Packer and Schwartz

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello (again) Jeff. Thanks.

"Because Anderson didn't write the note it was written by Crawford, a letter of introduction not mentioning her name suggesting a third person involved between the woman and Crawford."

Indeed. But how does this implicate, specifically, Kosminski?

Cheers.
LC

It would certainly fit with a theory that sujests Kozminski entering an Asylum in March 1889...

But an ID not happening until late 1990

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff. Thanks. Hope the situation is resolved.

No still on the emergency waiting list...bags packed...but a def date 13th Nov

"Cox describes following a suspect after the Kelly murder and this would fit Kozminski if he indeed went into a private asylum in Surrey in March 1889."

Indeed. but it could fit MANY others as well.

Again I draw you back to Mac's list.. A suspect followed as long and considered to be the murderer by Cox must have been an important suspect... So if it wasn't Kozminski then why isn't another suspect named?

Cox and Sager can't have been describing Druit , who was dead or Ostrog who was in Jail.

"If it wasn't Kozminski why don't we have another name on the list? Say he was following Hyam Hyams, why isn't he down as a more important suspect than Cutbush?"

You mean Mac's list? I don't think Mac was keen on others than Druitt. In fact, we was not keen on Kosminski, either.

Yes Yes precisely, thats what Karsten has been arguing... Why did MacNAughten prefer Druit, when Swanson and Anderson say he was positively ID'd by the only man who ever had a good look at the murderer and he knew he was identified?

Thats because MacNaughten had the original file created by Cox.... And that doesn't mention anything after March 1889... And the ID took place shortly before Kozminski entered Colney Hatch Feb 1891

Macanughten didn't know about the ID. or what happened after March 1889

"What they describe certainly does [not?] fit Ostrog or Druitt."

Well, so far as we know. But not sure it fits Kosminski either?

Cox gives quiet detailed description of surveillance at a sweater premises. Of a man with short dark curley hair

He's talking about Kozminski alright...if he isn't where is his suspect?

"So by elimination we are left with Kozminski."

Well, with all due respect, Kosminsk--and scores of others.

Scores? I'm not certain about that..but there was another man on the street that was the same age, the same condition and a similar name..David Cohen.. Were they both bought to Leaman police station...was there confusion?

But I suppose your case is based primarily on his being named by Mac?
Cheers.
LC

No my case is primarily on him being named by Swanson...'Kozminski was the suspect'

It cooberated to an extent by Anderson, MacNaughten, Sims, Griffiths, Abberline, Reid, and of course Cox and Sagar

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Lynn.

It may be nothing more than the fact the police have two witnesses, Brown & Schwartz, who both claim to have seen the same woman at the same time in different locations.
This is sufficient to render a little doubt in one or the other's story.

Good Morning Jon

But the police were on the ground and knew this territory, they patrolled the distances and therefore would have realised instantly that Schwartz and Brown don't contradict each other...You merely have to know the terrain and the distance between Commercial Street and the Shop on the corner of the junction Fairclough Street, some distance apart

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

after

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Yes, indeed. But I'm not sure their doubts arose until AFTER they began their investigation? It seems that, only then, were they disposed to disregard his story.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Packer

Hello (yet again) Jeff. Thanks.

That helps a bit.

Not sure I would bet much on Packer, though.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

implicate

Hello (again) Jeff. Thanks.

"Because Anderson didn't write the note it was written by Crawford, a letter of introduction not mentioning her name suggesting a third person involved between the woman and Crawford."

Indeed. But how does this implicate, specifically, Kosminski?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

inference

Hello Jeff. Thanks. Hope the situation is resolved.

"Cox describes following a suspect after the Kelly murder and this would fit Kozminski if he indeed went into a private asylum in Surrey in March 1889."

Indeed. but it could fit MANY others as well.

"If it wasn't Kozminski why don't we have another name on the list? Say he was following Hyam Hyams, why isn't he down as a more important suspect than Cutbush?"

You mean Mac's list? I don't think Mac was keen on others than Druitt. In fact, we was not keen on Kosminski, either.

"What they describe certainly does [not?] fit Ostrog or Druitt."

Well, so far as we know. But not sure it fits Kosminski either?

"So by elimination we are left with Kozminski."

Well, with all due respect, Kosminsk--and scores of others.

But I suppose your case is based primarily on his being named by Mac?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

""Their suspicions"? You mean Leman Street?"

Quite.

Hi Lynn.

It may be nothing more than the fact the police have two witnesses, Brown & Schwartz, who both claim to have seen the same woman at the same time in different locations.
This is sufficient to render a little doubt in one or the other's story.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello (yet again) Jeff. Thanks.

OK, if he were in for a long time beginning March 1889, he must have been out whenever he was in court for his unmuzzled dog.

A time line would be helpful.

Cheers.
LC

We can only guess at a time line..

If he goes into a Private Asylum in March 1889, its safe to assume they paid quarterly upfront. That would place him out either end of June 1889 or if two months October 1889

One lets him out to kill MacKenzie and walk the dog

The other allows only to walk the dog

When Does packer say that he had again seen the man who killed Stride on the street? That would gibe another potential date

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello (again) Jeff. Thanks.

Very well--"smoothly," if you like.

In that case, the cachous were NOT spilled--but neither was the BS story true about being thrown to the pavement.

Cheers.
LC

I guess that depends how good you believe Schwartz interpreter was... she can't have 'screamed three times but not very loudly' either

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Good Morning Lynn, we're again on emergency waiting list so may have to disappear at any moment but will try and fit in a reply

"However the info on Kozminski was excellent and in front of him...all those inconclusive reports put together by Cox and Sagar, so MacNaughten still plumps for Druitt."

Assuming, of course, that Sagar and Cox were actually describing Kosminski.

I think it can be reasoned. Again through what we don't see rather than what we do. Cox describes following a suspect after the Kelly murder and this would fit kozminski if he indeed went into a Private asylum in Surrey in March 1889.

If it wasn't Kozminski why don't we have another name on the list? Say he was following Hyam Hyams, why isn't he down as a more important suspect than Cutbush?

What they describe certainly does fit Ostrog or Druit

So by elimination we are left with Kozminski

"And why would Anderson keep only one letter relating to the whitechapel murders if it didn't have some significance to him?"

Indeed. But why is Kosminski the referent? He is not mentioned.

Because Anderson didn't write the note it was written by Crawford, a letter of introduction not mentioning her name suggesting a third person involved between the woman and Crawford.

Do we have her testimony?

Not to my knowledge... Just that she was attacked with a knife by Aaron

Whom was the new witness from Miller's Court?

Cheers.LC

Ah now there is a question... possibly it requires its own thread

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

time line

Hello (yet again) Jeff. Thanks.

OK, if he were in for a long time beginning March 1889, he must have been out whenever he was in court for his unmuzzled dog.

A time line would be helpful.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

smooth

Hello (again) Jeff. Thanks.

Very well--"smoothly," if you like.

In that case, the cachous were NOT spilled--but neither was the BS story true about being thrown to the pavement.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

varia

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"However the info on Kozminski was excellent and in front of him...all those inconclusive reports put together by Cox and Sagar, so MacNaughten still plumps for Druitt."

Assuming, of course, that Sagar and Cox were actually describing Kosminski.

"And why would Anderson keep only one letter relating to the whitechapel murders if it didn't have some significance to him?"

Indeed. But why is Kosminski the referent? He is not mentioned.

"The woman in question was the woman attacked in Bricklane on 22 Nov 1888, a woman who refused to give evidence because she didn't want to implicate her brother... On his later release from the asylum she became scared for her expected twins and changed her mind, agreeing to testify."

Do we have her testimony?

"The meeting happened between August 1889 (When Anderson still had no clue) and July 1890 (When Anderson fell out with Monroe) and at some time a new witness was discovered and bought forward...a witness from Millers Court, a witness discovered after Abberline's transfer."

Well, in my opinion, Anderson NEVER had a clue. (heh-heh)

Whom was the new witness from Miller's Court?

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello (yet again) Jeff. Thanks.

"Isn't that what Karsten is speculating? that he was in custody and Schwartz for some reason failed to ID him?"

Possibly. But the problem is that Kosminski was out for as long as he was.

Cheers.
LC

He was only out for three months, and may already have been going in and out over the period... they were searching private asylums shortly before Xmas 1888

But he went in where MacNAughten says March 1889 for a long time

He just wasn't at Colney Hatch

Yours Jeff