Packer and Schwartz

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff.

From what I recall, Eagle couldn't remember if he saw anyone in Berner St. at the time of his return, we read:
[Coroner] Did you see anyone about in Berner-street?
[Eagle] - I dare say I did, but I do not remember them.

Hi Jon

Trusting you are well, its been almost five years since I reconstructed this, its on my mind as I'm currently re-editing the footage for a performance in Wales on the 29th/30th Oct, by Jon Rees.

But its what Eagle doesn't see that is important, he might not remember people scurrying about but he would have remembered a body on the ground as he passed through Dutfield Yard, would he not?

So stride wasn't dead when he passed through his time estimate 12.40 am

And, although Goldstein was identified I don't remember reading his statement of who he saw in Berner St. as he passed through.

So Stride could have been standing where PC Smith saw her with the man at 12:35. To argue that Stride was gone by 12:40 only adds complication to the drama, especially when we have no direct statement to that effect.

I'm going off the top of my head here but I think Goldstein came forward after Mortimer said she saw a man with a 'black shiny bag' in press reports. So it seems probable if she saw him he also saw her? That was shortly before One o'clock, so if Mortimer was at her door for ten minutes and neither saw Stride, it suggests that Stride was already dead by 12.50 am.

As i demonstrated Fanny Mortimers view would not allow to see Stides body even though she was only a matter of thirty or fourty feet from the body, out of sight around the corner of Dutfield Yard

Trust that clarifies

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

It seems like pretty basic police work to look at all witness times and try to fit them into the puzzle so I would expect that the police did so in this case. If Swanson allows for the possibility of another killer besides the B.S. man, I would expect that he took all times into consideration before making that statement.
c.d.

Yes and presumably Swanson had better and more accurate statements than our surviving press reports.

If stride was killed by someone other than BSM then, in my opinion, it would have been very tight indeed, its often been speculated that Pipeman could have returned..

The problem is that Fanny Mortimer doesn't see anyone or Stride for that matter, so if it was someone else the only route is through the club

Interestingly in Paul Beggs the Facts it gives a press report about a loft door locked from the inside which has always puzzled me..

However the description of BSM is not that unlike the description of the man seen in Church Passage or Lawendes, sailor like man

Yours Jeff

PS fore what its worth I think Swanson's reservations are interesting, I now believe neither Lawende or Schwartz was the Seaside home witness for a number of reasons

[c.d.]

Hello Jeff,

I could be wrong but my understanding is that Fanny Mortimer never gave a statement to the police but only to the press. I seem to recall that Stewart did not put a lot of faith in it.

c.d.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff,

I could be wrong but my understanding is that Fanny Mortimer never gave a statement to the police but only to the press. I seem to recall that Stewart did not put a lot of faith in it.

c.d.

Hi CD

Trusting you are well..

I can't believe that she was at least questioned by policeman..

The problem here is surely none of the original witness statements survive. We only have Swanson's report to the home office on Schwartz, the inquest and press reports..

I think Swanson had more in front of him than we have today..

However this said, we know Gouldstien came forward, the man with the shiny bag, which turned out to contain cigarettes.. To some extent surely they cooborate each others stories?

Yours Jeff

[Simon Wood]

Dear David,

I am sorry to hear you can't make head nor tail of my book.

This may help.

http://dictionary.reference.com/

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Dear David,

I am sorry to hear you can't make head nor tail of my book.

This may help.

http://dictionary.reference.com/

It's not the individual words I'm having problem with Simon, it's the way you have put them together.

I started this thread in the hope that someone understands what you are saying, bearing in mind that you are not willing to explain anything yourself.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

Trusting you are well, its been almost five years since I reconstructed this, its on my mind as I'm currently re-editing the footage for a performance in Wales on the 29th/30th Oct, by Jon Rees.

But its what Eagle doesn't see that is important, he might not remember people scurrying about but he would have remembered a body on the ground as he passed through Dutfield Yard, would he not?

So stride wasn't dead when he passed through his time estimate 12.40 am

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.

I'm going off the top of my head here but I think Goldstein came forward after Mortimer said she saw a man with a 'black shiny bag' in press reports. So it seems probable if she saw him he also saw her? That was shortly before One o'clock, so if Mortimer was at her door for ten minutes and neither saw Stride, it suggests that Stride was already dead by 12.50 am.

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.

[John G]

Very true. But the fact that there timings fit and they couldn't have seen each other, as I demonstrated in 'Definitive Story', surely confirms they told the truth?

The key is not what each witness see's but what they don't see



Yeah but he can not have seen the flower from his POV. So if he did see Stride with a man its interesting, in that Stride still had time to get to Dutfield yard and meet BSM, and it would have left a person in place who may have been Pipeman?

Brown has his back to what happens next once he passes Stride and man



The important witnesses are Eagle and Goldstein. Eagle passes through Dutfirld yard at 12.40 and does NOT see Stride. So she is still alive at 12.40.

Gouldstein passes through the street shortly before 1 am. He confirms that Mortimer is at her door and does not see Stride soliciting suggesting she is already dead down the ally

Mortimer says (Despite reports being confusing) she was at her door for no more than ten minutes. That places her at her door via Goldstein between 12.50 and 1.00 am. She went outside hearing the tramp of a policeman feet, but did she infact hear the killer leaving Dutfield Yard? She went inside and heard the horse and cart approach and Deimschutz find the body..

Its therefore reasonable to suppose that Stride was killed between 12.40 and 12.50 am and that is the exact time Schwartz makes his claim he saw Stride attacked..



Schwartz would have had a good view of the killer when he turned and shouted Lipski, the lighting was good...

Surely if the police had arrested a number of men, including a man with a red scarf and the Batty Street bloody shirt, then they would have used Schwartz?

And if they let the man go Schwartz must have failed to ID him?

Remember Lawende said he would not recognise the man again..

What is interesting however is the man witnessed by Schwartz, the man seen in WHitechurch passage, the man and woman seen by a watchman at Aldgate station, the man seen by Lawende, the man seen returning alone past Aldgate.. Where all similar in description

Yours Jeff

PS scratch the surface of any conspiracy theory and it never holds water

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.

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.

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. 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?

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."

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!

[Phil Carter]

[QUOTE ].....presumably Swanson had better and more accurate statements than our surviving press reports [/QUOTE]

That being the case, the man was a genius amongst imbeciles. .For he demonstrated his all knowing, all seeing eye when he stated that the writing on the wall in Goulston Street was blurred.

Not one policeman of the 7 said that in their reports or inquest statements So bang goes the presumption that Swanson had better or more accurate statements.

Therefore it can raise a question as to the accuracy of his own comments. In all fairness a little balance is required when weighing up the value of the accuracy of a Swanson report. The man can be in error.


Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

Therefore it can raise a question as to the accuracy of his own comments. In all fairness a little balance is required when weighing up the value of the accuracy of a Swanson report. The man can be in error.
Phil

Swanson was a good cop, he was in charge what he said was the truth

As was what Anderson and MacNaughten they said...the truth

You just have to find the correct way of looking and understanding what they actually said..(there is no room for mistakes or conspiracy's)

..that way lies the truth

Yours Jeff

Hi Jon and John, a bit busy here with the rugby...will reply later if thats OK? Jx

[David Orsam]

Not one policeman of the 7 said that in their reports or inquest statements So bang goes the presumption that Swanson had better or more accurate statements.

Over in the broken window thread, Phil, you posted (at #267) in agreement with packers stem (#266) who said that we could not draw any conclusions about the existence of a child living with MJK from the fact that no child living with MJK was mentioned in any of the police reports or inquest testimony because, he said, Whitechapel in 1888 was 'not a utopia of honesty' and 'Some of us are inclined to question many official reports'. You said 'Agreed' and spoke of an open mind costing nothing and a closed mind hindering possibilities.

Now you tell us that the fact that nothing was said in the police reports or inquest testimony about the writing on the wall being blurred (as Swanson states) so obviously means that the writing was not blurred that it raises a question about Swanson's credibility.

So which is it? Are we able to rely on police reports and inquest testimony or not?

[Phil Carter]

[QUOTE ].....presumably Swanson had better and more accurate statements than our surviving press reports

...
... he stated that the writing on the wall in Goulston Street was blurred.

Not one policeman of the 7 said that in their reports or inquest statements So bang goes the presumption that Swanson had better or more accurate statements.

The man can be in error.


Phil[/QUOTE]

Jeff,

It is a fact Swanson wrote what he did above in his report.
Ipso facto. It is a truthful reference.
Ipso facto, Swanson can be seen to be in err.

Whether he, Tom Dick or Harry were "good cops" makes not a blind bit of difference.

Either that or 7 policemen all forgot in their statements that the writing actually WAS blurred.

Ipso facto. NO lies. NO conspiracies.

So in all fair balance Swanson's comments must he weighed with caution.


Still no lies. Still no conspiracy.



Phil

[c.d.]

"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.

[Phil Carter]

Over in the broken window thread, Phil, you posted (at #267) in agreement with packers stem (#266) who said that we could not draw any conclusions about the existence of a child living with MJK from the fact that no child living with MJK was mentioned in any of the police reports or inquest testimony because, he said, Whitechapel in 1888 was 'not a utopia of honesty' and 'Some of us are inclined to question many official reports'. You said 'Agreed' and spoke of an open mind costing nothing and a closed mind hindering possibilities.

Now you tell us that the fact that nothing was said in the police reports or inquest testimony about the writing on the wall being blurred (as Swanson states) so obviously means that the writing was not blurred that it raises a question about Swanson's credibility.

So which is it? Are we able to rely on police reports and inquest testimony or not?

I will tell you what it is David.
I am giving an example re Swanson. The real possibility is that he is in err. I have an open mind about it.
What I will not do Iis compare different subjects to try to gainsay. Get it David? I am sticking to facts re Swanson.
Swsnson's reports specifically. Get it David? And I demonstrate that Swanson's report veracity needs balance under consideration.

Sorry. That's keeping an open mind too.

Get it David?


Phil

[David Orsam]

I will tell you what it is David.
I am giving an example re Swanson. The real possibility is that he is in err. I have an open mind about it.
What I will not do Iis compare different subjects to try to gainsay. Get it David? I am sticking to facts re Swanson.
Swsnson's reports specifically. Get it David? And I demonstrate that Swanson's report veracity needs balance under consideration.

Sorry. That's keeping an open mind too.

Get it David?

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.