Packer and Schwartz

[c.d.]

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.

[S.Brett]

Hello Pat!

Thanks.

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.

Henry said:

While the Whitechapel murders were being perpetrated his place of business was in a certain street, and after the last murder I was on duty in this street for nearly three months.

and

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

Sagar and Macnaghten (March 1889) mentioned that he was removed to an asylum. Cox did not mention that his man was removed to an asylum but he said: gave up his nightly prowls and (later?) was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey. Could it be possible that Henry Cox watched December 1888, January & February 1889 (nearly three months) and Sagar watched February - März 1889 (for a few weeks) the same man at different locations?

While the Whitechapel murders were being perpetrated his place of business was in a certain street and after the murders? Where was his place of business?

He occupied several shops in the East End and, maybe, one of these shops was a shop in Butchers Row?

When he gave up his nightly prowls what were the reasons for this? Could he have changed his place of business from his shop in a street of tailors to a shop in Butchers Row after Cox?

My man was evidently of opinion that he might be followed every minute

If his man stopped killing prostitutes because he was evidently of opinion that he might be followed every minute a job in Butchers Row would have been a "good compensation".

Of course, pure speculation.

Karsten.

[Abby Normal]

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

Speculation is fun for parlour games, not for investigations.

Hi Mike

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 think that detectives trying to solve a case have to speculate about all the evidence and what it means and how it may be connected or not connected to other evidence during an investigation into a crime. And that's pretty much what anybody does here whos interested in the whodunit aspect of the case.

You seem to be dismissing Schwartz as a witness for some reason, but lets see what we have here in terms of his possible validity:

1. A man claims to have seen an assault on a woman approx. 15 minutes before she is found murdered a few feet away.

2. His description tallys with other descriptions of suspects through out the series.

3. His description SPECIFICALLY matches with several other witness descriptions of that night of a man seen with the woman and subsequent murder victim as wearing a peaked cap.

4. Nowhere in the police record does anyone ever question the truthfulness of his story.

5. Schwartz was described as having a heavy jewish appearance and the suspect he saw yelled a racial slur Lipski at him. Later in the evening, during the subsequent investigation of another similarily murdered woman, who was also seen with a suspect wearing a peaked cap, an anti semitic graffiti was found next to a proven clue.

6. Scwhartz had a very viable reason to be where he was when this took place-he was on his way home.

7. Schwartz was a new immigrant to the country, didn't speak the language, and from his timid actions, it dosnt seem he would be the type to lie in a major police investigation, thereby endangering himself and family to the legal ramifications.


From the above I come to the rather obvious conclusions that:
1. He was an honest witness. (95%)
2. He probably saw Strides killer. (90%)
3. He more than likely saw the ripper. (80%)

(Ive just added the percentages to weight the likelihood IMHO.)

Now in terms of you questioning that this wasn't a series of murders-the police at the time held all the cases as the "Whitechapel Murders" and all and any police who weighed in on how many of these were linked to the same man, everyone ascribed at least an amount of victims that would be defined as being murdered by a serial killer.

Unless every police officer at the time was a complete an utter moron, and the doctors were all wrong, the press and the public were all wrong,and over a hundred years of expert experience in criminal investigations that include linking crimes via victomology, MO/sig and geographic profiling is all awaste of time, then in all likelihood there was a serial killer on the loose and its the onus on people such as yourself who dispute this to come up with evidence that there was not.

[Paddy]

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.

Henry said they sat and drank Kosher Rum with the Jewish people so I think it must have been a cafe or pub opposite. I believe there may be goad maps on Casebook. My guess for Henry would be any of the streets between Commercial road and Whitechapel road, but that is only a guess.

I dont think that Sagars brother would have been living in London as the family all seemed to stay in Lancashire. His brother was a farmer there. The place where he was born was Simonstone Lancashire.

Pat...........

[Michael W Richards]

Again I dispute the using of the word Mere...

Suspect ripperology is primarily SPECULATION

There is good and bad speculation depending on the facts and supporting evidence

Yours Jeff

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

Speculation is fun for parlour games, not for investigations.

[S.Brett]

PS only two more days to go, we will have a 4 am start...

In spirit we will be there!

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff!



"Identification being impossible" (Sagar) and "no one ever saw the Whitechapel Murderer" (Macnaghten) can mean many things and it could mean that Schwartz and Lawende failed long before the Seaside Home ID took place.

(Off topic:

I am currently working on our "Brick Lane" problem and I saw that the Brick Lane is not comparable with the Tailor Streets of this kind (New Road,Settles Street, Nottingham Place, Greenfield Street, Plumbers Row etc.):

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=470

I think "the shop" (Cox) was not in Brick Lane. It seems to me "near" Brick Lane is a better option.

What do you think?)

Yours Karsten.

Yeah I think close to the Smith murder scene...Osbourne Street and Brick lane

Martin Fido always banged on about Black Lion Yard which is just off the junction... He always connected Kaminsky of course but if anything comes up there worth a try..

Yours Jeff

PS only two more days to go, we will have a 4 am start...

[S.Brett]

Hello Jeff!

Thats why Karsten has been arguing that not only was Schwartz a poor witness but that he possibly failed to ID the suspect Kozminsk

"Identification being impossible" (Sagar) and "no one ever saw the Whitechapel Murderer" (Macnaghten) can mean many things and it could mean that Schwartz and Lawende failed long before the Seaside Home ID took place.

(Off topic:

I am currently working on our "Brick Lane" problem and I saw that the Brick Lane is not comparable with the Tailor Streets of this kind (New Road,Settles Street, Nottingham Place, Greenfield Street, Plumbers Row etc.):

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=470

I think "the shop" (Cox) was not in Brick Lane. It seems to me "near" Brick Lane is a better option.

What do you think?)

Yours Karsten.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello (yet again) Jeff.

"That's why we are arguing we should go back and listen to what Cox, Sagar, Macnaughten, Swanson and of course Anderson said... and come to the conclusion what they said was correct."

I think Mac was spot on--he exonerated Kosminski.

Cheers.
LC

We're sought of going in full circles here but yes... thats what is being argued on this thread... MacNaughten was inclined to think Kozminski a weak suspect

WHY???

Thats the big question, why did Mac think differently from Swanson and Anderson?

Thats why Karsten has been arguing that not only was Schwartz a poor witness but that he possibly failed to ID the suspect Kozminski

The evidence must have been poor or they would have put him to Trial in November 1888.... Why didn't they? Why did they let him go and follow him for almost three months?

This is all tied with what MacNAughten actually says MARCH 1889

Thats when MacNAughtens knowledge of Kozminski ended...stop..zielch ..caput

MacNAughten never knows that Kozminski is in Colney Hatch, if he did he would have said so, as was his style

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello (again) Jeff. Thanks.

Another geographical suspect? Of course--the chap you mention: Charles Cross.

But he is no more compelling than Kosminski.

Cheers.
LC

Um.. I refer you back to good or bad speculation... At best Lechmere can be connected to the bucks row murder scene, tied up with some wild geography given his route to work..

Where as the two men in charge of the case name Kozminski as a leading suspect considered at the time by police... MacNAughten..A strong suspect

These are not factors that should be ignored

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello (yet again) Jeff. Thanks.

"all collected within a few hundred yards by someone who lived and worked within a few hundred yards"

Not bad, but MERE speculation.

Cheers.
LC

Again I dispute the using of the word Mere...

Suspect ripperology is primarily SPECULATION

There is good and bad speculation depending on the facts and supporting evidence

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Good Morning Lynn

Hello Jeff. Thanks.
Yes, plenty of weak solutions--including maps.

Its not about maps, maps are just a visual of Geography. They might also depict social and economic factors. Perhaps transport and accessibility.

Maps are useful things, especially when trying to picture stuff in your head.

Actually, it was the brutality of the Smith through Nichols murders that drew their attention.

"In fact if you think about it geography plays an important part in most serial killers coming to the attention of the police. It's not until you have two or three bodies in a similar local, that serial killer is considered."

I hope you see the circularity in this.

The police were considering a link between the murders of Tabram, Smith and Nichols, long before some enterprising young journalist came up with JtR..

Lots of possibilities were considered including gangs.. But the fact that they were considered out of the ordinary so quickly tells us a lot about crime in 1888.

This kind of Serial killer was very rare

Thanks, but I do not support Druitt either.

"It's a sign of the times that all sorts of weird and wonderful theories and conspiracies have been forwarded...another Masons conspiracy being a recent case."

Don't support this either.

It doesn't matter whether or not you think Druit or anyone else was JtR.

You can still look at the feasibility of each of the 139 suspects? (I've lost count at present) but you can still rate them in plausibility...

So if we look at Druit V Lechmere, I think we can say based on MacNAughtens private info that Druit is a more important suspect..

But if we just look at the geography then surely Lechmere would be a more credible suspect? So we factor in lots of stuff when reaching conclusions about any of the 139 suspects

What I'm saying is very simply if we only consider the geography then on that alone Kozminski must become the leading contender

"I don't think there's anything mysterious considering the FBI investigation techniques for such a crime... Ask yourself which ever town you live in... let's say Maidstone... If a series of murders started to happen... a woman having an object inserted into her, a woman frantically stayed, then a series of disembowelled prostitutes on the street...and you were a copper."

Would you

a) Think it was a member of the Royal family
b) Think it was a local group of charity fund raisers
c) Local medical students
d) Consider criminals with previous
e) That a serial killer might be on the lose?"

Depends on specific features. Given that a series of killings had taken place amongst women in Dusseldorf, I might include Emma Gross. And I would be WRONG--she was NOT killed by Kurten like the rest were.

"Frankly I think the geography is a no brainer. . ."

So do I. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Your arguing against yourself here maps = Geography (Physical and Social economic)

Yours Jeff

[S.Brett]

Hi Karsten, I think this is the most likely Robert whose dad was Robert a farmer b 1821 and mother Sarah 1831. As far as I can see he had a brother William Henry 1856 who appears not to have married but took over his fathers farm and two sisters Sarah 1862 and Elinor 1865.

Pat.......

Thank you so much Pat!

Yesterday I found a Harry Sagar, 116 Brick Lane, Watch Maker in 1891. This is not far from the crime scene Hanbury Street.

There was a Sagar- Observation in December 1890 in Aldagte High Street opposite Butchers Row. Maybe, Sagar also watched one of the butchers; Bullas No.58, De Leeuw 59, Rayment 60 or Bosman 62.

Your great uncle Henry Cox stated:

"We had the use of a house opposite the shop of the man we suspected" End of 1888/ beginning 1889

Yesterday I was not able to find any sisters of Robert Sagar on Ancestry and World Vital Records/My Heritage Family Trees (if present at all) because I was too busy with other things...

If Harry and Robert Sagar watched the same man (Kosminski) in each case they had the use of houses opposite of these shops. In one of these cases it is possible, I guess, that they were lucky and one of the Policemen had a "friend" in one of these streets who could help them.

What do you think?

Again thank you and many greetings from Germany,

Karsten.

[lynn cates]

spot on

Hello (yet again) Jeff.

"That's why we are arguing we should go back and listen to what Cox, Sagar, Macnaughten, Swanson and of course Anderson said... and come to the conclusion what they said was correct."

I think Mac was spot on--he exonerated Kosminski.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Cross

Hello (again) Jeff. Thanks.

Another geographical suspect? Of course--the chap you mention: Charles Cross.

But he is no more compelling than Kosminski.

Cheers.
LC