Packer and Schwartz

[lynn cates]

reason

Hello (again) CD.

"Of course you now have to come up with a REASON why Schwartz would lie. That could be kind of tough."

Hasn't this been discussed many times before? If you look at the AF piece I had translated, the club lads complained about police harassment.

If they felt threatened by possible police suspicions, what more natural than such a fib?

And if the Leman lads figured it out, then:

1. They would doubt the story.

2. Schwartz would not get called to inquest.

3. The club lads would hope for the story to pass into oblivion, and so would certainly NOT bring it up in their account of that night.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

non-threatening

Hello CD. Thanks.

"But only if she felt threatened in the first place."

And, I suppose being bounced off the pavement by a drunken brute is non-threatening? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

inference

Hello Abby. Thanks for the kind words.

A weak inductive inference might be that the lads at Leman had understood the significance of the unspilled cachous.

Perhaps that prompted the question put to the doctors at inquest regarding spillage HAD she been thrown to the ground?

Also, it is interesting that the club, in their official Arbeter Fraint story, make NO mention of Schwartz.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Inductions R Us

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Perhaps you mean logical INDUCTION? There can be no deduction like this.

They might be the same, but I see no reason to assume so.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

which?

Hello Karsten. Thanks.

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

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

slip knot

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

[lynn cates]

records

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

[c.d.]

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.

[c.d.]

Hello Jon

Her hands were clenched (sign of quick throttling with a ligature) but no protruding tongue (if she had been choked for longer). I think if he was quick in twisting the handerchief she would have had no time to cry out/scream again. He only needed her unconscious until he cut her throat. The doctor only said he could not say. As do I, but I think my scenario explains why she didn't drop the cachous and how he got her into the yard behind the door.

Best wishes
Gwyneth

Hello Gwyneth,

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

c.d.

[c.d.]

NO!!
its because of this thread and what the posters have posted!

Good for you, Abby. Someone keeping an open mind is a bit of a rarity on here.

Of course you now have to come up with a REASON why Schwartz would lie. That could be kind of tough.

I know you don't like the idea (well despise it actually) of another killer besides the B.S. man but it does explain a lot of discrepancies in Schwartz's statement and eliminates the idea of him lying.

So with your new open mind dip your toe in the water on that one.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Thanks.

"If every Whitechapel prostitute (yes, yes I know, Lynn) fled the streets after such an encounter they would starve to death."

One need not flee the streets--one need merely reposition to a safer location.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

But only if she felt threatened in the first place.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi c.d.



But it's precisely that first "if" that I'm challenging.

I completely dispute that Stride "chose to stay in the same spot after her encounter with BS man". I'm suggesting that she was only likely to remain in the same spot between the arrival of her physical attacker and her subsequent murder - occurring as they did within minutes of each other - because she was kept there, against her will, by her physical attacker who minutes thereafter revealed himself to be her murderer.

All the best,
Ben

Hello 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?

c.d.

[c.d.]

"It would be nice to know why they might not have believed him and why he wasn't at the inquest.

Does anyone know why he wasn't there?"

Hello Abby,

No, no one knows for sure but that hasn't stopped some posters on here from saying that THEY KNOW but the reality is that they are speculating like every one else.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

I've been reading about Coroners and think its probable that Schwartz's written evidence was given but the Coroner chose not to call him, possibly at request of police....However if there was a chance of arresting someone the Coroner would probably have postponed the inquest, so an arrest was not on the cards at that time.

My own personal take on it is that the Schwartz statement was surpressed as it involved a sighting of pipeman, who I think could have been undercover.

Pat.......

Hi Pat.

A witness may still be permitted to provide testimony even if the police would prefer the witness not to mention one particular incident or suspect.
Instructions would be given not to ask certain questions, or that he may be allowed to refuse to answer any question that may give too much away.
As was the case at the Eddowes inquest with Lawende.

We have all looked in the Coroner's summary to see if he alludes to certain details that could only have come from Schwartz, but there is no indication the Coroner knew anything of the story given by Schwartz.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon!

(Please excuse my onesidedness concerning "Kosminski")

Hello Karsten.
Yes, I had noticed you are viewing these crimes with Kozminski in mind.

That is interesting! I suspect that the police has found "Kosminski" after the Double Event in October 1888 (Batty Street story etc.).

Actually, that listing of recent suspect descriptions was a reprint from the Police Gazette of 19th Oct. The version I quoted (Nov. 12th) was the first appeal to the public in general.

Maybe he was one of many suspects. But I assume that the witnesses, Smith, Schwartz and Lawende would have "seen" this suspect after the police had found him. But no one of them recognised "Kosminski" (perhaps with "the exception" of the City PC). One could think that he looked quite different compared to these descriptions.

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

... Mrs.Long and Lawende, I guess, saw the Whitechapel Murderer... but did PC Smith and Schwartz see the killer?

Karsten.

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