Packer and Schwartz

[Ben]

As I said before, it's a strange thing that so much time is spent trying to discredit credible witnesses such as Schwarz and Hutchinson

Actually, the "discrediting" occurred 127 years ago in the latter's case - and they didn't merely "try" to discredit him; they succeeded in doing so. It's the time spent "trying" to revive the account as truthful and accurate that is altogether more perplexing.

But apologies for the thread derailment. Back to Packer and Schwartz...

[curious4]

Actually, the "discrediting" occurred 127 years ago in the latter's case - and they didn't merely "try" to discredit him; they succeeded in doing so. It's the time spent "trying" to revive the account as truthful and accurate that is altogether more perplexing.

But apologies for the thread derailment. Back to Packer and Schwartz...

Hello Ben

How? Where? Reference please!

Best wishes
C4

[curious4]

Hello C4,

I certainly don't think you're an idiot and I unreservedly apologize if I've given that impression. I acknowledge that your theory may make sense from a logical perspective, however, I was trying to point out that it wasn't what Schwartz says he observed. Of course, you are perfectly entitled to your opinions and I have a great deal of respect for you as a poster as your ideas are clearly always well thought out. You have always been polite in your responses to me and to others, which is clearly a credit to you.

Once again, I apologize if I've given offence as that was honestly not my intention.

Hello John

Apology accepted :-)

C4

[Observer]

There is absolutely no need to resort to personal attacks. I am well aware what you mean by "BS". Frankly this post is outrageous and I shall have no hesitation in reporting any further comments of this kind.

Outrageous ? In your opinion. I'll rephrase, I beleive the majority of your thoughts, your input regarding the Whitechapel atrocities are far fetched, and misguided. That's my opinion.

[Ben]

Hi C4,

The issue has been discussed ad nauseam (assuming 15,000 posts is enough to make anyone "nauseous") on the Hutchinson forum, and rather than me elaborating here (for which I would be quite rightly censured), I would recommend a visit there.

All the best,
Ben

[Observer]

There is absolutely no need to resort to personal attacks. I am well aware what you mean by "BS". Frankly this post is outrageous and I shall have no hesitation in reporting any further comments of this kind.

And it hasn't escaped my attention that you've just had to apologise to a poster for behaviour in which the poster considered that you deemed him an idiot.

[Jeff Leahy]

Evening News Portsmouth, 2 October 1888:

"Detective Inspector Reid who has charge of the case, had a great deal of information volunteered to him by women of the class to which the victim belonged regarding men whom they allege to have threatened them with death. Each informant is convinced that the man she saw was the unknown who is now so keenly searched for, but as the description varies in each case it is quite plain that they cannot refer to the same person. According to one he is a thick set and close shaven man, with a short coat and dark trousers; another states that he is a pretty tall man, with short dark whiskers; sometimes he wears a dark ulster, and at others a checked one; now he is well dressed, and again shabby genteel; and altogether the description given are so confusing that they afford no guide to any officer. It would seem that in Whitechapel, Stepney, and Spitalfields there are several petty ruffians who level blackmail upon these women under threats of mutilation, and, after parting with any sum they may possess, the wretched females tell either a constable or some of their neighbours that they have had a narrow escape from the murderer, and give a description of him."

Warren, 24 October 1888:

"I have to transmit, for the information of the Secretary of State, copies of a minute by Mr. Anderson on the subject, and of Reports by Chief Inspector Swanson, which I directed to be prepared on my return from abroad early in September.
Very numerous and searching enquiries have been made in all directions, and with regard to all kinds of suggestions which have been made; these have had no tangible result so far as regards the Whitechapel Murders, but information has been obtained which will no doubt be useful in future in detecting cases of crime."

Lynn,

"there are several petty ruffians who level blackmail upon these women under threats of mutilation" and "useful in future in detecting cases of crime"

Is it possible that "Blackmail" is one of these cases of crime? Is it possible that one of these "petty ruffians" is Schwartz´ BS Man?

These "ruffian" are to be equated with the "Leather Aprons". If my memory serves me well you are an expert for Leather Apron.

Do you know something about Bootlaster (Morris Lubnowski practised this profession/ 1891) who were named "Snob"? If I remember correctly one of the Leather Apron was named "The Mad Snob". Is it right?

http://www.familytreeservice.co.uk/census-occupations-b-Boot-Laster.html

Kind regards,

Karsten.

Not stealing your thunder here Karsten but it also reminds me of the story told by Sarah Cox of a man who assaulted her last wednesday...

So we have two nutters who look similar and have the same name

Aaron Davies/Cohen/Kozminski and David Cohen

Both suffering schizophrenia and on the same street at the same time, on wonder the police were confused?

Yours Jeff

[John G]

And it hasn't escaped my attention that you've just had to apologise to a poster for behaviour in which the poster considered that you deemed him an idiot.

I did not accuse them of being an idiot, nor did I say their posts were "BS", or a "fairytail" (that's simply childish, pantomime language). I apologized because I had clearly given offence, albeit unintentionally, and it was right for me to do so. I have the utmost respect for C4 as a poster and I wished to make that clear, particularly as I failed to convey that sentiment in some of my responses. Nonetheless, as you are not challenging my posts on rational grounds, but are simply resorting to personal attacks, I shall not be responding to any more of your posts.

[S.Brett]

Not stealing your thunder here Karsten but it also reminds me of the story told by Sarah Cox of a man who assaulted her last wednesday...

So we have two nutters who look similar and have the same name

Aaron Davies/Cohen/Kozminski and David Cohen

Both suffering schizophrenia and on the same street at the same time, on wonder the police were confused?

Yours Jeff

Hallo Jeff,

Do you mean Sarah Lewis?

If ever there was a confusion in the case of "Kosminski" then Cohen is a good option.

Yours Karsten.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hallo Jeff,

Do you mean Sarah Lewis?

If ever there was a confusion in the case of "Komsinski" then Cohen is a good option.

Yours Karsten.

Yes more confusion wasn't she also possibly confused with someone else?

But she/they describe a man who assaults them..

Remember Annie Millwoods attack? A far more random stabbing in the buttocks by a lose canon

And far more like the random attack seen by Schwartz

I understand your reasons for preferring PC Smiths suspect, especially given Lawendes description, but I still think Schwartz could have seen the same man, especially as he saw the back view most of the time..

Also remember that Schwartz statement went via an interpreter and then via a rewritten report...

I just think it more probable Schwartz didn't get as good a look as some believe... It was, as some people have pointed out here, dark

I think Schwartz failed to give a positive ID but he told the truth

Yours Jeff

[Observer]

I did not accuse them of being an idiot, nor did I say their posts were "BS", or a "fairytail" (that's simply childish, pantomime language). I apologized because I had clearly given offence, albeit unintentionally, and it was right for me to do so. I have the utmost respect for C4 as a poster and I wished to make that clear, particularly as I failed to convey that sentiment in some of my responses. Nonetheless, as you are not challenging my posts on rational grounds, but are simply resorting to personal attacks, I shall not be responding to any more of your posts.

Thats your perogitive, and did I write fairytail, oh dear. You seem to interpret the Whitechapel series as if it were a pantomime though.

As I have already pointed out, the reason I decided to respond to your posts was based on the fact that you are seemingly in despair of those of us who consider Schwartz to have been a reliable witness. This attitude, was in all probability a contributing factor which led C4 to ask of you why you considered him an idiot.

As regards challenging your posts on rational grounds, well, there are that many instances where this applies I doubt whether I would have the time. I will point out some of the folly though, whether you reply to them is here or there, it doesn't relly matter to me.

[packers stem]

Thanks Observer. As I said before, it's a strange thing that so much time is spent trying to discredit credible witnesses such as Schwarz and Hutchinson (who is accused of being too good, as was a witness in the case of the murder of the Swedish foreign minister, who was proved right) trying to prove dodgy witnesses, such as Maxwell, correct. Almost as big a mystery as the murders lol

Best wishes
C 4

Hi C4
....and your reasons for calling maxwell a dodgy witness are?? Just because her evidence does not fit with a theory it does not make her a 'dodgy witness'
Unlike Hutchinson, we know she existed, turned up at the inquest and was adamant about her sighting despite attempts to lead her away from giving that evidence...Hutchinson on the other hand,polar opposite

[John G]

Hello John

Apology accepted :-)

C4

Hello C4

Thank you. I am honestly mortified that I gave offence and, on reflection, I should have been more objective in my responses.

The reason my replies were robust, and perhaps a little defensive, is that I think you are perhaps the first poster to come up with a rational response to the anomalies in Schwartz's evidence.

Okay, reflecting objectively on your scenario. BS Man grabs hold of Stride, possibly by the scarf, and attempts to pull her towards the street. At this point she is obviously very tense so she clenches her fist. BS man then turns her around and forces her onto the ground (of course, this is what Dr Phillips suggests, but he assumed this occurred in the yard.)

After seeing off Schwartz he strangles Stride, using the scarf as a ligature, until she passes out. This again results in Stride clenching her fist.

Why did he not slit her throat instead? Well, you could make the same argument about some of the other C5 victims, who showed clear signs of strangulation. Therefore, strangling the victim, prior to cutting her throat, may have been part of the ritual.

He then, as you also suggest, picks her up and takes her into the Yard, which explains the lack of damage to the dress. Why not drag? Because that would clearly be more time consuming than simply carrying her. He was simply being expedient.

Once in the yard he slits her throat, but does not have time to mutilate, i.e. because he's disturbed.

Does that make sense? I believe it does, which is why I stated that your argument was well thought out.

Of course, this differs from Schwartz's police account, but then so does the press version, where Stride is pushed and not thrown.

Does this infer Schwartz lied? Well, now that I've had time to reflect on matters with a more objective eye! I would say not necessarily. As you also argued there could have been a problem with translation. Moreover, it is possible that Schwartz didn't have a good view of exactly what happened, i.e as regards the sequence of events. We know the yard was cloaked in pitch black darkness, but it may also have been very dark on the street.

It's possible therefore that Schwartz's imagination simply filled in the gaps.
It may also be the case that he was the type of witness that was eager to please, particularly if he felt pressurized by the police and press interrogators. This may have been the case: the police were desperate for a breakthrough in the case so may have kept trying to coax him into giving more information than he was able to give, resulting in him filling in the gaps in his knowledge. And, of course, coming from an authoritarian state (Hungary) he may have been wary of the police, and concerned about how they might react if he didn't tell them what he thought they wanted to hear.

As I said, it seems to me your theory is logically consistent and difficult to break down. In the end, it largely comes down to whether you believe Schwartz merely exaggerated, whether there were translation difficulties, or whether he lied.

However, a difficulty for me is that the theory does depend on a number of assumptions, although you might argue: so does every other theory!

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello C4

Thank you. I am honestly mortified that I gave offence and, on reflection, I should have been more objective in my responses.

The reason my replies were robust, and perhaps a little defensive, is that I think you are perhaps the first poster to come up with a rational response to the anomalies in Schwartz's evidence.

Okay, reflecting objectively on your scenario. BS Man grabs hold of Stride, possibly by the scarf, and attempts to pull her towards the street. At this point she is obviously very tense so she clenches her fist. BS man then turns her around and forces her onto the ground (of course, this is what Dr Phillips suggests, but he assumed this occurred in the yard.)

After seeing off Schwartz he strangles Stride, using the scarf as a ligature, until she passes out. This again results in Stride clenching her fist.

Why did he not slit her throat instead? Well, you could make the same argument about some of the other C5 victims, who showed clear signs of strangulation. Therefore, strangling the victim, prior to cutting her throat, may have been part of the ritual.

He then, as you also suggest, picks her up and takes her into the Yard, which explains the lack of damage to the dress. Why not drag? Because that would clearly be more time consuming than simply carrying her. He was simply being expedient.

Once in the yard he slits her throat, but does not have time to mutilate, i.e. because he's disturbed.

Does that make sense? I believe it does, which is why I stated that your argument was well thought out.

Of course, this differs from Schwartz's police account, but then so does the press version, where Stride is pushed and not thrown.

Does this infer Schwartz lied? Well, now that I've had time to reflect on matters with a more objective eye! I would say not necessarily. As you also argued there could have been a problem with translation. Moreover, it is possible that Schwartz didn't have a good view of exactly what happened, i.e as regards the sequence of events. We know the yard was cloaked in pitch black darkness, but it may also have been very dark on the street.

It's possible therefore that Schwartz's imagination simply filled in the gaps.
It may also be the case that he was the type of witness that was eager to please, particularly if he felt pressurized by the police and press interrogators. This may have been the case: the police were desperate for a breakthrough in the case so may have kept trying to coax him into giving more information, resulting in him filling in the gaps in his knowledge.

As I said, it seems to me your theory is logically consistent and difficult to break down. In the end, it largely comes down to whether you believe Schwartz exaggerated , or whether he lied.

However, a difficulty for me is that the theory does depend on a number of assumptions, although you might argue: so does every other theory!

I think that a fairly good summary John

Many thanks Jeff

PS I try to assume that people tell the truth, they may of course be in error like MacNaughten thinking Druit was a Doctor, but I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt because its more reasonable to assume the most obvious.

[curious4]

Hello C4

Thank you. I am honestly mortified that I gave offence and, on reflection, I should have been more objective in my responses.

The reason my replies were robust, and perhaps a little defensive, is that I think you are perhaps the first poster to come up with a rational response to the anomalies in Schwartz's evidence.

Okay, reflecting objectively on your scenario. BS Man grabs hold of Stride, possibly by the scarf, and attempts to pull her towards the street. At this point she is obviously very tense so she clenches her fist. BS man then turns her around and forces her onto the ground (of course, this is what Dr Phillips suggests, but he assumed this occurred in the yard.)

After seeing off Schwartz he strangles Stride, using the scarf as a ligature, until she passes out. This again results in Stride clenching her fist.

Why did he not slit her throat instead? Well, you could make the same argument about some of the other C5 victims, who showed clear signs of strangulation. Therefore, strangling the victim, prior to cutting her throat, may have been part of the ritual.

He then, as you also suggest, picks her up and takes her into the Yard, which explains the lack of damage to the dress. Why not drag? Because that would clearly be more time consuming than simply carrying her. He was simply being expedient.

Once in the yard he slits her throat, but does not have time to mutilate, i.e. because he's disturbed.

Does that make sense? I believe it does, which is why I stated that your argument was well thought out.

Of course, this differs from Schwartz's police account, but then so does the press version, where Stride is pushed and not thrown.

Does this infer Schwartz lied? Well, now that I've had time to reflect on matters with a more objective eye! I would say not necessarily. As you also argued there could have been a problem with translation. Moreover, it is possible that Schwartz didn't have a good view of exactly what happened, i.e as regards the sequence of events. We know the yard was cloaked in pitch black darkness, but it may also have been very dark on the street.

It's possible therefore that Schwartz's imagination simply filled in the gaps.
It may also be the case that he was the type of witness that was eager to please, particularly if he felt pressurized by the police and press interrogators. This may have been the case: the police were desperate for a breakthrough in the case so may have kept trying to coax him into giving more information than he was able to give, resulting in him filling in the gaps in his knowledge. And, of course, coming from an authoritarian state (Hungary) he may have been wary of the police, and concerned about how they might react if he didn't tell them what he thought they wanted to hear.

As I said, it seems to me your theory is logically consistent and difficult to break down. In the end, it largely comes down to whether you believe Schwartz merely exaggerated, whether there were translation difficulties, or whether he lied.

However, a difficulty for me is that the theory does depend on a number of assumptions, although you might argue: so does every other theory!

Hello John

As I remember the man put a hand on her shoulder. What I am suggesting is a shift in meaning regarding what Schwarz (or his interpreter) said, from thrown to the ground to forced to the ground (although I believe it would be possible to throw someone to their knees). Forcing her down to her knees would not make her drop the cachous. Then quickly throttling her with the scarf (her hands would clench due to the throttling) and then carrying her into the yard so as to quickly be able to cut the throat and begin with the mutilations. After the throat cutting he was disturbed.

This would explain the cachous still being in her hand (they had to be prised out) and how she got from the pavement to the yard.

Not expecting everyone to agree, but it does explain the cachous, which no-one else has done I think.

There it is, warts (or cachous) and all.

Best wishes
C4