Packer and Schwartz

[packers stem]

I dont see this as an inconsistancy, it all depends what he was asked.
Seeing something suspicious around the club or selling anything to anyone are two seperate questions.
Maybe the police already had a suspect and didn't want to give too much away?
Not appearing at the inquest could have been for two reasons: One not reliable evidence and the second credible evidence that needed to be kept under wraps?

Pat....

Hi Pat
Was it not an offence for the police to withhold schwartz' evidence from the inquest as has been previously suggested?

[David Orsam]

Thanks for all the responses which are making me confident that I haven't missed anything.

Whatever the reason Schwartz wasn't called at the inquest, I think we all agree that nothing in his testimony could have disproved the "double event" due to the possibility of the murderer being interrupted for all kinds of reasons, including by Schwartz's own appearance.

As for Packer, even if he would have testified that he sold the grapes to Stride at midnight and saw her with a man at 12.30am, and even if that man was the murderer, I can't see any inconsistency between that testimony and the possibility that the person who murdered Stride then went off to murder Eddowes.

Puzzling, therefore, why Simon Wood wrote the sentence quoted in the OP and a shame he hasn't appeared to explain it.

[John G]

Thanks for all the responses which are making me confident that I haven't missed anything.

Whatever the reason Schwartz wasn't called at the inquest, I think we all agree that nothing in his testimony could have disproved the "double event" due to the possibility of the murderer being interrupted for all kinds of reasons, including by Schwartz's own appearance.

As for Packer, even if he would have testified that he sold the grapes to Stride at midnight and saw her with a man at 12.30am, and even if that man was the murderer, I can't see any inconsistency between that testimony and the possibility that the person who murdered Stride then went off to murder Eddowes.

Puzzling, therefore, why Simon Wood wrote the sentence quoted in the OP and a shame he hasn't appeared to explain it.

Hallo David,

Yes, I completely agree.

[Michael W Richards]

I'm interested too. Schwartz has always been my favorite witness.

One of the witnesses in all these cases that almost certainly lied to the investigators.....recalling of course that there is not a single source that corroborated even 1 minuscule fraction of Israels claims. And the fact that there is no record in existence that suggests his story, in any format, was made available to the jurors at the Inquest,... or even entered as evidence.

People often forget, or discount, the statements of Fanny Mortimer to the press...some very shortly after she was interviewed by the police, that put her at her front door with an unimpeded view of all goings on at or near the gate "off and on", from 12:30 until 1am. This statement is partially corroborated by Leon Goldsteins admission Tuesday evening that he passed by the gates at the same moment Fanny reported seeing him do so.

Her statements also put any question of a precise 1am arrival of Louis to rest...if she didnt lie then he was either simply mistaken, or he lied. In which case he may have discovered the body when he arrived at around the time Israel claimed the victim was still alive, outside the gates. Something that would be supported by Spooners timing. Because Fannys statement places her at her door continuously for the last 10 minutes of that hour.

[packers stem]

One of the witnesses in all these cases that almost certainly lied to the investigators.....recalling of course that there is not a single source that corroborated even 1 minuscule fraction of Israels claims. And the fact that there is no record in existence that suggests his story, in any format, was made available to the jurors at the Inquest,... or even entered as evidence.

Hi Michael
Swanson's report:
If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt on it,it follows-if they are describing different men that the man schwartz saw and described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer...
The other description being that given by PC Smith

From the A-Z :
As schwartz evidence was in the highest degree material, it would have been a serious offence for the police to have withheld his testimony from the coroner, and Wynne Baxter was not a coroner who would let such defalsification of duty pass by lightly.Two other witnesses did not testify either..
That's Mortimer and packer

I'm not sure why Schwartz is getting blamed for not appearing at the inquest. Not his decision..maybe we should blame the people who made the decision
It's not schwartz who was unreliable,I suggest the same with Packer

[Damaso Marte]

I believe that Stride and Eddowes were killed by the same person. I also believe that Schwartz fabricated his story.

If you can ever prove to me that Schwartz was a valid witness, I will renounce my belief in the double event. To me, what Schwartz describes cannot be a Ripper crime, one of the hallmarks of the Ripper being stealth and silence.

[John G]

One of the witnesses in all these cases that almost certainly lied to the investigators.....recalling of course that there is not a single source that corroborated even 1 minuscule fraction of Israels claims. And the fact that there is no record in existence that suggests his story, in any format, was made available to the jurors at the Inquest,... or even entered as evidence.

People often forget, or discount, the statements of Fanny Mortimer to the press...some very shortly after she was interviewed by the police, that put her at her front door with an unimpeded view of all goings on at or near the gate "off and on", from 12:30 until 1am. This statement is partially corroborated by Leon Goldsteins admission Tuesday evening that he passed by the gates at the same moment Fanny reported seeing him do so.

Her statements also put any question of a precise 1am arrival of Louis to rest...if she didnt lie then he was either simply mistaken, or he lied. In which case he may have discovered the body when he arrived at around the time Israel claimed the victim was still alive, outside the gates. Something that would be supported by Spooners timing. Because Fannys statement places her at her door continuously for the last 10 minutes of that hour.

Hello Michael,

Yes, I tend to agree. Schwartz's evidence is questionable. There are a number of anomalies regarding his BS man suspect, the account he gave to the newspapers differs from the account he gave the police, and his evidence is undermined by Fanny Mortimer.

[John G]

I believe that Stride and Eddowes were killed by the same person. I also believe that Schwartz fabricated his story.

If you can ever prove to me that Schwartz was a valid witness, I will renounce my belief in the double event. To me, what Schwartz describes cannot be a Ripper crime, one of the hallmarks of the Ripper being stealth and silence.

Hello Damaso,

Yes, a very good post. Clumsy BS man, launching a clumsy full-frontal attack against Stride in front of two witnesses, doesn't seem like JtR at all, who I agree was far more stealthy-as I think Stride's killer was, considering that she was murdered at a time when Mrs D was probably just a few feet away, in the kitchen with the window open.

And then there's the issue of Stride managing to cling onto the cachous whilst being grabbed, spun round, and thrown to the ground. And the lack of bruising or grazing, which you would expect in such a scenario.

I also agree that if Stride was not killed by BS man, then she was probably killed by JtR. However, if she was, then I think the "Double Event" scenario is very unlikely.

[David Orsam]

To me, what Schwartz describes cannot be a Ripper crime, one of the hallmarks of the Ripper being stealth and silence.

Hi Damaso,

This is the key question in this thread but I don't understand why you are saying that the man seen by Schwartz could not have been the murderer of the other women in the Whitechapel area in the autumn of 1888. Whoever the murderer was, and however stealthy and silent he was, he was still only human and at risk of being seen and caught. And the man seen by Schwartz wasn't exactly noisy.

In any event, while we can all have our opinions, I can't see how Schwartz's evidence, even if true, and even if he saw Stride being murdered, disproves the notion that the same man went on to murder and mutilate Catherine Eddowes a short time later.

[Damaso Marte]

Hi Damaso,

This is the key question in this thread but I don't understand why you are saying that the man seen by Schwartz could not have been the murderer of the other women in the Whitechapel area in the autumn of 1888. Whoever the murderer was, and however stealthy and silent he was, he was still only human and at risk of being seen and caught. And the man seen by Schwartz wasn't exactly noisy.

In any event, while we can all have our opinions, I can't see how Schwartz's evidence, even if true, and even if he saw Stride being murdered, disproves the notion that the same man went on to murder and mutilate Catherine Eddowes a short time later.

Well, I can't convince you of my position. All I can do is offer myself as an example of somebody who does believe that Schwartz's evidence, if valid, disproves or at least severely undermines the double event.

Whoever killed Eddowes did it in complete silence despite many potential witnesses nearby, including families sleeping above the square, police officers on beat nearby, a night watchman, etc. Whoever killed Nichols did it without waking the neighbors above. Whoever killed Chapman failed to rouse an entire tenement of potential witnesses approaching their morning wakeup time. With the possible exception of Cadosch and the woman who heard the door close in Miller Court, nobody heard the killer of these women get in or get out. To me, stealth and silence is one of the things that all of these murders have in common.

Now you're telling me that killer, in the course of one of his other crimes, started a common street brawl? I don't buy it. Perhaps you do, but I'm just trying to explain to you the fact that I don't, and that I exist.

[Wickerman]

Well, I can't convince you of my position. All I can do is offer myself as an example of somebody who does believe that Schwartz's evidence, if valid, disproves or at least severely undermines the double event.

Whoever killed Eddowes did it in complete silence despite many potential witnesses nearby, including families sleeping above the square, police officers on beat nearby, a night watchman, etc. Whoever killed Nichols did it without waking the neighbors above. Whoever killed Chapman failed to rouse an entire tenement of potential witnesses approaching their morning wakeup time. With the possible exception of Cadosch and the woman who heard the door close in Miller Court, nobody heard the killer of these women get in or get out. To me, stealth and silence is one of the things that all of these murders have in common.

Now you're telling me that killer, in the course of one of his other crimes, started a common street brawl? I don't buy it. Perhaps you do, but I'm just trying to explain to you the fact that I don't, and that I exist.

Agree entirely, but what you list are justifiable reason's not believe BS-man was the killer. You have listed nothing that suggests Stride's killer didn't kill Eddowes.

[Damaso Marte]

I suppose it's possible that somebody (perhaps even Pipeman) killed Stride after BS man left, and that this is what you're getting at. To me, Schwartz lying is the simpler explanation, but, yes, two attacks on Stride in the same hour is a thing that could have happened on the streets of Whitechapel.

[packers stem]

I believe that Stride and Eddowes were killed by the same person. I also believe that Schwartz fabricated his story.

If you can ever prove to me that Schwartz was a valid witness, I will renounce my belief in the double event. To me, what Schwartz describes cannot be a Ripper crime, one of the hallmarks of the Ripper being stealth and silence.

Hi Damaso
Can you of one sensible reason why Schwartz should wander into a police station and fabricate this story?

[c.d.]

It is very easy to fall into the trap of interpreting Event A (Schwartz's account of the interaction between Stride and the B.S. man) in light of Event B (Stride's death). If we use the word "attack" that applies malicious intent and we have no way of knowing the true intent of the B.S. man. It is quite possible that he simply wanted to give her a shove in response to her mouthing off to him. It need not be nothing more than that. He does so with a few added curse words and off he goes. Her actual killer (who I believe was Jack) then enters the scene. This scenario eliminates all of the red flags associated with the B.S. man being Stride's killer and also eliminates a lying Schwartz involved in some sort of elaborate cover-up.

c.d.

[Jeff Leahy]

Dr Blackwells estimated time of death 12.50 am makes it almost certain Schwartz witnessed Strides murder.

The murder was indeed different to the other murders as Stride was soliciting on Jacks Turf.. The others all picked up on a short stretch of Whitechapel High Street... (Except possibly Kelly who met jack near the Princess Alice)

Packer also probably knew the suspect by sight..the Batty Street lodger, as the suspect lived close to Berner street... Packer had seen him on many occasions and did afterwards..

However I now think it unlikely Schwartz was Swanson's witness, why not use him straight away? They did after all have the suspect in custody and had to let him go... As Cox says they followed him for three months after the Kelly murder, and he was placed in a private asylum in Surrey in March 1889 as MacNaughten says...

So schwarz was not the Seaside Home witness

Stride was almost certainly a ripper victim

Yours Jeff