Why No Stride Mutilations ?

[JeffHamm]

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

[Wickerman]

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

[GBinOz]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

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

https://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

[JeffHamm]

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

[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

[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.

[Abby Normal]

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

Only if it is peaked.

c.d.

your catching on!!

[c.d.]

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

Only if it is peaked.

c.d.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.