Packer and Schwartz

[John G]

"All in all, perhaps Schwartz's evidence should be consigned to the same waste paper basket as Packer's!"

Hello John G.,

But Schwartz never said that he saw Stride being murdered. If there are any inconsistencies with regard to how the actual murder murder must have taken place, they have nothing to do with his statement.

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

I think it's been suggested before that Stride's killer may have taken a step back into Dutfield's Yard as Schwartz/BS Man approached .

Okay,what about this scenario? Stride is standing by the gate with the suspect seen by PC Smith. He's been trying to inveigle her into the yard when Schwartz/BS Man arrive on the scene. (let's say the time is 12:43.) Their presence startles him so he takes a step back into the pitch black darkness of the yard and remains unseen. After the assault BS man moves on and the man reappears, offering Stride his profuse apologies for his lack of gallantry. The man (let's call him JtR), eventually convinces Stride to go into the yard with him. However, she quickly changes her mind: maybe there's something about him that worries her, a kind of sixth sense (which is why JtR had a problem getting her into the yard after PC Smith departed.) And, anyway, she's not completely forgotten his earlier lack of gallantry, I.e by not intervening with BS man. As she turns to exit the yard JtR quickly responds, catching her from behind and slitting her throat.

And Fanny Mortimer? She arrives on her doorstep just at the moment Stride is killed, say, around 12:45. JtR is seriously concerned about her presence and, of course, because of the darkness he might not know who's just interrupted him. He freezes, hoping that the person will quickly leave. However, Mortimer remains on her doorstep for around 10 minutes, and towards the end of that time Goldstein also passes by.

Mortimer finally returns indoors around 12:54, and JtR readily takes the opportunity to flea, deciding to go in search of another victim. After all, during the time Mortimer was present he could have been interrupted at any time-by someone either entering the yard or leaving the club- and this realization has rattled him.

Louis D arrives at around 12:58 and discovers the body. Say 7 minutes later PC Lamb reaches the Yard, at 1:05, with Dr Blackwell arriving at 1:16

[Phil Carter]

Very good, thanks Phil. So the presumption that Swanson had 'better or more accurate statements' than those at the inquest does not go 'bang'. And, keeping an open mind, we should not raise a question as to the accuracy of Swanson's own comments. In short, I think you must be saying, with your open mind, there is no good reason to question Swanson's claim that the writing on the wall was blurred.

Yep, got it.

You think incorrectly and assume wrongly. Try again.☺


Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

...
The man can be in error.
Phil
Ipso facto, Swanson can be seen to be in err.
Phil

Well you would have to explain what you mean by the word 'blur'

Clearly the Grafitto is blurred, it is by FACT meaningless

But I have reason to believe Swanson believed it was written by Kozminski

MacNaughten: There were many circumstance

But frankly Phil, I've moved on with my theory in the last five years..Your still dishing up the same crap Simon is?. I think i can now provide a complete theory that joins MacNaughten , Anderson and Swanson.... I think that I know Fido's holy grail...and whats more I can prove it.. Catch you soon xx

Jeff

[David Orsam]

You think incorrectly and assume wrongly. Try again.☺

Okay then, as you invite me to do so, it must be the case that you hold contradictory opinions as to what conclusions can be drawn by the absence of information in police reports or inquest testimony.

When there is no mention in police reports or inquest testimony of Mary Jane Kelly looking after a child, you conclude that we need to keep an open mind, so that perhaps she was looking after a child.

When there is no mention in police reports or inquest testimony of the writing on the wall being blurred, you conclude that we need to close our minds to the possibility of the writing being blurred, so that the writing could not have been blurred and, if Swanson said it was blurred, this raises a question about his credibility and explodes the presumption that his reports were accurate.

If I've got it wrong, do please feel free to explain how.

[Jeff Leahy]

If I've got it wrong, do please feel free to explain how.

Err..thats unlikely David.... These guys have been dishing this **** as fact for years they are not gonna stop now

Yours Jef

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff.
Yes, I agree Stride was not dead when Eagle passed through. Eagle's evidence is suitable to be reasonably sure about that detail.

What Eagle's evidence does not help us with is, whether Stride was still standing opposite the yard with that man, or whether she had passed on up the street for a walk, or even whether she had gone down the bottom end of the yard into the shadows to service the client.
Where was Stride at the time Eagle came back? - we do not know.

Yes I agree we don't know and its curious. The next sighting is that of Brown. "Not tonight some other night" If Brown did see Stride his back is to them as he passes and heads home.. So its possible she turned left the man and crossed the road to Dutfield Yard.

Thanks for the clarification Jeff, my only concern was that Goldstein is of no use as we have no indication from him of who he saw in Berner St.

Mrs Mortimer mentions a young couple standing on the corner of Berner St.
From a statement attributed to this young woman, it appears she was in Berner St. between 12:00-12:30.
"From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart."

So if Mortimer saw her standing with her man, then Mortimer's times are a little off.
There must have been significant time gaps in her story if she claims to have seen this couple (between 12:00-12:30), and hear Diemschitz arrive in his cart about 1:00.

There are a number of statements.

I think to modern terms people often find it odd that Fanny Stood at her door at all. Infact standing at ones door was fairly common in 1888. Its what people did as a pass time in a world without TV, radio and internet. So perhaps she was at her door earlier, went inside and came out again but the important 10 minutes is 12.50 to 1 am

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Good morning John

(Shame about the rugby yesterday)

Hello Jeff,

Unfortunately your scenario doesn't really accord with the facts. Thus, you estimate that Mortimer went inside around 1:00am. Okay, according to her own evidence she heard the passing pony and cart (Louis D) about 4 or 5 minutes later, implying that the body was discovered around 1:05. And what did Louis D do when he turned into the yard? Firstly, after his pony shied, he thought the obstruction was a bundle of rags. Secondly, he got down from the cart to have a closer look. Thirdly, he prodded it with his whip, before finally striking a match. At this point he saw a women who he thought might be his own wife! He therefore went into the club where he found his wife in the ground floor front room. He then reported what he'd seen and went back into the passage accompanied by Eagle and Kosebrodsky. Eagle then struck a match and it was at this point that they saw the blood. They than ran for a policeman and Eagle eventually found PC Lamb. Clearly, all of this must have been some time after Louis initially turned into the yard.

Fanny saw Gouldstein, who passed through Berner street shortly before 1 am. Shortly before is a very rough estimate. Fanny said she went inside and shortly after heard a pony and cart. I think we simply have to accept fairly vague and estimated times...we all do this all the time rounding the time up to the nearest hour, half hour or quarter hour

Now what time does PC Lamb say it was when he was alerted to the murder? Well, he estimates around 1:00am, which creates an immediate problem with the suggestion that Louis entered the yard at around 1:05. PC Lamb then runs to the yard followed by another policeman. Dr Blackwell arrived some time later and checked his watch upon arrival: it was 1:16. PC lamb estimates that he'd been there around 10 to 12 minutes, which suggests he arrived around 1:05, i.e. seriously undermining the suggestion that Louis didn't arrive until 1:05. In fact, according to Louis D, the doctor didn't arrive until around 20 minutes after the police which, if correct, would imply that PC Lamb arrived as early as 12:56.

Didn't Deimschutz have sight of a clock as he turned into Berner Street? That would make his timing more accurate?

All of this suggests that Louis discovered the body well before 1:00am, which brings into question why Mortimer didn't witness the altercation alleged by Schwartz.

Mrs Mortimer didn't see the altercation because it had already happened, is the most logical answer

Now let us consider PC Smiths' evidence. After all, as a police officer it's likely to be fairly reliable. He said he saw Stride with a man opposite the club at around 12:35. So what happened to this man? And, if we're to trust Schwartz's evidence, why did Stride remain in virtually the same spot, until 12:45, when she was supposedly approached by a stumbling drunk?

Well Stride stayed in the same spot because she was soliciting, and prostitutes tend to do so. The BSM man walked as if drunk, we don't know he was drunk.

People suffering schizophrenia often walk strangely which might be another explanation

But what if we reject Schwartz's evidence and hypothesise that Stride was murdered by the man PC Smith saw her with? Of course, in this scenario the killer could have been disturbed by Eagle or Lave. However, would they have failed to miss the body? Well, it should be remembered that the Yard was cloaked in almost pitch black darkness-Lave couldn't even see the door to get back into the club.And then we have the helpful testimony of Louis D:

Juror: " Could you in going up the yard have passed the body without touching it?

Louis D: "Oh, yes.

Coroner:"Any person going up the centre of the yard might have passed the body without noticing it?

Louis D:"I, perhaps, should not have noticed it if my pony had not shied. I had passed it when I got down from my barrow."

I think we can all accept it was dark. Could the man seen by PC Smith have hidden in the shadows and attacked Stride after BSM man.... Yes

Is it probable... No

So there you have it, it's perfectly plausible that Stride could have been killed by PC Smith's Suspect. Let's face it, ditch Schwartz's evidence and all sorts of problems are solved:Mortimer's failure to see or hear anything, including the shout of Lipski, even though her hearing was so acute she could sense the passing tread of a passer by; the cachous problem(how Stride held onto the cachous, and seemingly without spilling them, during two assaults); lack of bruising or grazing to Stride's body, apart from the shoulders, which you might expect as a consequence of being thrown the ground; the flower remaining intact; why no one in the nearby cottages heard anything, or Mrs D, sat feet away from where the body was discovered, in the kitchen with the window open (this suggests a stealthy assailant, which BS man clearly wasn't; how Stride ended up in the yard, with the positioning of the body indicating that she was actually exiting the yard when attacked; and the major discrepancies between the Police Account and newspaper account of Schwartz's evidence.

All in all, perhaps Schwartz's evidence should be consigned to the same waste paper basket as Packer's!

Your problem is that Schwartz has no motive to lie, where as its suggested that Packer did. (Speculation: Actually I think Packers later statements about seeing a man that had attack Stride far more interesting. Did he inform police that Kozminski was out of the Private Asylum?)

Personally I think it dangerous ripperology to dismiss what we have, as we have so little.. My personal belief is that we should go back to basics and actually listen and believe the evidence that we have, and in particular what the policeman in charge had to say...

That doesn't rule out other possibilities, perhaps the man seen by PC Smith was her killer.

However we don't need to change anyones time estimates to make a working model that supports what everyone says in Berner street that night.

Frankly I think it most probable that Schwartz did witness Strides murder but for some reason the police don't appear to have used him. Given the attacks on Annie Farmer and Matilda in brick lane, i'm coming to the conclusion Schwartz was used and failed to identify the witness so he was let go.

"There were many circumstance"

Yours Jeff

[S.Brett]

Jeff,

We have to consider that Schwartz did not see Stride and Jack the Ripper. There are too many inconsistencies.

12.45 a.m., is it really right?

Star, 1 October:

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881002.html

"The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the pass- age, but feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels"

Did Schwartz see a quarrel and nothing else?

Star, 2 October 1888:

“In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts. If every man should be arrested who was known to have been seen in company with an abandoned woman in that locality on last Saturday night, the police-stations would not hold them.”

It is possible that the police had found "Pipeman" and "BS Man".

See here (my posting No. 166 and following posts) on this thread:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=24375&page=17

I believe that two men were seeing Jack the Ripper:

PC Smith:

At 12.30am, 30th September 1888, PC Smith saw a man and a woman (who he later felt certain was Elizabeth Stride) standing on the pavement a few yards up Berner Street, on the opposite side to Dutfield's Yard. He described the man as being about 28 years of age, 5ft 7in tall, wearing a dark overcoat and trousers. He also wore a hard felt deerstalker hat and was described as 'respectable' looking. The man was also holding a newspaper parcel, about 18in in length and 6 or 8in wide. He also noticed that the woman had a flower in her jacket.

William Marshall:

A labourer living at 64 Berner Street who testified to seeing a woman he later recognised in the mortuary as Elizabeth Stride standing about three doors away from his house at about 11.45pm, 29th September 1888. She was apparently on the pavement opposite No.68, between Christian Street and Boyd Street and was with a man; the couple were talking quietly. Because there was no lamp nearby, Marshall could not see the man's face clearly, but was able to furnish the inquest with other particulars - he was middle-aged and stout, about 5ft 6in tall, respectably dressed in a small black cut-away coat and dark trousers. He was wearing a small peaked cap, "something like a sailor would wear". He had the appearance of a clerk. The woman was wearing a black jacket and skirt and a black crape bonnet, but did not see the flower that was pinned to the jacket.

Marshall had been standing at his door since 11.30pm, his attention first being drawn towards the couple because the man was kissing the woman, otherwise, he did not take too much notice of them. He heard the man say "you would say anything but your prayers" and then they walked leisurely down the street. Neither appeared to be intoxicated.

Marshall:

"something like a sailor would wear"

Remember:

(see my post- 212- here:http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=24375&page=22 )

Lawende:

"of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak" (2 October 1888/ Times)

"a cloth cap on with a cloth peak" (and according to one report that he "looked rather rough and shabby") ("Inquest")

"age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair fair moustache, medium built, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor." (19 October 1888/ Swanson)

"Young, about the middle height, with a small fair moustache, dressed in something like navy serge, and with a deerstalker's cap - that is, a cap with a peak both fore and aft." (Major Henry Smith)

The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, 2 October, 1888:

"a man was, later in the day, brought to the Leman-street Police-station by a constable who found him prowling about not far from Mitre-street. His face was haggard, and he seemed unable to give any account of himself. Upon him were found 1s 4½d in money and a razor, and round his throat was a woollen scarf of a violet colour, upon which were several long hairs, supposed to be those of a woman." (1 October 1888)

red neckerchief, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, appearance of a sailor, dressed in something like navy serge...

and round his throat was a woollen scarf of a violet colour

And now Marshall:

"something like a sailor would wear"

Fanny Mortimer (Resident of 36 Berner Street):

I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by. I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club-house, and on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the yard with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates. It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School.

I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart. He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart. If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him. It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found. The body was lying slightly on one side, with the legs a little drawn up as if in pain, the clothes being slightly disarranged, so that the legs were partly visible. The woman appeared to me to be respectable, judging by her clothes, and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets. A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

Edward Spooner:

Stated that between 12.30am and 1.00am, 30th September 1888, he was standing with a young woman outside the Beehive public house on the corner of Christian Street and Fairclough Street. After talking for about 25 minutes, he saw two Jewish men running up the street shouting 'murder' and 'police'. He saw them run as far as Grove Street and then turn back. When he asked them what was the matter, they explained that a woman had been murdered, so he accompanied them back the Dutfield's Yard. He saw the body of Stride in the yard and estimated that there was about fifteen people standing around it.

I guess that Mortimer was talking about Spooner and his young woman.

Mortimer at 36 Berner Street and Spooner did not hear or see anything at about 12.45am when Schwartz saw the whole thing.

William West:

“From ninety to 100 persons attended the discussion, which terminated soon after half-past eleven, when the bulk of the members left, using the street door, the most convenient exit. From twenty to thirty members remained, some staying in the lecture-room and the others going downstairs. Of those upstairs a few continued the discussion, while the rest were singing.”

There were so many people in the area and it is possible that Pipeman and BS Man belonged to them and the incident was a harmless dispute which Schwartz had overrated afterwards (the next day).

Yours Karsten.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff,

We have to consider that Schwartz did not see Stride and Jack the Ripper. There are too many inconsistencies.

12.45 a.m., is it really right?

Star, 1 October:

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881002.html

"The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the pass- age, but feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels"

Did Schwartz see a quarrel and nothing else?

Star, 2 October 1888:

“In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts. If every man should be arrested who was known to have been seen in company with an abandoned woman in that locality on last Saturday night, the police-stations would not hold them.”

It is possible that the police had found "Pipeman" and "BS Man".

See here (my posting No. 166 and following posts) on this thread:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=24375&page=17

I believe that two men were seeing Jack the Ripper:

PC Smith:

At 12.30am, 30th September 1888, PC Smith saw a man and a woman (who he later felt certain was Elizabeth Stride) standing on the pavement a few yards up Berner Street, on the opposite side to Dutfield's Yard. He described the man as being about 28 years of age, 5ft 7in tall, wearing a dark overcoat and trousers. He also wore a hard felt deerstalker hat and was described as 'respectable' looking. The man was also holding a newspaper parcel, about 18in in length and 6 or 8in wide. He also noticed that the woman had a flower in her jacket.

William Marshall:

A labourer living at 64 Berner Street who testified to seeing a woman he later recognised in the mortuary as Elizabeth Stride standing about three doors away from his house at about 11.45pm, 29th September 1888. She was apparently on the pavement opposite No.68, between Christian Street and Boyd Street and was with a man; the couple were talking quietly. Because there was no lamp nearby, Marshall could not see the man's face clearly, but was able to furnish the inquest with other particulars - he was middle-aged and stout, about 5ft 6in tall, respectably dressed in a small black cut-away coat and dark trousers. He was wearing a small peaked cap, "something like a sailor would wear". He had the appearance of a clerk. The woman was wearing a black jacket and skirt and a black crape bonnet, but did not see the flower that was pinned to the jacket.

Marshall had been standing at his door since 11.30pm, his attention first being drawn towards the couple because the man was kissing the woman, otherwise, he did not take too much notice of them. He heard the man say "you would say anything but your prayers" and then they walked leisurely down the street. Neither appeared to be intoxicated.

Marshall:

"something like a sailor would wear"

Remember:

(see my post- 212- here:http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=24375&page=22 )

Lawende:

"of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak" (2 October 1888/ Times)

"a cloth cap on with a cloth peak" (and according to one report that he "looked rather rough and shabby") ("Inquest")

"age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair fair moustache, medium built, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor." (19 October 1888/ Swanson)

"Young, about the middle height, with a small fair moustache, dressed in something like navy serge, and with a deerstalker's cap - that is, a cap with a peak both fore and aft." (Major Henry Smith)

The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, 2 October, 1888:

"a man was, later in the day, brought to the Leman-street Police-station by a constable who found him prowling about not far from Mitre-street. His face was haggard, and he seemed unable to give any account of himself. Upon him were found 1s 4½d in money and a razor, and round his throat was a woollen scarf of a violet colour, upon which were several long hairs, supposed to be those of a woman." (1 October 1888)

red neckerchief, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, appearance of a sailor, dressed in something like navy serge...

and round his throat was a woollen scarf of a violet colour

And now Marshall:

"something like a sailor would wear"

Fanny Mortimer (Resident of 36 Berner Street):

I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by. I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club-house, and on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the yard with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates. It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School.

I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart. He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart. If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him. It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found. The body was lying slightly on one side, with the legs a little drawn up as if in pain, the clothes being slightly disarranged, so that the legs were partly visible. The woman appeared to me to be respectable, judging by her clothes, and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets. A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

Edward Spooner:

Stated that between 12.30am and 1.00am, 30th September 1888, he was standing with a young woman outside the Beehive public house on the corner of Christian Street and Fairclough Street. After talking for about 25 minutes, he saw two Jewish men running up the street shouting 'murder' and 'police'. He saw them run as far as Grove Street and then turn back. When he asked them what was the matter, they explained that a woman had been murdered, so he accompanied them back the Dutfield's Yard. He saw the body of Stride in the yard and estimated that there was about fifteen people standing around it.

I guess that Mortimer was talking about Spooner and his young woman.

Mortimer at 36 Berner Street and Spooner did not hear or see anything at about 12.45am when Schwartz saw the whole thing.

William West:

“From ninety to 100 persons attended the discussion, which terminated soon after half-past eleven, when the bulk of the members left, using the street door, the most convenient exit. From twenty to thirty members remained, some staying in the lecture-room and the others going downstairs. Of those upstairs a few continued the discussion, while the rest were singing.”

There were so many people in the area and it is possible that Pipeman and BS Man belonged to them and the incident was a harmless dispute which Schwartz had overrated afterwards (the next day).

Yours Karsten.

Hi Karsten

You forgot the report of the man in Church passage: Whitness in white church lane. The star (1st october) reported "from two different sources have the story that a man when passing through church lane at about half past one saw a man sitting on a door step and wiping his hands. as every one is on the look out for the murderer the man looked at the stranger with a certain amount of suspicion, where upon he tried to conceal his face. he is described as a man who wore a short jacket and a sailors hat."

I know Marshals description well, it was me who played William Marshall and Morris Eagle in the 'Definitive Story'

I think your correct that there is a remarkable similarity to the man described by Marshal and other accounts.

RE: Fanny Mortimer A to Z. Walter Dew stated that that she had stayed at her door for ten minutes listening to the singing from the club and shortly before returning indoors 'observed something else, silent sinister. A man, who she judged to be about thirty, dressed in black, and carrying a small , shiny bag, hurried furtively along the opposite side of the court'

This man was Goulstien

A to Z: On the whole, there fore , it would seem that early reports and walter dews memory were correct and that she had been standing at her door for about ten minutes"

I'm fairly certain there is another press report that confirms this statement. And as the A to Z says, if she was at her door for thirty minutes how come she does see Morris Eagle and he doesn't see her?

I think Schwartz did witness what he claimed at 12.45am and Fanny was inside at this time, thirty minutes is a long time to stand in a doorway on a rainy night.

But I accept the idea that if Schwartz was the witness he would have been used, particularly on the 14th October following the Batty Street lodger incident..

If that is the case Schwartz clearly failed to ID anyone or they would have been charged

Yours Jeff

PS what about the later Packer reports?

[S.Brett]

You forgot the report of the man in Church passage: Whitness in white church lane. The star (1st october) reported "from two different sources have the story that a man when passing through church lane at about half past one saw a man sitting on a door step and wiping his hands. as every one is on the look out for the murderer the man looked at the stranger with a certain amount of suspicion, where upon he tried to conceal his face. he is described as a man who wore a short jacket and a sailors hat."

Yes Jeff, I forgot what I wrote here (232):

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=24375&page=24

I think Schwartz did witness what he claimed at 12.45am and Fanny was inside at this time, thirty minutes is a long time to stand in a doorway on a rainy night.

But I accept the idea that if Schwartz was the witness he would have been used, particularly on the 14th October following the Batty Street lodger incident..

If that is the case Schwartz clearly failed to ID anyone or they would have been charged

I believe Schwartz but I am not sure whether he saw Jack the Ripper and if he was correct with 12.45 am...

Maybe, he identified Piepman and/or BS Man but these both men stated a different time and had alibis.

PS what about the later Packer reports?

If the man of PC Smith and Marshall was Jack the Ripper (Kosminski) then this man was in Berner Street between 11.30 - 12.30 am. You know, Aaron Kozminski´s brother Woolf Abrahams lived in 25 Providence Street in October 1888 a small street behind the house in Berner Street where Marshall saw the couple. In 1881/82, it seems, that Woolf Abrahams lived next to Dutfields Yard in Berner Street, probably with Aaron. It is possible that Packer "knew" the Kosminskis and it is possible he saw Aaron Kozminski in Berner Street that night.

[Jeff Leahy]

I believe Schwartz but I am not sure whether he saw Jack the Ripper and if he was correct with 12.45 am....

I think Schwartz did witness what he claimed, the problem was in the translation.

Maybe, he identified Piepman and/or BS Man but these both men stated a different time and had alibis.

I'm sure Paul Begg toyed with the idea Pipeman might have been identified, in the back of my head there are press reports to support this..

IS the description of BS MAN that different from the sailor descriptions? What if they were all one and the same? Strides death at 12.45-46 ties in with the description of the man in Whitechaurch lane

The argument between BSM and Stride was personal... what if she had already rejected him and he returned and found her still soliciting?

As you say he lives in and around this area..he would be known

If the man of PC Smith and Marshall was Jack the Ripper (Kosminski) then this man was in Berner Street between 11.30 - 12.30 am. You know, Aaron Kozminski´s brother Woolf Abrahams lived in 25 Providence Street in October 1888 a small street behind the house in Berner Street where Marshall saw the couple. In 1881/82, it seems, that Woolf Abrahams lived next to Dutfields Yard in Berner Street, probably with Aaron. It is possible that Packer "knew" the Kosminskis and it is possible he saw Aaron Kozminski in Berner Street that night.

I agree

Yours Jeff

[John G]

Good morning John

(Shame about the rugby yesterday)



Fanny saw Gouldstein, who passed through Berner street shortly before 1 am. Shortly before is a very rough estimate. Fanny said she went inside and shortly after heard a pony and cart. I think we simply have to accept fairly vague and estimated times...we all do this all the time rounding the time up to the nearest hour, half hour or quarter hour



Didn't Deimschutz have sight of a clock as he turned into Berner Street? That would make his timing more accurate?



Mrs Mortimer didn't see the altercation because it had already happened, is the most logical answer



Well Stride stayed in the same spot because she was soliciting, and prostitutes tend to do so. The BSM man walked as if drunk, we don't know he was drunk.

People suffering schizophrenia often walk strangely which might be another explanation



I think we can all accept it was dark. Could the man seen by PC Smith have hidden in the shadows and attacked Stride after BSM man.... Yes

Is it probable... No



Your problem is that Schwartz has no motive to lie, where as its suggested that Packer did. (Speculation: Actually I think Packers later statements about seeing a man that had attack Stride far more interesting. Did he inform police that Kozminski was out of the Private Asylum?)

Personally I think it dangerous ripperology to dismiss what we have, as we have so little.. My personal belief is that we should go back to basics and actually listen and believe the evidence that we have, and in particular what the policeman in charge had to say...

That doesn't rule out other possibilities, perhaps the man seen by PC Smith was her killer.

However we don't need to change anyones time estimates to make a working model that supports what everyone says in Berner street that night.

Frankly I think it most probable that Schwartz did witness Strides murder but for some reason the police don't appear to have used him. Given the attacks on Annie Farmer and Matilda in brick lane, i'm coming to the conclusion Schwartz was used and failed to identify the witness so he was let go.

"There were many circumstance"

Yours Jeff

Hello Jeff,

Firstly, Louis D's evidence. He stated that the time on the clock, outside the tobacco shop on Commercial Road, was 1:00am or an minute or two after. That means that he may have discovered the body as late as 1:05am, which is problematical to say the least, because that is the time that PC Lamb's evidence suggested that he arrived at the murder scene.

Regarding Stride, there's no proof that she was soliciting that night and absolutely no evidence that Dutfield's Yard was used for purposes of solicitation. Quite the reverse, in fact:

Coroner: "Do low women frequent Berner Street?"

William West: "I have seen men and women standing about and talking to each other in Fairclough Street."

Coroner: "But have you observed them nearer the club?"

William West: "No"

Coroner:"Or in the club yard?"

William West: "I did once, at eleven o'clock at night, about a year ago. They were chatting near the gates. That is the only time I have noticed such a thing, nor have I heard of it "

And what of Schwartz, an Hungarian immigrant Jew? The difficulty is that the Austro-Hungarian Empire was an authoritarian state and, as a Jew, Schwartz may well have faced persecution, hence his decision to emigrate. Such an individual is therefore likely to be highly distrustful of authority, and the police in particular. And, of course, he could barely speak any English. Not, therefore, someone who is likely to come forward of his own volition. On the contrary, he is just the type of witness whose every instinct would be telling him not to get involved.

So who may have prompted him to come forward? Enter Morris Eagle. You see, the club had a problem. A women had just been found murdered on their premises, so it would be natural for the police to suspect a club member, and Eagle in particular, considering that by his own evidence he returned to the club just five minutes after PC Smith saw Stride opposite the club. And, of course, as a socialist club a nineteenth century police force were not likely to be predisposed to have a positive attitude towards the members.

No, Eagle had every reason to want to divert police attention towards a different scenario, and different suspect, and preferably introduced by someone not directly associated with the club: enter Israel Schwartz. And what may have persuaded him to come forward and enter into a conspiracy: well, mention of a reward and the opportunity to sell his story to the newspapers would have helped. It could also have been pointed out to him that other witnesses had given false evidence in the past, and action wasn't taken against them: the police wouldn't want to discourage witnesses from coming forward. There was therefore very little risk involved.

Of course, we then have the seriously conflicting police and press accounts, with Pipeman transformed from a man lighting a pipe (police account) into a knife-wielding confederate of BS man (press version). And no mention of the crucial "Lipski" evidence in the press account, either. Funny that.

To my mind, this has all the hallmarks of a witness getting confused over a story that's been fed to him and, additionally, getting recklessly carried away before the gentleman of the press by adding his own embellishments.

Not surprisingly the Star initially informs the reader that "The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted" . And, in a report the following day, "the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.""

Note the reference to the boys at Leman Street. The officers on the frontline, at the sharp end. The officers who had the opportunity to interview the witness and gauge his reactions.

Of course, despite the lack of any progress senior police officers seem to have accepted the evidence. But then the police were desperate for a breakthrough in the inquiry, just as the West Yorkshire Police, investigating the Yorkshire Ripper, were almost hundred years later. That resulted in that force placing almost total faith in the Wearside Jack letters and tapes. And we know where that ultimately lead.

However, perhaps Schwartz did see something that evening, and that formed the basis of what, ultimately, amounted to an invented story, a fabricated account. Referring to the Schwartz incident The Star reported: "Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and took no notice of it "

That suggests something very different to what Schwartz describes, involving witnesses he doesn't mention, and possibly in a very different location.

But I do agree about one thing: shame about the rugby yesterday!

[Phil Carter]

Okay then, as you invite me to do so, it must be the case that you hold contradictory opinions as to what conclusions can be drawn by the absence of information in police reports or inquest testimony.

When there is no mention in police reports or inquest testimony of Mary Jane Kelly looking after a child, you conclude that we need to keep an open mind, so that perhaps she was looking after a child.

When there is no mention in police reports or inquest testimony of the writing on the wall being blurred, you conclude that we need to close our minds to the possibility of the writing being blurred, so that the writing could not have been blurred and, if Swanson said it was blurred, this raises a question about his credibility and explodes the presumption that his reports were accurate.

If I've got it wrong, do please feel free to explain how.

Nearly right..you are getting there. ☺

I said that because of the question of whether 7 policemen on the spot got it right or not..vis a vis Swanson, who wrote something totally unheard of (unless you can name the source? ) then it is..In all fairness, correct to balance ones views of the accuracy of Swanson's writings through his reports.

That does explode the certainty of the veracity of his writings, yes.

IMHO we must keep an open mind about it. Nobody is infallible in other words. If a person can get one important detail wrong, then that person can do it at other times.

It's no big deal David. But accepting the word of someone, no matter who they are, must be seen in context. The context here is a very senior officer writing about details that are of primary importance to the investigation.

So I ask myself. .why did Swanson introduce the word "blurred" into the description of the writing on the wall when nobody else..none..of the 7 police officers who related the incident via their own reports or inquest testimony included that word? Was it mistakenly written down in a hurry?
And more importantly, what else should be considered in the same manner, if anything?

Now..that should put you completely in the picture as to the situation ad I see it..and there is no further need to stretch out more discussion about it.

It's about seeing things in balance. Swanson is not the be all and end all of policemen. He may have, as I suspect, erred. That means a balanced view of the accuracy of his written word is in order.


Phil

[S.Brett]

IS the description of BS MAN that different from the sailor descriptions? What if they were all one and the same? Strides death at 12.45-46 ties in with the description of the man in Whitechaurch lane

Jeff, I would not rule out that Schwartz saw the murderer of Stride! However, sometimes I think that I know nothing at all and that is a good thing.

Schwartz stated: full face, broad shouldered

The man who was found (by a constable) with a woollen scarf of a violet colour:

His face was haggard

fits better to Lawende´s description (red neckerchief, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, appearance of a sailor), to Major Smith (dressed in something like navy serge) to William Marshall (He was wearing a small peaked cap, something like a sailor would wear) and to the man seeing in Church Lane (with a sailor´s hat) than to Schwartz´s description. But this is just my perception...

[John G]

There is actually a reference in Paul Begg's book that indicates Schwartz may have actually attended the inquest. Assistant Commissioner Anderson wrote this in response to a letter from Abberline: "With ref. to yr letter a c. I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride's case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by the man whom he saw assaulting a women in Berner St. on the night of the murder, was not addresed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself.

Paul B suggests that Anderson may have been mistaken, or Schwartz gave his evidence in camera, or the police withheld his testimony.