Packer and Schwartz

[S.Brett]

We are starting to pack and prepare for the big one tomorrow..

Our fingers are tightly crossed!

I think I'm planning to stay in the Eastend for a few days so might take my camera, a new toy with lots of buttons turned up yesterday to keep me busy

Great! On the trail of Cox...

[Jeff Leahy]

Morning Jeff,

I have got an idea where the "certain street" (Cox) was and it is possible that during the surveillance of "Kosminski" there the Mackenzie murder took place and Sergeant Stephen White with his "behind Whitechapel Road" was right.

It was not a "Tailor Street" but a Street that had something to do with the Tailors system.

It could take a few hours (until tommorow?). As I said, just an idea...

Yours Karsten.

Cool Karsten

We are starting to pack and prepare for the big one tomorrow..

I think I'm planning to stay in the Eastend for a few days so might take my camera, a new toy with lots of buttons turned up yesterday to keep me busy

Yours Jeff

[S.Brett]

Morning Jeff,

But I still can't get MacKenzie out of my mind.. While I accept Swanson didn't count MacKenzie and its possible neither did Cox and Sagar

Is it not possible that Kozminski was back on the streets or temporarily out of the asylum without the police knowledge?

I have got an idea where the "certain street" (Cox) was and it is possible that during the surveillance of "Kosminski" there the Mackenzie murder took place and Sergeant Stephen White with his "behind Whitechapel Road" was right.

It was not a "Tailor Street" but a Street that had something to do with the Tailors system.

It could take a few hours (until tommorow?). As I said, just an idea...

Yours Karsten.

[Jeff Leahy]

I guess that "Kosminski" was already found by the police in October 1888 and the IDs with Schwartz and Lawende failed. It is possible that Sagar was in Butcher Row again in December 1890, after the Seaside Home identification took place, shortly before "Kosminski" was admitted to Colney Hatch. Maybe, the Butchers Row was one of "the several shops" but this time, "Kosminski" was not seen there.

Yours Karsten.

Morning Karsten

I'd not considered that Sagar failed to find kozminski in Butchers Row? Personally I prefer a connection, his grandfather was after all a butcher, and at this time using the hides and oral in other manufacture...leather ..Boots would make some sense in the family trades..

But I still can't get MacKenzie out of my mind.. While I accept Swanson didn't count MacKenzie and its possible neither did Cox and Sagar

Is it not possible that Kozminski was back on the streets or temporarily out of the asylum without the police knowledge?

It just seems to me that the rarity of such mutilation murders and its obvious targeting of the female genitalia would point towards a Jack kill...

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"As you know I think Swanson the driving force behind the Kozminski theory"

Yes. But not sure why.

Cheers.
LC

Because Swanson was the man in charge of the investigation from the out..

Anderson is clear to a reporter in August 1889 that they didn't know who the culprit was, their failure to bring a case...

However it seems probable that among the suspects at the time, 1888, an important one was Kozminski... but no proof could be found...perhaps there was a failed ID?

But surveillance was kept on a suspect and reports via City CID (Cox) were given to Swanson.... And its these reports MacAnughten discovers and uses in 1894 to write the memo...

Once you figure out that Anderson and MAcNaughten are describing two completely different events. MacNAughten the events up to March 1889 and Anderson the events following the Crawford letter in 1890 almost two years later....

Then its Swanson who knows the whole story....and what all three say is true from their perspective...

Two different events...the same suspect

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

epistemic dimensions

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"As you know I think Swanson the driving force behind the Kozminski theory"

Yes. But not sure why.

Cheers.
LC

[S.Brett]

Hello Jeff, Abbey...

I think Kartsen and i have a slightly different take on this...

I think McKenzie was a ripper attack, so i think he was out quite quickly July 1889

Karsten prefers November 1889....walking the dog incident December 1889

Or else, he was under observation when the Mackenzie murder took place.

Sagar:

"atrocities came to an end", "no more Ripper atrocities", "the series of murders came to an end" sounds like after Kelly... at the same time Cox watched his suspect...

"placed in a lunatic asylum", "removed to a private asylum", "Eventually we got him incarcerated in a lunatic asylum"

Cox did not mention that they got him incarcerated in a lunatic asylum but said:

"It is indeed very strange that as soon as this madman was put under observation, the mysterious crimes ceased, and that very soon he removed from his usual haunts and gave up his nightly prowls" and "but from time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey"

Is it possible that Cox watched mid- December 1888 - mid February 1889? And after this, while Sagar watched "Kosminski", the man became insane again ("from time to time"). Assuming that Cox left his post on 10 February 1889 and "about March 1889" means 24 March 1889 then we have six weeks for "Kosminski" changing his place of business from a shop in a Tailor- Street to Butchers Row.

After the suspect was removed Sagar told Cox that "Kosminski" is in a private asylum in Surrey.

Sagar´s "Identification being impossible" could mean that the ID's with Schwartz and Lawende failed at that time. The "Kosminski" case was weak. But (Cox): He "was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes" and "There were several other officers with me, and I think there can be no harm in stating that the opinion of most of them was that the man they were watching had something to do with the crimes" and (Sagar) "I feel sure we knew the man, but we could prove nothing".

"No one ever saw the Whitechapel Murderer" (Macnaghten).

In this case, Schwartz and Lawende were not at the Seaside Home in 1890/1891. There was another Jewish witness.

I think that Schwartz and Lawende were already confronted with him in October 1888, unsuccessful.

Anderson:

"One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of a virulent type; that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house (I guess Berner Street inquiries) search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were low-class Jews, for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice."

"And the result (The Seaside Home ID two years later) proved that our diagnosis was right on every point."

"Kosminski" was living alone the most of the time ("while the murders were being perpetrated"). At the time of the murders his place of business was in a certain he worked and lived in a little shop and Cox watched him in this street for nearly three months after the Kelly murder.

Cox stated: "it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail"

After Kelly there was an incident on the morning of the 22 November 1888 near Brick Lane.

I guess that "Kosminski" was already found by the police in October 1888 and the IDs with Schwartz and Lawende failed. It is possible that Sagar was in Butcher Row again in December 1890, after the Seaside Home identification took place, shortly before "Kosminski" was admitted to Colney Hatch. Maybe, the Butchers Row was one of "the several shops" but this time, "Kosminski" was not seen there.

Yours Karsten.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

I'm a bit confused by your post with regard to Schwartz. You admonish people to not speculate and to rely solely on hard evidence, yet you constantly tout the fact that Schwartz did not appear at the inquest to confirm your belief that he was lying. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that blatant speculation on your part when no one knows why he did not appear?

c.d.

Actually cd my comments on Schwartz are not based on whether or not he told the truth or lied, they are to point out that IF he was fully believed by the authorities before the Inquest then his story would HAVE to have been submitted in some form at that same Inquest. The story of BSM's attack on someone who is mortally wounded within a very few minutes would have been crucial to the question as to whether her wounds were accidental, self inflicted, or whether she was a victim of a fatal assault.

The fact that there are zero records in existence that suggest anything about Israel' story was entered as evidence in any format should suggest to investigators that his story was not withheld, it was disbelieved.

Now...if that's what the authorities felt about his sighting, then its possible they thought so because they discovered a falsehood or 2 while investigating his claim.

As the records indicate, there is only 1 witness presented at the Inquest as to what he saw at 12:45am, and that is Mr Brown. A sighting which could easily have been the young couple known to be in that immediate area at the time. If he didn't seen Liz, then its probable no-one saw her on the street after 12:35. Which suggests she was off the street..likely already in that alley.

You see cd, if you start with a defensible, sound argument...Israel was not believed by the authorities based on his and his story's absence, then you have a platform from which you can posit some potential outcomes and answers that would be logical.

People appearing and disappearing all unseen or unheard by a witness who, for the period from 12:30 until 1am, was at her door facing the street off an on, seems to suggest that she must have missed seeing anyone who came by the gates during that entire half hour...like Eagle, Israel, BSM, Pipeman, Louis Diemshitz arriving just before 1am. The fact that we know she saw Goldstein at 12:55 shows us that she was indeed at her door during that last 10 minutes at least, and coupled with her statement, makes it a little hard to accept she just happened to have missed seeing or hearing all those people near the gates.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff
This is an interesting take. Where does Koz trial for the dog thing fit in this time line.

Also, who followed him after the ID after he returned to his brother? was that Sagar?

Hi Abbey

I think Kartsen and i have a slightly different take on this...

I think McKenzie was a ripper attack, so i think he was out quite quickly July 1889

Karsten prefers November 1889....walking the dog incident December 1889

At this time (August 1889) Anderson is still claiming he hasn't a clue about the ripper...

Anderson and Monroe fall out over something (Supposedly pensions) in June 1890, I think the Crawford letter relates to this period

By July 1890 six months later Kozminski is taken to the work house but released after a few days, presumably because he is deemed NOT insane

So its possible Sagar is referring to the period following this between and during the Seaside Home ID

Kozminski entering Colney Hatch shortly afterwards Feb 1891

Anderson is saying 'There there is your answer a Maniac revealing in blood' the next year 1892

Yours Jeff

PS and yes I believe Sagar was the person 'on brothers return' the problem is Smith? He must have had to sign off on the expenses as Monty has pointed out.....So Smith knew

[Abby Normal]

Ki Pat

Very interesting.

Of course what I've been arguing is that they were watching the same man at different times..

Cox was following his man following the Kelly murder and unto a time when he went into a Private Asylum in Surrey when MacNAughten says March 1889

The man was only in the private asylum for one or two quarters when the money ran out and was released.

He was later followed at watched at Butchers Row by Sagar

And of course we know he was also followed, following the Seaside Home ID sometime late 1890 when Swanson says for a short time on return to his brothers house.

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff
This is an interesting take. Where does Koz trial for the dog thing fit in this time line.

Also, who followed him after the ID after he returned to his brother? was that Sagar?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello (again) Jeff. Thanks.

"That's the big question, why did Mac think differently from Swanson and Anderson?"

From Anderson--not necessarily Swanson.

Perhaps it's because Mac was not out of town during the investigation, like Anderson?

Cheers.
LC

Lynn... Mac hadn't even joined the force, so this argument is beneath you

As you know I think Swanson the driving force behind the Kozminski theory...I don't think Anderson came by the solution until after August 1889

Two separate events, the same suspect

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Good Morning Michael

Your post is obviously far reaching in its question. I will however attempt to answer it as honestly as possible. But at its heart I believe it goes to the core of what it is to actually be human.

Human beings evolved to survive within their environment and are thus biological machines evolved to INTERPRET their environment, so interpretation and SPECULATION of environment is actually the nature of what we are.

I may have this wrong but you seem to be suggesting that Speculation is a bad thing? And there clearly we must disagree.. Anyone who has ever played a decent game of chess will understand the importance of speculating what your opponent will do actually is...

And most of the great achievements in science have been speculated long before they have been proven...

The discovery of the recent Higgs Boson particle being a point in hand... And it was while taking an interest in the cern project last year that I first started re-thinking the Fido conundrum...

Since you've acknowledged the above Im curious as to what your intentions are by pursuing arguments about what constitutes a viable "suspect".

I first started my interest in the case when I was allowed to stay up after nine O'clock and watch Barlow and Watts, back in those days was the royal conspiracy and later in the eighties the Maybrick Diary but by the naughties my interests had narrowed to the police suspects. The problem and mystery of course is why the various police accounts appear to contradict each other.

Why does Abberline refute MacNAughten and Anderson. Why do these men (All good Coppers) appear to get basic stuff wrong about the various suspects? Why do they appear to argue stuff that is not supported.

This for me has always been the biggest mystery rather than necessarily who JtR actually was.

Good speculation, bad speculation...its all the same really,..its just opinion based information that is not connected with any physical evidence.

No No No... There clearly is good a bad speculation. We no this because scientists have speculated the existence of the Higgs boson and discovered it existed..thats good speculation. They are now speculating that Dark matter and Dark energy exist. In the future I believe they will be proved correct because its GOOD speculation.

In other words Good speculation can lead people to look and search in the correct place.. That is the aim.

Maybe its good enough to simply chat about, certainly not good enough to use as a foundation for a direct accusation.

Firstly I'm far from convinced Anderson and Swanson are correct. Thats not what is being speculated. What I think can be proved is what all the senior police officers said was the truth based on their point of view.

If speculation can lead us to new evidence to that...then that is the aim.

Schwartz is a great example here.....he appears nowhere in the Inquest records, his story is authenticated by no other witness of that night, and we do not even know where he lived on the morning before the crime. Yet people love to speculate about evidence that might have been quietly submitted to the Inquest or been withheld from it. Even though we have an example of how withheld information was dealt with during Inquests from Joseph Lawendes appearance.

I'm not sure I totally agree with you. Schwartz story is supported by what people don't see rather than what they do. Schwartz story of 12.45 am is the only time that what he claims could possibly have happened. If he had stated it at any other time it would have been contradicted by the other witnesses...it wasn't

To understand what happened in Berner street that night you must understand that what people don't see is as important as what they do see.

But this is all rather a red herring, as Karsten has pointed out if Schwartz had of seen JtR and the police were holding the suspect (Kozminski) then is it not reasonable to suppose that he would have been used?

And if he was used he must have failed to ID the suspect or he would have gone to Trial... What we know is the suspect 'must' have been released because Cox was following that suspect for several months afterwards up-unto Mac says he goes into an Asylum March 1889

Speculation: So Schwartz can't have been Swanson's Seaside Home ID witness...the only logical conclusion...

Try using what is actually known, hard evidence, and perhaps you will see that very few questions are answered by it.

I once thought as you do. It wasn't until a 'eurika' moment in the bath last Xmas that the apparent reason for the evidence 'apparently' contradicting itself suddenly hit me... like a bolt from heaven...

Of course ripperologist like Rob House and Karsten Giese had been speculating that Kozminski possibly was involved far earlier than ripperologist had previously considered...

But experiencing the answer for ones self, is what placed me on the road to damascus, as they say...

Its very very simple... What the various policeman say can simply be explained by them talking about completely different events but about the same suspect.

Once you have that...everything makes sense and drops into place

There is no Canonical Group...mere opinion formed it...there is no Jack the Ripper, just some hoax letters that used that nomme de plume,..there is no "Suspect" per se, (as in someone linked by evidence with any of the crimes), there are people that have been suggested as possible based on peoples opinions of the individuals put forth.

Clearly the letters are hoax's and the name Jack the Ripper was the invention of an enterprising journalist.. We know this as Swanson tells us so in the marginalia...

If your trying to argue that because of this a lone serial killer didn't exist then its the sought of reasoning I'd expect from Trevor Marriot

All our knowledge and experience of such murders suggest a lone serial killer, at least of those victims where violence aimed at the female genitalia is evident..thats why so much time is argued about Stride.

Speculation is fun for parlour games, not for investigations.

As i previous said I must disagree with you... Speculation and interpretation is the basis of human survival and our species development, not just a parlour game... One day I believe that speculation will lead to the answer to the universe..

But I once interviewed an ex-member of the CIA who had been responsible for creating a remote viewing program. Being somewhat cynical about the ability of humans to be Psychic I asked him why they spent all that money which was surely a complete waist of time?

He replied that he also doubted that remote viewers where psychic but that it worked and delivered results in finding USSR missiles... His reasoning for this was simply that it was easier to discover missiles if the search area was narrowed down to a specific areas by the remote veiwers..It was a question of mathematics not psychic ability

Thats what I'm hoping the current speculation being advanced will lead to... People searching new areas and going back over once glanced at records..

Martin Fido only ever searched the Colney Hatch asylum records...out there everyday new records come on line... And if people can be encouraged to search them then somewhere is the answer

Karsten is currently reasoning that Kozminski must have had a small shop in the Bricklane area... Yes its a needle in a haystack.. but if the search is narrowed by speculated reasoning then just perhaps something new can be discovered

Its my belief that it is suspect ripperology that has driven the field of research..obviously not always there are great ripperologist who are not suspect based, Neil Sheldon being one in mind, but i do feel that the desire to solve the puzzle is the fields biggest driving force

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

out of town

Hello (again) Jeff. Thanks.

"That's the big question, why did Mac think differently from Swanson and Anderson?"

From Anderson--not necessarily Swanson.

Perhaps it's because Mac was not out of town during the investigation, like Anderson?

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Karsten in my own opinion Sagar and Cox were watching different men at different times.
Sagar was opposite Butchers Row just West of Whitechapel road and Cox was amongst Tailors..

Ki Pat

Very interesting.

Of course what I've been arguing is that they were watching the same man at different times..

Cox was following his man following the Kelly murder and unto a time when he went into a Private Asylum in Surrey when MacNAughten says March 1889

The man was only in the private asylum for one or two quarters when the money ran out and was released.

He was later followed at watched at Butchers Row by Sagar

And of course we know he was also followed, following the Seaside Home ID sometime late 1890 when Swanson says for a short time on return to his brothers house.

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

humour

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Yes, I know about maps. But my remark about "no brainer" involved double entedre. Humour.

Cheers.
LC