Packer and Schwartz

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

Why would the police divulge their belief in the veracity of a witness in an ongoing murder investigation? Was this a standard practice or a serious breach of police protocol? Also, the police had no control over how a reporter looking for a story chose to interpret what was said to him. The point being that it need not be the case that the police stated this explicitly.

c.d.

Hi c.d.

I have never believed press claims that Scotland Yard shared anything with the press, beyond the occasional official press release.
Apparently the City Police did treat the press with a little more respect, them being more forward thinking than Scotland Yard at the time.

To your specific point, any statement given by a witness to the police will be treated as confidential. The words used by the Star are vague (surprise, surprise!), and suggest the police have not fully investigated Schwartz's story, we are told:

"...the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story."

The Star are not saying this is a conclusion, which is a clue to how reliable that comment may be.
Until the witnesses story is thoroughly checked out the police are in no position to comment on it, especially to a member of the press.

Had the story been fully investigated and found to be irrelevant to the inquiry, then there would be no harm in an officer sharing that with the press, but the choice of wording does not suggest this to the reader.
Ergo, I read that comment by the Star as false.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi jeff,

Im not sure Id agree with your rundown, but the last point..;



A member named Heschberg, Isaac Kozebrodski... Louis Diemshitz's assistant, and Edward Spooner all gave times of approximately 12:40-12:45 as to when they were first alerted to the dying woman.

And Morris Eagle said he "couldn't be certain" that the dead woman was there at 12:40, he didn't ever say that she wasn't.

My point here is that the members list we can associate with some high standing among the top...Eagle, Diemshitz and Wess, at least for his his role at the paper, all are contradicted by other accounts.

Fanny Mortimer contradicts Louis Diemshitz by virtue of the fact that she didn't see anyone or anything else but Goldstein between 12:50 and 1am, and Louis stated emphatically he arrived at one. Kozebrodski, Heschberg, and Spooner all contradict Brown and Schwartz and Louis, and Brown didn't see any color on either person, which considering the corsage, makes his sighting more probably of the young couple. Who we know were loitering again due to Fanny Mortimer.

Only the most liable for anything the club might have done are the ones that have zero corroboration. Interesting in context.

Cheers

Hi Michael

Just a quick reply as the rugby final is about to start...And I have covered this in previous posts

Fanny is place at her door by Goldstein who past through Berner street SHORTLY BEFORE 1 am... So it ties with her going inside and hearing the cart.

Brown's POV meant he could not have seen the flower, because she had her back to the wall and the man stood between Brown and the Flower.

There was enough time for Stride to leave the man and meet BSM as he and Schwartz had only just turned into Berner Street.

Brown had his back to Stride and would not have seen her leave towards Dutfield..

Yours Jeff

[c.d.]

With regard to Fanny Mortimer, I recall a discussion earlier stating that she had a sick husband and several children. Was that ever confirmed? I think I saw something in that regard but simply can't remember now.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Jon,

Why would the police divulge their belief in the veracity of a witness in an ongoing murder investigation? Was this a standard practice or a serious breach of police protocol? Also, the police had no control over how a reporter looking for a story chose to interpret what was said to him. The point being that it need not be the case that the police stated this explicitly.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi jeff,

Im not sure Id agree with your rundown, but the last point..;

Stride can not be dead at 12.40 am as Morris eagle passes through the yard and doesn't see her

Yours Jeff

A member named Heschberg, Isaac Kozebrodski... Louis Diemshitz's assistant, and Edward Spooner all gave times of approximately 12:40-12:45 as to when they were first alerted to the dying woman.

And Morris Eagle said he "couldn't be certain" that the dead woman was there at 12:40, he didn't ever say that she wasn't.

My point here is that the members list we can associate with some high standing among the top...Eagle, Diemshitz and Wess, at least for his his role at the paper, all are contradicted by other accounts.

Fanny Mortimer contradicts Louis Diemshitz by virtue of the fact that she didn't see anyone or anything else but Goldstein between 12:50 and 1am, and Louis stated emphatically he arrived at one. Kozebrodski, Heschberg, and Spooner all contradict Brown and Schwartz and Louis, and Brown didn't see any color on either person, which considering the corsage, makes his sighting more probably of the young couple. Who we know were loitering again due to Fanny Mortimer.

Only the most liable for anything the club might have done are the ones that have zero corroboration. Interesting in context.

Cheers

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

If the police definitely determined that Schwartz had lied to them and that his non-appearance at the inquest confirms this, they apparently did nothing about it. Wouldn't he have been charged? Also, wouldn't they have also come to the conclusion that the club was behind it all? As a Jew with a wife and young child and being an immigrant you would think that Schwartz would be fairly easy to intimidate. If the police hated the club, they could have said to Schwartz give us the names of the club members involved in this conspiracy and we will give you a break.

I suppose that there are a number of reasons why this didn't happen. What is your take on it?

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon, Cris.

"There is no basis for an argument that the police (ie; Scotland Yard) did not believe Schwartz up to Oct. 19th."

Please be aware that "the police" were not a single entity.

So, one more time, Swanson believed the tale. And if he authorised the description circulation, that would make sense.

At the same time, coppers on the ground doubted the story.

No anomaly here--merely a difference of opinion. This is part of the disconnect between coppers on the ground and those collating in the office.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

Speaking for myself, I think it fair to point out that we do not possess any direct opinion from the "coppers on the ground". What we do have is press opinion, which appears to have been the result of questions posed to these "coppers on the ground" going either unanswered or being given the brush-off.

Here is an example:
A representative of the Press, in an interview yesterday with Superintendent Foster, of the City police, was assured that the rumour that a portion of the body of the woman found in Mitre-square was missing was totally unfounded. 2 Oct.

.... while their metropolitan brethren who have charge of the Berner street outrage are by no means, it is said, anxious to assist newspaper men, but on the other hand rather frustrate them in their inquiries. 2 Oct.

The police at Leman-street refuse to give any information, and some officials who had come from Scotland-yard denied that such an arrest had been made but this statement was, of course, incorrect, seeing that the arrest is admitted by the prisoner's relatives. The prisoner is a Jew. 9 Nov.

We have several examples of police being evasive or indeed, directly lying to the press.
That being the case, we cannot trust what a frustrated press will write when their inquiries are being rejected or treated with contempt.

What do you think the result would be when a reporter is told by an officer, "we do not believe the story given by the witness". The reporter can only walk away right?
What do you think the officer wanted the reporter to do?

[Jeff Leahy]

"On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night"

I guess: Return from the asylum, not from the identification. In this case "Kosminski" was perhaps for months in an asylum before he returned to his brotherīs house in Whitechapel. During this period the ID took place at a Seaside Home, the Seaside Home of the Surrey asylum or a Police Seaside Home.

Karsten.

Interestingly Holloway at least charged a quarter up-front, so if he did go inside March 1889, then he'd be out June-July...

Which is why I've never ruled out the MacKenzie attack as being Jack...Although I understand that Swanson didn't think she was... But then he didn't know Kozminski was out either

Yours Jeff

[S.Brett]

Hello Karsten. Thanks.

Kosminski does not seem insane in his court appearance. But, to be fair, it could have been a recurring condition.

Is there a suggestion that Kosminski was committed multiple times?

Cheers.
LC

COX 'from time to time he became insane'

This is consistent with Schizophrenia which is a cyclicur illness skiing in waves and periods of recovery... But schizophrenia alone would not make someone dangerous they would also require underline personality disorders

'A great hatred of women'

I think Carsten is speculating that Kozminski went in and out of a Private asylum in Surrey... Police were searching Private asylums as early as December 1888

Yours Jeff

Lynn & Jeff, Hello again,

Cox:

"but from time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey"

And as Jeff wrote: Police were searching private asylums in December 1888. I guess that Cox started the surveillance after "Kosminski" was discharged from a private asylum.

The again in 1889, Macnaghten:

"he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889"

December 1889 at large (The dog)

1890/1891

Anderson:

when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum... the only person... identified him

Swanson:

"On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night"

I guess: Return from the asylum, not from the identification. In this case "Kosminski" was perhaps for months in an asylum before he returned to his brotherīs house in Whitechapel. During this period the ID took place at a Seaside Home, the Seaside Home of the Surrey asylum or a Police Seaside Home.

Sims "Polish Jew" and the "Russian doctor":

"Both these men were capable of the Ripper crimes, but there is one thing that makes the case against each of them weak.

They were both alive long after the horrors had ceased, and though both were in an asylum, there had been a considerable time after the cessation of the Ripper crimes during which they were at liberty and passing about among their fellow men."

Karsten.

[S.Brett]

Hello Jeff.

"She was described as muddy on her left side, so I don't see why she could not have been dragged."

Ever try dragging someone lying on a side (rather than on back)?

This is a good experiment for you and your partner.

Cheers.
LC

By the way...

Hello Lynn, Hello Jeff,

Four years ago we took some interesting pictures. The players are very good friends of us. It is a "Hanbury Street" scene and they represented Chapman and the "foreigner". My partner took the photos and I did what I prefer to do: Giving instruction!

A brief glance at the man, would you recognize him days later?

What is his age? At that time the guesses were between 25-40 (and over) years of age.

Ok, it is not the Dutfields Yard but perhaps you will find it helpful.

Karsten.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff

Hope your partner's surgery goes well. Have had back surgery myself so I know what it's like.

Best wishes
C4

Yes, a permanently trapped Sciatic nerve, means she's in constant pain, so any surgery can't be as bad as the endless nights sleep and morphine patches..

I will pass on your regards and keep my fingers cross that Mr Guy can finally sort her out and get back to normal life

Thank you Jeff

[curious4]

Lynn my partner has three collapsed vertebrae and a broken back and is facing a major operation in two weeks time...I don't think its going to go down well as a suggestion

That said some years ago we did try this, and if dragged by the left outstretched arm, she naturally twists onto her side... I didn't try dragging her by a neck scarf, to dangerous..

But if we ever meet up at conference then perhaps we should get all the info together and experiment....I've even got an idea who we could ask to be Liz Stride..lol

Yours Jeff

Hello Jeff

Hope your partner's surgery goes well. Have had back surgery myself so I know what it's like.

Best wishes
C4

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff.

"She was described as muddy on her left side, so I don't see why she could not have been dragged."

Ever try dragging someone lying on a side (rather than on back)?

This is a good experiment for you and your partner.

Cheers.
LC

Lynn my partner has three collapsed vertebrae and a broken back and is facing a major operation in two weeks time...I don't think its going to go down well as a suggestion

That said some years ago we did try this, and if dragged by the left outstretched arm, she naturally twists onto her side... I didn't try dragging her by a neck scarf, to dangerous..

But if we ever meet up at conference then perhaps we should get all the info together and experiment....I've even got an idea who we could ask to be Liz Stride..lol

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello (again)
No, and neither was Swanson. For had he been, the case would have been solved

Cheers.
LC

But don't Anderson and Swanson believe that it was...'a definitively ascertained Fact'

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Perhaps at the sack makers at the end?

Cheers.
LC

Perhaps she was just rolled off Deimschutz cart?

Yours Jeff