Packer and Schwartz

[John G]

Hi JhnG
Im pretty sure there was a second couple-I think Brown and even Mortimer saw this couple. But IMHO all things considered-the others saw the ripper and stride and simply missed the flower.

Hi Abby,

Thanks. I don't know if you saw the paragraph I added; I think the scenario I refer to was suggested by Wickerman sometime ago. I do find it strange that Schwartz describes Stride as standing inside the gateway, particularly when you consider how dark the yard was: Louis D stated that her body could have been easily missed by someone walking through, and Lave couldn't even see the club door to get back in. But it could be explained if she was conversing with someone who was stood behind her, in the shadows, and therefore unseen by Schwartz.

Nonetheless, for me there are just too many discrepancies with Schwartz's evidence: differences in the two accounts; an altercation not heard by anyone else (including Mrs D, sat feet away in the kitchen with the window); Stride holding onto the cachous after being thrown to the ground, and not even splitting the packet (which I think would have been a near impossibility); no bruising or grazing to the body; flower remaining undamaged; clothing not creased; position of the body, suggesting she was exiting the yard when attacked.

All of this suggests to me that Stride was caught unexpectedly from behind, in a stealth attack, and eased to the ground, where the killer slit her throat. And, it seems to me, that a quiet, stealthy strategy is very reminiscent of JtR's MO.

[David Orsam]

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 think the problem here, Karsten, is that the reports you refer to of men being arrested were on 1 October whereas Chief Inspector Swanson's report of 19 October still gave credence to Schwartz's account.

[David Orsam]

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.

Yes, so what you're saying is that you have a closed mind as to whether the writing on the wall was blurred.

But the same reasoning that you are using to rule out the writing on the wall being blurred should rule out MJK having had a child living with her.

None of the policemen (or doctors) on the spot mentioned a child and it did not feature in any inquest testimony. All we have is an unsourced newspaper report which included something totally unheard of (unless you can name the source?). Yet you have told us that you keep an open mind on this subject.

So, you see, Phil I am simply pointing out the inconsistency of approach: a closed mind about the blurred writing but an open mind about the child.

[Phil Carter]

Yes, so what you're saying is that you have a closed mind as to whether the writing on the wall was blurred.

Or not


That is the open question. Not closed. No inconsistency.

But do carry on David..you must be having a lot of fun playing with words.



Phil

[David Orsam]

It's not about playing with words Phil, it's a simple question of the meaning of the English language.

If your mind is open on the subject then the writing on the wall might have been blurred, right?

In which case, Swanson might have been right and there no reason to doubt the rest of his comments.

Yet, when I suggested this earlier in the thread, you told me I'd got it wrong.

So why don't you clarify it for us using simple English words:

Could the writing on the wall have been blurred? Yes or no.

[S.Brett]

I think the problem here, Karsten, is that the reports you refer to of men being arrested were on 1 October whereas Chief Inspector Swanson's report of 19 October still gave credence to Schwartz's account.

Hi David,

I think that Schwartz saw what he saw he was not a liar. And I think we can believe him. The inquiries (house-to-house searching) from 3 to 18 October were just finished when Swanson wrote his report. Maybe, Pipeman and BS Man were still suspects or one of them not yet been found.

[Phil Carter]

It's not about playing with words Phil, it's a simple question of the meaning of the English language.

If your mind is open on the subject then the writing on the wall might have been blurred, right?

In which case, Swanson might have been right and there no reason to doubt the rest of his comments.

Yet, when I suggested this earlier in the thread, you told me I'd got it wrong.

So why don't you clarify it for us using simple English words:

Could the writing on the wall have been blurred? Yes or no.

If you have a problem understanding what I have written, I can help you no further and do not intend to garnish your appetite for further exchanges on the subject.
Therefore, live with the unending uncertainty with grace.

Phil

[David Orsam]

If you have a problem understanding what I have written, I can help you no further and do not intend to garnish your appetite for further exchanges on the subject.
Therefore, live with the unending uncertainty with grace.

Translation into English: "I can't answer your question without contradicting myself".

[Phil Carter]

David,

I tell you what. Think what you want. Interpret as you want to see fit. Translate into Arrapaho if need be. That way you get the answers you know are right. And nobody will have to answer you nor explain anything ever again. Because you already believe you know the answers..whether you do or you don't.
No doubt you will interpret that too.
Now I have more important fish to fry. Cod.

Have a nice evening.

[David Orsam]

The question was an extremely simple one Phil:

Could the writing on the wall have been blurred? Yes or no.

I would have thought it would have been easier to answer it than fill two posts of evasive waffle.

[Wickerman]

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.

It was the normal thing to do even in the 1950's where I grew up. Some older women on our street would put a chair in the doorway and sit there for hours passing comments, chit-chatting, to every passer-by, coalman, milkman, window cleaner - anybody.

[Jeff Leahy]

It was the normal thing to do even in the 1950's where I grew up. Some older women on our street would put a chair in the doorway and sit there for hours passing comments, chit-chatting, to every passer-by, coalman, milkman, window cleaner - anybody.

Yeah cool.. My partner Catrin describes her Grandmother in CRYMCH doing this...We've created a film script based on this ... Well gate crashing funerals.. But decent women had clean door-steps..

Love this piece of history

Many thanks Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi David,

I think that Schwartz saw what he saw he was not a liar. And I think we can believe him. The inquiries (house-to-house searching) from 3 to 18 October were just finished when Swanson wrote his report. Maybe, Pipeman and BS Man were still suspects or one of them not yet been found.

Come out and say it... You don't think Schwartz was Andersons witness at the seaside Home...it certainly wasn't Lawenda

Karsten you are taking a big ask on the Kosminskite followers on casebook

It aint going to go down well

I'm amused that knowone has as yet realised the significance of what you seem to be proposing?

However Its the only thing that makes sense what Anderson and Macnaughten actually say... its that simple...devastating.. a third witness?

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

David,

I tell you what. Think what you want. Interpret as you want to see fit. Translate into Arrapaho if need be. That way you get the answers you know are right. And nobody will have to answer you nor explain anything ever again. Because you already believe you know the answers..whether you do or you don't.
No doubt you will interpret that too.
Now I have more important fish to fry. Cod.

Have a nice evening.

Stay off the medication

[Abby Normal]

Come out and say it... You don't think Schwartz was Andersons witness at the seaside Home...it certainly wasn't Lawenda

Karsten you are taking a big ask on the Kosminskite followers on casebook

It aint going to go down well

I'm amused that knowone has as yet realised the significance of what you seem to be proposing?

However Its the only thing that makes sense what Anderson and Macnaughten actually say... its that simple...devastating.. a third witness?

Yours Jeff

Hi jeff
Who's the third witness?