Packer and Schwartz

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff
Fido never believed the Police seaside home "theory" ?Really? why not?

The Police seaside Home theory was largely advanced by theorists at the time... Martin was aware that Anderson claimed the ID took place in an Asylum.

However in a recent email he told me they only ever searched the Colney Hatch Asylum records in Middlesex. Very little was known about Kozminski back in the eighties and Anderson called him a poor polish jew, they didn't know he had wealthy family members.

So when Kozminski turned up almost two years after MacNaughten said he went into the Asylum March 1889, it was assumed Aaron Kozminski must be the wrong man and he plumbed for David Cohen... Actually I now believe he may have been closer to the truth than he realised...there are many similarities between Kozminski and Cohen, possibly David Cohen was confused with a man running a boot shop in Bricklane...Aaron Cohen

But Martin didn't tie Cox and Sagars theory with Andersons.... 'From time to time became insane' 'Followed for three months' 'A Private Asylum in Surrey'

Colney Hatch is in Middlesex

We have two high level police that mention very specific details regarding the ID including placing it into a series of events.

MM probably also alluded to it-Kosminsky..."strongly resembles.." etc.

He strongly resembled a man seen by a City PC in Mitre Street...

A watchman saw a man and a woman head from Aldgate Station to Mitre Square...but only the man returned... was he here seen by a City PC as he left Mitre Sq down Mitre Street back towards Aldgate and left into Goulston Street?

That would explain why Kozminski was a City suspect and why he was followed by Cox and Sagar

Yours Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Yes its quite clear that the ID took place in a Surrey Asylum... A convalescent Home, Martin Fido never believed the Police Seaside Home theory

The suspect a witness in Millers Court not Dutfield yard?

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff
Fido never believed the Police seaside home "theory" ?Really? why not?
We have two high level police that mention very specific details regarding the ID including placing it into a series of events.

MM probably also alluded to it-Kosminsky..."strongly resembles.." etc.

[Jeff Leahy]

Anderson (Blackwoods):

I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him; but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.

Karsten.

Yes its quite clear that the ID took place in a Surrey Asylum... A convalescent Home, Martin Fido never believed the Police Seaside Home theory

The suspect a witness in Millers Court not Dutfield yard?

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

C. He drags her possibly by her scarf. At this point, she would have to believe that she was being dragged to her death. Now if her scarf was wrapped around her neck and the B.S. man was using it to drag her, wouldn't the natural reaction be to insert your hand between the scarf and neck and try to pull the scarf away? Try this yourself and notice what shape your hand is in. Wouldn't the cachous fall out if your hand was in this position? And even if you were trying to push the B.S. man away what effect would this have on the cachous which were between her thumb and forefinger? Wouldn't that have ripped the tissue paper that was covering them and wouldn't the cachous scatter as a result?

It seems to me that if you believe the B.S. man to be her killer that you have to come up with a reasonable way to answer this question.

c.d.

Hi CD

As she turns BSM pushes one arm holding the cachous up behind her back hard causing extreme pain she grasps the mints..

At the same time with his other arm he grabs the scarf, leaving Strides other arm free but failing to pull the scarf away... (Check out the Jack the Stripper murders)

She faints still holding the cachous, she twists as she is dragged two paces into the yard and throat cut in two movements

Another possibility of course is that as Gwyneth said, he simply picked her up and cut her throat as he lay her down

I prefer the dragging as I've experimented drugging objects over slats...the skirt would glide quiet easily..

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

St Mary's Bethlehem? Although it has moved a few times over the years, didn't know it was in Surrey?

Don't they have intact records from the period?

Cheers.
LC

Yeah the sight of the now `Imperial War museum (originally Bedlum) was in 1888 in surrey the boundaries going into Southwark

Records are still available near Bromley South London

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

It's hard to judge when we today have no idea what Kozminski looked like in 1888.

Actually Cox gives a very good description of the man he watches connected to a sweater shop.1888-89

A lot of time, energy and man power was put into following Cox's suspect, so a big pile of paper work..

The question is actually if it wasn't Kozminski why didn't MacNAughten list Cox's suspect as more likely than Cutbush? He did after all believe that the man he followed was the murderer....

MacNaughten: 'There were many circumstances'

But Schwartz must have either failed to ID the suspect or he didn't see the murder

Yours Jeff

[Ben]

Wouldn't it be a reasonable assumption by the B.S. man during these minutes that Schwartz and/or the Pipeman had found the nearest P.C. and were now headed back to where Schwartz saw Stride?

A very reasonable assumption, CD, and it may explain the absence of abdominal mutilations; dispatch her quickly and scarper before the pesky "Lipski" could return with a copper.

I choose option B, incidentally, albeit with alterations. He threatens her, possibly with a knife, and explains to her that he has no intention of killing her; he simply wants to have his wicked way without paying, explaining that if she screams, she'll receive the knife treatment.

[curious4]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Schwartz is telling the truth as to what he saw. When he leaves the scene, Stride (according to his story) is not in the place where she was found dead. So how does the B.S man get her back into the yard? I can think of three ways:

A. She goes with him voluntarily. This doesn't seem very probable especially if she has just been brutally attacked by the B.S. man as some people believe and he has also just threatened Schwartz. Liz would have to be extremely naive to think that they were going back into the yard to discuss the weather. A severe beating would be the least of her worries. And what reason would the B.S. man give her for needing to go back into the yard?

B. He threatens her, possibly with a knife. If this is what happened wouldn't she believe that her life is in danger? If so, why not scream for help? What does she have to lose? Yes, there was singing coming from the club but Mrs. Diemschutz and Eagle stated that there was a door open and they believed that despite the singing they would have heard an argument or anything out of the ordinary. Yet, they heard nothing.

C. He drags her possibly by her scarf. At this point, she would have to believe that she was being dragged to her death. Now if her scarf was wrapped around her neck and the B.S. man was using it to drag her, wouldn't the natural reaction be to insert your hand between the scarf and neck and try to pull the scarf away? Try this yourself and notice what shape your hand is in. Wouldn't the cachous fall out if your hand was in this position? And even if you were trying to push the B.S. man away what effect would this have on the cachous which were between her thumb and forefinger? Wouldn't that have ripped the tissue paper that was covering them and wouldn't the cachous scatter as a result?

It seems to me that if you believe the B.S. man to be her killer that you have to come up with a reasonable way to answer this question.

c.d.

Thanks cd :-)

Gwyneth

[Hunter]

Yes Cris.

[I] The notice is headed: "Apprehensions sought. Murder. Metropolitan Police District"; and it proceeds:

"The woodcut sketches, purporting to resemble the persons last seen with the murdered women, which have appeared in The Daily Telegraph, were not authorised by police. The following are the descriptions of the persons seen:

"At 12.35 a.m., 30th September, with Elizabeth Stride, found murdered at one a.m., same date, in Berner-street - A man, aged 28, height 5ft 8in, complexion dark, small dark moustache; dress, black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; respectable appearance; carried a parcel wrapped up in a newspaper.

At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street, a man, aged about 30, height 5ft 5in, complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.

"Information to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Police Office, Great Scotland-yard London, S.WW...

Yes, Jon...November 12, the information provided by Israel Schwartz is publicly circulated by the Metropolitan Police . 3 weeks after the inquest had concluded. Nearly a month and a half after the murder of Elizabeth Stride took place...Yep, November 12, 1888.

People let their own bias get in the way. And that Star report gets to be the bait. Look at the peripheral events; look at what happened previously with Pizer; look at what Wynne Baxter was facing; look at the perceived danger that this witness might have been in if it was possible that he saw the beginning of an actual murder (whether we believe it or not is irrelevant)... And look at how little the Police had to go on...and one might come up with a rational explanation for why Israel Schwartz or his evidence wasn't presented at the inquest.

Thanks for posting that Jon. Maybe it'll have more impact on the theorists here than if I had posted it.

[S.Brett]

Are you making a distinction between the Whitechapel murderer, and the Killer?

Thank you, Jon!

No, they are always the same.


Karsten.

[S.Brett]

Hello Karsten. Thanks.

Yes, that MIGHT be the one. But can we be sure that this is Swanson's reference?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

No, we can´t be sure.

But I see a strong connection between Swanson´s "where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification" and "he was watched by police (City CID)". I think that the "Sender" was the same as the "Watcher", the City Police CID.

Detective Robert Sagar (City Police):

"We had good reason to suspect a certain man who worked in 'Butcher's-row,' Aldgate," he said, "and we watched him carefully. There was no doubt that this man was insane, and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum."
(second half of 1890?)

Detective Harry Cox (City Police):

"He occupied several shops in the East End, but from time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey." (December 1888-about March 1889?)

I think it is possible that Sagar spoke about Swanson´s "sent by us". They, the City Police, brought "Kosminski" to the Police Seaside Home in Brighton. They brought "Kosminski" to the MET Police and to a MET Police witness. In this case the witness cannot be Lawende. And I see no reason why Schwartz would not have been used as a witness before the second half of 1890. Schwartz might have been seen "Kosminski" and did not recognize him (as Lawende) or BS Man had not been "Kosminski". The Jewish Seaside Home witness, I suspect, he is from the Kelly-Case.

Sagar:

"There was no doubt that this man was insane"

This could be the reason for "with difficulty" (Swanson). If the City Police brought "Kosminski" to his private asylum in Surrey (Holloway?) and then again towards to Holloway´s Seaside Home (if in Brighton) they could bring "Kosminski", across the street, to the Police Seaside Home where he, in a case of a positive identification, could be kept safe. The question is, is it possible that Holloway did use the Seaside Home in Brighton before June 1891? Unless, who was the user of this Seaside Home in 1890? This "user" could tell us something about a private asylum in Surrey.

Anderson (Blackwoods):

I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him; but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.

Karsten.

[curious4]

I was glancing through Scotland Yard Investigates last night when I came across this: Swanson wrote a long report to the Home office on the 20th October. In it he is doubtful regarding Schwartz' evidence. Not because he thought he was lying, but because he thinks there would have been time for Liz (who he believes was picking up clients that night (I don't agree, sorry Swanson) to pick up another "client". This means that he did believe Schwartz, but found what he thought was a weakness in his evidence as to getting a conviction.

Personally I think that if Liz had picked herself up and got away she would have legged it home as fast as she could but Swanson does have a point - if all the times are correct.

Best wishes
C4

[curious4]

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

"The KNOT was tied tightly. And if she had had the scarf tied tightly for longer than the time to render her insensible, don't you think there would have been more signs of strangulation than just the clenched hands - tongue protruding for example?"

In my opinion, she was taken down that way. In trials, my wife and I tried pulling a standard slip knot. It decreased the circumference of the scarf and made the knot tight. Then, as neck was cut, it would have frayed the scarf.

"And finally, in order for the scarf to be as you say, he would first have had to undo the knot and tie it again tightly. Much easier to pull and twist, thus tightening the knot, but not the scarf."

Well, if it were a slip knot (see above), it would be both.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn

You may well be right. I don't tie my scarves with a slipknot, but Liz may have, I just don't know :-). Watched your enactment, and very impressive it was! Think my scenario is just as likely though!

Best wishes
Gwyneth

[curious4]

Hello Gwyneth,

But do you consider the cachous surviving her being thrown to the ground as Schwartz described to be a problem?

c.d.

Hello cd

It has always been a puzzle - and I like to solve puzzles. If she had been thrown headlong she must have dropped them. I don't go for the going into the yard with a new customer after picking herself up again, even if Swanson thought it was possible.

Best wishes
C4

[lynn cates]

tommyrot

Hello (yet again) CD.

Excellent trifurcation. Yes, all three make such seem unlikely.

Yet, IF the BSM story be true, he surely killed her.

So why not jettison this tommyrot and reject Israel's story?

Cheers.
LC