Packer and Schwartz

[Wickerman]

Fanny saw no-one but the young couple, Brown saw the young couple.

Hi Michael.

This other couple, at least according to the female, had left Berner St before the incident. So it is quite possible, even likely in my opinion, that Mrs Mortimer was away from her door for considerably longer than she estimated. Which means she simply missed most of the activity.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

Ok...on the first point, you recognized that Fannys sighting of a man and a bag is corroborated when Leon and his translator (Wess again?) come in to the station on Tuesday night, but you didnt recognize that Fannys "off and on" comment suggests that she was at her door "off and on" from 12:30 until 12:50 when she was at it continously until 1am. It obviously suggests that she was at her door before 12:50...and saw no-one but the young couple. So:

-she did not see or hear anyone in Israels story, including Liz
-she did not see Louis arriving during at all during the last 10 minutes of the hour

The problem is we have no way of knowing what she means by off and on?

We know that other women in the area were stood at their doors, so watching the world go by and chatting and gossip were the way of life... but all we know for certain is she was stood at her door for 10 minutes (And this really is a figure of speech rather than an exactitude) when Gouldstain past shortly before one o'clock.

However Diemschtz timed his entry to berner street by the clock as he turned into Berner street and you keep forgetting to add the time it takes from the top of Berner street Commercial street (Which I've walked and time on many an occasion) down to dutifully yard..(Does anyone else have problem with the site spell check auto magically changing the words?)

So everything fits.

Those facts imply that Liz Stride was off the street sometime between 12:35-(smiths sighting) and that Louis Diemshutz lied when he stated he was sure he arrived at 1am.

But Brown saw her with a man at 12.45 am?

Second point..Eagle would certainly have seen a dead woman lying across the very route he took when entering the yard, so why wasnt he sure that there was one there or not?

Because she wasn't there? You can't be certain about not seeing something only about have seen something... It was dark

As Ive mentioned ad infinitum here to an audience that seems to prefer to read into the evidence rather than simply read it and understand it....3 witnesses, 2 club members and 1 outside source, stated within one hour of the murder when questioned that they were alerted to the body at or before 12:45. 1 club witness even says that Louis sent him out alone for help and that he returned just after 1......do you recall Louis ever stating that? Do you recall any mention by Louis of someone sent for help other than Eagle, Louis himself and "Issac[s]"?

A lot of people in the club who had been singing and presumably drinking?

Schwartz and Deimschutz timed their entry into Berner street by the clock.

Fanny saw no-one but the young couple, Brown saw the young couple. Seems to me that its very possible that Liz Stride was off the street after PC Smith left, making Israel a liar, Louis a liar and Eagle a liar.

I think it unlikely anyone lied.. Most people apart from the odd sociopath tend to tell the truth, or at least what they perceive to be the truth.

Louis and Eagle had a lot to lose if the club was suspected and closed during an investigation, people wanted it closed anyway...and Israel offers what amounts to be a fabulous story that directly benefits the 2 men.

Cheers

The problem with telling lies is they tend to unravel. I'm not saying its impossible, just that it seems unlikely to me, especially as my version of events fit what everyone says without requiring anyone lying.. Just a few club members getting excited and making poor estimates of time

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

convinced

Hello Karsten. Thanks.

"I am convinced that Lawende saw the Ripper."

OK. But perhaps that was more than HE was convinced of.

And I agree about the referent of that first tale being Druitt.

Of course, if THAT'S the case, Kosminski was innocent--and conversely.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

context

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"The annotations need to be considered in context."

Absolutely.

"It's my opinion that Swanson was the main source for the Kozminski investigation which was unto March 1889."

We disagree. I believe it was Mac.

" . . . The Crawford letter . . ."

But what is the evidence that ties this letter to Kosminski? A slightly better case could be made for Druitt.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

gently Bentley

Hello (again) Jeff. Thanks.

" . . .all we can say is she did keep hold of them because they were in her hand . . ."

And THAT because she was lain gently down.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

long time

Hello (yet again) Jeff. Thanks.

"Isn't that what Karsten is speculating? that he was in custody and Schwartz for some reason failed to ID him?"

Possibly. But the problem is that Kosminski was out for as long as he was.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

aware

Hello Jon. Thanks.

""Their suspicions"? You mean Leman Street?"

Quite.

"How do you interpret Swanson's line:

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it....""

1. Swanson was aware of their doubts.

2. He did not share them.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

"It's my opinion that Swanson was the main source for the Kozminski investigation which was unto March 1889."

We disagree. I believe it was Mac.

It was all done and dusted by the time Mac even joined the force..Abberline had been transferred... And the file placed in the store room

And thats where MacNaughten found the dusty old file on Kozminski in 1894.

MacNAughten had already formed his opinion on Druit some time early at a gentleman club, probably having met Farquharsen...thats why Mac makes basic errors on Druit...he was working from memory..

However the info on Kozminski was excellent and in front of him...all those inconclusive reports put together by Cox and Sagar, so MacNaughten still plumbs for Druit

" . . . The Crawford letter . . ."
But what is the evidence that ties this letter to Kosminski? A slightly better case could be made for Druitt.
Cheers.LC

I've never seen or heard a better case made for Druit... And why would Anderson keep only one letter relating to the whitechapel murders if it didn't have some significance to him?

The woman in question was the woman attacked in Bricklane on 22 Nov 1888, a woman who refused to give evidence because she didn't want to implicate her brother... On his later release from the asylum she became scared for her expected twins and changed her mind, agreeing to testify

'He threatened the life of his sister'

The meeting happened between August 1889 (When Anderson still had no clue) and July 1890 (When Anderson fell out with Monroe) and at some time a new witness was discovered and bought forward...a witness from Millers Court, a witness discovered after Abberlines transfer

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello (again)

And THAT because she was lain gently down.

Cheers.
LC

Yeah I dont disagree with that, i'm not sure gentle is the correct word, because i believe he still had hold of the scarf around her throat

Can i plumb for SMOOTHLY down?

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello (yet again) Jeff. Thanks.

"Isn't that what Karsten is speculating? that he was in custody and Schwartz for some reason failed to ID him?"

Possibly. But the problem is that Kosminski was out for as long as he was.

Cheers.
LC

He was only out for three months, and may already have been going in and out over the period... they were searching private asylums shortly before Xmas 1888

But he went in where MacNAughten says March 1889 for a long time

He just wasn't at Colney Hatch

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

varia

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"However the info on Kozminski was excellent and in front of him...all those inconclusive reports put together by Cox and Sagar, so MacNaughten still plumps for Druitt."

Assuming, of course, that Sagar and Cox were actually describing Kosminski.

"And why would Anderson keep only one letter relating to the whitechapel murders if it didn't have some significance to him?"

Indeed. But why is Kosminski the referent? He is not mentioned.

"The woman in question was the woman attacked in Bricklane on 22 Nov 1888, a woman who refused to give evidence because she didn't want to implicate her brother... On his later release from the asylum she became scared for her expected twins and changed her mind, agreeing to testify."

Do we have her testimony?

"The meeting happened between August 1889 (When Anderson still had no clue) and July 1890 (When Anderson fell out with Monroe) and at some time a new witness was discovered and bought forward...a witness from Millers Court, a witness discovered after Abberline's transfer."

Well, in my opinion, Anderson NEVER had a clue. (heh-heh)

Whom was the new witness from Miller's Court?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

smooth

Hello (again) Jeff. Thanks.

Very well--"smoothly," if you like.

In that case, the cachous were NOT spilled--but neither was the BS story true about being thrown to the pavement.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

time line

Hello (yet again) Jeff. Thanks.

OK, if he were in for a long time beginning March 1889, he must have been out whenever he was in court for his unmuzzled dog.

A time line would be helpful.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Good Morning Lynn, we're again on emergency waiting list so may have to disappear at any moment but will try and fit in a reply

"However the info on Kozminski was excellent and in front of him...all those inconclusive reports put together by Cox and Sagar, so MacNaughten still plumps for Druitt."

Assuming, of course, that Sagar and Cox were actually describing Kosminski.

I think it can be reasoned. Again through what we don't see rather than what we do. Cox describes following a suspect after the Kelly murder and this would fit kozminski if he indeed went into a Private asylum in Surrey in March 1889.

If it wasn't Kozminski why don't we have another name on the list? Say he was following Hyam Hyams, why isn't he down as a more important suspect than Cutbush?

What they describe certainly does fit Ostrog or Druit

So by elimination we are left with Kozminski

"And why would Anderson keep only one letter relating to the whitechapel murders if it didn't have some significance to him?"

Indeed. But why is Kosminski the referent? He is not mentioned.

Because Anderson didn't write the note it was written by Crawford, a letter of introduction not mentioning her name suggesting a third person involved between the woman and Crawford.

Do we have her testimony?

Not to my knowledge... Just that she was attacked with a knife by Aaron

Whom was the new witness from Miller's Court?

Cheers.LC

Ah now there is a question... possibly it requires its own thread

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello (again) Jeff. Thanks.

Very well--"smoothly," if you like.

In that case, the cachous were NOT spilled--but neither was the BS story true about being thrown to the pavement.

Cheers.
LC

I guess that depends how good you believe Schwartz interpreter was... she can't have 'screamed three times but not very loudly' either

Yours Jeff