous journalists and as I say then concocted another story once the original one began to wain in popularity. To my mind this man was someone revelling in the 5 minutes of fame and gaining a few shillings extra for the trouble. It doesn't matter if the photo was the guy or not- what matters is he sold the story.

                    I should have said how many extra complications do we need to add. Parcelman was obviously a person of interest being seen with Elizabeth Stride so close to her murder. That the Police were looking for him was quite right and good Police work. He had to be eliminated from enquiries. From the info we have he never was but the info we have is limited. For me B.S man and Lawende's man are eerily similar and quite likely the same person. We can never ever prove it was and I am 100% sure as someone once said- when we get to the afterlife and someone asks Jack the Ripper to step forward we will look at his name and say- Who???

                    Comment


                    • Regarding the origination of the Packer Story.

                      London Evening News and Post
                      June 28, 1889


                      Comment


                      • Hi Jerry.

                        You're talking about Grande & Batchelor, are you suggesting they planned to blackmail someone?
                        The article only suggests that Packer's story reached the Evening News due to the participation of those two private detectives, which I think we see in the surviving evidence. It was Grande & Batchelor who brought Packer to the Mortuary & to speak to police.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                          Hi Jerry.

                          You're talking about Grande & Batchelor, are you suggesting they planned to blackmail someone?
                          The article only suggests that Packer's story reached the Evening News due to the participation of those two private detectives, which I think we see in the surviving evidence. It was Grande & Batchelor who brought Packer to the Mortuary & to speak to police.
                          Not blackmail, though he was good at it, or not so good depending on your view.

                          More like directing attention away from someone. Where and when did the Batty Street Lodger story originate? Tom Wescott ties this all together very well, imo.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by jerryd View Post

                            Not blackmail, though he was good at it, or not so good depending on your view.

                            More like directing attention away from someone. Where and when did the Batty Street Lodger story originate? Tom Wescott ties this all together very well, imo.
                            I knew this had the scent of Tom Wescott, he told me how he was sure Grande was behind some conspiracy.

                            My last post began by asking if Tom Wescott was behind this idea, then I removed the line.
                            Yes, that story merely tells us Grande & Batchelor were after the reward money (the blood-money), not blackmailing anyone. Blood-money is being paid for offering someone up to justice - a reward. Thats what they were after.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              I knew this had the scent of Tom Wescott, he told me how he was sure Grande was behind some conspiracy.

                              My last post began by asking if Tom Wescott was behind this idea, then I removed the line.
                              Yes, that story merely tells us Grande & Batchelor were after the reward money (the blood-money), not blackmailing anyone. Blood-money is being paid for offering someone up to justice - a reward. Thats what they were after.
                              LeGrand a conspirator? Never! The thought of it.

                              That article I posted actually has a lot of nice little LeGrand nuggets in it, though. And Batchelor too. I wasn't thinking about Tom's ideas when I posted it. Legrand and Batchelor discover breaking news and pass it on to the Evening News intending to sell the story. That is where the story originates. Then, as the article goes on, it is printed by nearly all local and provincial papers. The reporter said they were after blood money. His idea. And maybe they were, but the story broke from them was the point of posting the article.

                              Comment


                              • Jerry, yes the story broke due to the detectives inducing Packer to go public.
                                I'm just not sure if you are suggesting the detectives invented the story, your wording is a little vague.

                                The first paragraph tells the reader they were after the 'reward', most likely Lord Montague's 100.
                                The facts unearthed by the two were the discovery of the grape stalk, the flower petals, & two witnesses; Rosenfield & Harstein.

                                Packer witnessed an event but chose to stay quiet, it was the two private detectives who induced Packer (by their exertions) to 'go public'.

                                As the article suggests, and what we already know, it was the two detectives who took Packer to the mortuary, to the police, and to the Evening News, it was their discovery of the grape stalk & other witness statements.

                                This case has nothing to do with blackmail, blood-money is street-talk for seeking a reward. Likely the same reward offered by Lord Montague in early Sept. - 100., which they failed to earn.

                                There's nothing in that article that we don't already know.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X