Packer and Schwartz

[c.d.]

Hello (again) Abby.

"There are zero inconsistencies with his story-only people inventing them to push there own far fetched theories."

Nothing could be more far-fetched than Schwartz's story.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

But isn't that assuming that the B.S. man was her killer? Schwartz never claimed to have witnessed a murder so how can his story be considered far-fetched in that regard?

c.d.

[Ben]

If Schwartz told the truth - and I've seen no convincing evidence to suggest otherwise - the likelihood is that the man he witnessed assaulting Elizabeth Stride was the same man who killed her. Remove "Jack the Ripper" from any preconceptions we might have, and nothing could be more screamingly obvious than that reality. I'm utterly undecided as to whether or not she was a ripper victim, but her assailant was almost certainly the broad-shouldered man described by Schwartz.

If people argued along the lines that Stride wasn't a ripper victim because the ripper would never behave like BS-man, that would be one thing, but here we seem to be encountering something much worse; that BS-man can't have been Stride's killer because the ripper wouldn't act that way, which is a disastrously silly and circular argument, for what I hope are obvious reasons.

[c.d.]

Hello Ben,

Since you chose to highlight the word "assault" I am assuming that you are attaching a great deal of importance to it. I admit that assault does sound pretty bad but we have to ask ourselves if all assaults are equal or if some are more equal than others.

Now if the B.S. man walked by Liz and gave her a pinch on her behind and said "hey, nice butt" would that not constitute an assault as well? Would we then immediately assume that he had to have been her killer since he was guilty of assault?

Schwartz only says he saw a woman being pushed to the ground. While it was definitely an assault it was certainly not an uncommon event in Whitechapel and hardly a hanging offense. It is therefore quite a leap to conclude that the B.S. man was almost certainly her killer especially since Swanson allowed for the possibility of another killer.

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi CD,

Schwartz only says he saw a woman being pushed to the ground. While it was definitely an assault it was certainly not an uncommon event in Whitechapel and hardly a hanging offense.

I realise that, but what happened almost immediately after that physical assault on a defenseless woman was the murder of that defenseless woman. The conclusion that any competent investigator would arrive at would be that the attack and murder were almost certainly committed by the same man; occurring as they did around the same time according to the medical evidence.

Swanson allowed for the possibility of Stride being so cataclysmically unlucky as to be attacked by one man and then minutes thereafter murdered by a different man in the same spot, but he never suggested that it was likely or plausible.

Again, there are persuasive arguments for and against Stride being a ripper victim, just as there are arguments for and (less persuasively) against Schwartz being truthful. The only weak argument is the "have-your-cake-and-eat-it" proposal that Stride must have been a ripper victim so let's dispense with any eyewitness evidence that might point towards an un-ripperish type of offender.

Gun to head: Stride was a ripper victim.

Gun to head: Schwartz told the truth.

Gun nowhere near my head: BS man killed Stride.

[Abby Normal]

Hi CD,



I realise that, but what happened almost immediately after that physical assault on a defenseless woman was the murder of that defenseless woman. The conclusion that any competent investigator would arrive at would be that the attack and murder were almost certainly committed by the same man; occurring as they did around the same time according to the medical evidence.

Swanson allowed for the possibility of Stride being so cataclysmically unlucky as to be attacked by one man and then minutes thereafter murdered by a different man in the same spot, but he never suggested that it was likely or plausible.

Again, there are persuasive arguments for and against Stride being a ripper victim, just as there are arguments for and (less persuasively) against Schwartz being truthful. The only weak argument is the "have-your-cake-and-eat-it" proposal that Stride must have been a ripper victim so let's dispense with any eyewitness evidence that might point towards an un-ripperish type of offender.

Gun to head: Stride was a ripper victim.

Gun to head: Schwartz told the truth.

Gun nowhere near my head: BS man killed Stride.

The voice of reason. Thank heavens.

But let me alay any uncertainty you may still have Ben about whether stride was a ripper victim with two simple words:

Peaked cap.

[c.d.]

Hello Ben,

The problem is that we have no way of knowing the intention of the assault (and a piss poor assault it was at that relatively speaking). It is certainly possible that the B.S. man had no real intention of hurting Liz but drunkenly gave her a shove for mouthing off to him. It needn't be anything more than that.

You describe it as being cataclysmically unlucky for Stride to have been attacked by two different men in so short a period. I disagree. It's not like she was standing outside a church on a Sunday afternoon among a group of people. She was a lone woman, standing on the street late at night, in a bad area at a time when the pubs were closing and drunk men were heading home. How surprising can it be that she might have gotten hassled a bit?

There were literally all kinds of possibilities that Swanson could have mentioned which he didn't so it seems reasonable to assume that by mentioning a second man that he considered it certainly plausible. Otherwise why mention it at all?

I agree that a competent investigator would initially assume the B.S. man to be her killer, but further investigation would bring to light all of the red flags associated with that conclusion.

c.d.

[Hunter]

Not Swanson then....who did clearly believe Schwartz... But hush.. can't have the minions knowing for a hundred years...so we'll keep him away from the inquest so we keep looking for a sailor or a jew
This was just the met's standard unhelpful attitude in attempting discredit the best witnesses

The police could not keep any witness from any coroner's inquest.

[Wickerman]

If Schwartz told the truth - and I've seen no convincing evidence to suggest otherwise - the likelihood is that the man he witnessed assaulting Elizabeth Stride was the same man who killed her.

There is no dispute that this is the traditional view. What is being explored here is that there is an alternate, or there are alternate views.

The police published the Smith suspect for a reason, and Swanson rightly observed that there was time between the BS-man "assault" at about 12:45, and the discovery of the body at about 1:00 for Stride to have met up with another man.
The police obviously felt justified in suspecting the Smith suspect just as equally as the Schwartz suspect. We do not possess any more evidence than the police had, and their view was split.

That being the case, we are quite justified in treating both views equally, that is to say, nothing is "obvious" about which suspect was responsible, otherwise the police would have arrived at that same conclusion at the time.

[Ben]

Hi CD,

She was a lone woman, standing on the street late at night, in a bad area at a time when the pubs were closing and drunk men were heading home. How surprising can it be that she might have gotten hassled a bit?

I fundamentally disagree with the proposed "dumbing down" of the assault witnessed by Schwartz. Stride was not merely "hassled" but thrown to the ground, and I dispute very strongly the suggestion that this represented the standard nightly treatment that a prostitute might expect. She was, in every sense of the word, attacked; a defenseless small-framed woman by a drunken, burly man, and the medical opinion was to the effect that she was probably killed around the time of that attack.

There ought to be no doubt, therefore, as to the most likely suspect in Stride's murder. A competent detective would conclude that the man witnessed attacking the victim shortly before 1.00 was the same man who murdered her, shortly before 1.00.

I agree that a competent investigator would initially assume the B.S. man to be her killer, but further investigation would bring to light all of the red flags associated with that conclusion.

We've probably discussed this many times, but I would dispute the existence of any particular "red flags" associated with that particular conclusion.

[Ben]

The police obviously felt justified in suspecting the Smith suspect just as equally as the Schwartz suspect. We do not possess any more evidence than the police had, and their view was split.

Not so, Jon.

I'm not aware of any police faction who considered PC Smith a more likely witness to have seen the actual killer than Schwartz. Conversely, we have the opinion of Donald Swanson, who wrote:

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt on it, it follows ... that the man Schwartz saw and described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer."

[c.d.]

One last post and then I have to go. Sorry.

It seems to me that if you believe that Stride being assaulted twice in a few minutes defies all odds, you are not taking into account the circumstances.

Consider this scenario - Two bitter rivals in a championship football match. A supporter of one team is standing outside the stadium of the other team with a sign highly mocking the other team. He gets cursed at and spit at and shoved several times in the course of a few minutes. Would that be so shocking that we could say wow the poor guy was just standing there and look what happened to him? It simply defies all odds!. No, of course not because we would take into account the circumstances.

So it seems to me that those who consider Stride to be incredibly unfortunate to be assaulted twice in a few minutes are either not taking into account the circumstances or they they have trouble believing that Whitechapel was a rough place with a lot of drunk men and harassment and bad treatment of women was commonplace.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

I'm not aware of any police faction who considered PC Smith a more likely witness to have seen the actual killer than Schwartz.

Where did "more likely" come from Ben?
I wrote "equally".

Equally, because Scotland Yard only released two suspect descriptions related to the Stride murder, the Schwartz suspect and the Smith suspect.

Conversely, we have the opinion of Donald Swanson, who wrote:

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt on it, it follows ... that the man Schwartz saw and described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer."

Being your selective self again I see Ben.
Very conveniently omitting the relevant line:

"...so that I respectfully submit it is not clearly proved that the man that Schwartz saw is the murderer..."

Not "obvious", in other words, which is what I was saying, and Swanson said it too.

[Ben]

Hi CD,

I'm afraid I very strongly dispute both the applicability of your football analogy and your interpretation of the "circumstances" outside Dutfields Yard at 12:45am that night. You speak of "bitter rivals in a championship football match", but there was no "rivalry" between the club attendees and prostitutes, bitter or otherwise; if anything there was a rousing, drink-fuelled political debate followed by the prospect of a shag before bedtime.

It's not just the sheer implausibility of two separate attackers descending on the same woman within minutes of each other, but rather the unlikelihood of the woman remaining in the same exact location following the first attack to await the murderous second.

[Ben]

Being your selective self again I see Ben.

Following me around everywhere I post with personal attacks I see, Jon.

You accuse me of omitting the Swanson quote that it was not "clearly proved" that BS man was Stride's killer, but where did I state that it was? All I did was correct your mistaken belief that the police considered Schwartz and Smith "equally" likely to have seen the real killer. Swanson made it perfectly clear that he considered Schwartz "the more probable of the two" to have seen the murderer, if indeed they were describing different men.

[Pcdunn]

I was surprised to read that Liz Stride was known as "Long Liz", despite being only five-foot three. I suppose this is due to seeing her portrayed by tall actresses in films.

However, remember that size is relative in historical times, usually due to nutrition. Liz may have been much taller than the average female denizen of Whitechapel, possibly verging into the territory of male height.
After all, we have suspects described as ranging from five-foot five to seven. On the lower end, the man might be only a few inches taller than Elizabeth Stride was. Also, remember that she was a farm-girl, and had worked in a public house alongside her husband. She very likely had some strength.

She does seem small and slight to us, today, but it may not have been so then.