Packer and Schwartz

[John G]

I think that a fairly good summary John

Many thanks Jeff

PS I try to assume that people tell the truth, they may of course be in error like MacNaughten thinking Druit was a Doctor, but I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt because its more reasonable to assume the most obvious.

Hello Jeff,

Thanks! I think it's also worth pointing out that serial killers don't always behave in a rational fashion. Robert Napper, who I've referred to before, seemed to meticulously plan his assaults, even to the point of using an A-Z to mark surveillance points. Nonetheless, he still murdered a victim in a public park, in front of her child, and then calmly walked away soaked in blood. That part of the crime, therefore, seems far from organized.

Of course, he was also diagnosed with schizophrenia, which is one of the reasons why I still think Kosminski remains a good suspect.

[Abby Normal]

Hello John

As I remember the man put a hand on her shoulder. What I am suggesting is a shift in meaning regarding what Schwarz (or his interpreter) said, from thrown to the ground to forced to the ground (although I believe it would be possible to throw someone to their knees). Forcing her down to her knees would not make her drop the cachous. Then quickly throttling her with the scarf (her hands would clench due to the throttling) and then carrying her into the yard so as to quickly be able to cut the throat and begin with the mutilations. After the throat cutting he was disturbed.

This would explain the cachous still being in her hand (they had to be prised out) and how she got from the pavement to the yard.

Not expecting everyone to agree, but it does explain the cachous, which no-one else has done I think.

There it is, warts (or cachous) and all.

Best wishes
C4

Hi C4
as I said before-makes perfect sense to me!

[S.Brett]

Yes more confusion wasn't she also possibly confused with someone else?

Mrs Kennedy...

But she/they describe a man who assaults them..

Remember Annie Millwoods attack? A far more random stabbing in the buttocks by a lose canon

And far more like the random attack seen by Schwartz

I understand your reasons for preferring PC Smiths suspect, especially given Lawendes description, but I still think Schwartz could have seen the same man, especially as he saw the back view most of the time..

Also remember that Schwartz statement went via an interpreter and then via a rewritten report...

I just think it more probable Schwartz didn't get as good a look as some believe... It was, as some people have pointed out here, dark

I think Schwartz failed to give a positive ID but he told the truth

I can answer all your questions with: I do not know.

It is very likely that BS Man is the murderer of Stride but not hundred percent reliable.

I can hardly imagine that Aaron Kozminski (if the Ripper) attacked Stride in such a way in front of the school of his niece and near the home of his brother and at a place where he had lived some years ago. No one saw him in the cases of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. What I mean is an attack as with "Stride".

Lawende´s red neckerchief/ reddish handkerchief, Schwartz should have seen it or not?

Remember the man found by a constabler on 1 October 1888 with a woollen scarf of a violet colour not far from Mitre Street... his face was haggard...

Jack the Ripper: The Definitive Story- A Woollen Scarf Of A Violet Colour

[John G]

Hello John

As I remember the man put a hand on her shoulder. What I am suggesting is a shift in meaning regarding what Schwarz (or his interpreter) said, from thrown to the ground to forced to the ground (although I believe it would be possible to throw someone to their knees). Forcing her down to her knees would not make her drop the cachous. Then quickly throttling her with the scarf (her hands would clench due to the throttling) and then carrying her into the yard so as to quickly be able to cut the throat and begin with the mutilations. After the throat cutting he was disturbed.

This would explain the cachous still being in her hand (they had to be prised out) and how she got from the pavement to the yard.

Not expecting everyone to agree, but it does explain the cachous, which no-one else has done I think.

There it is, warts (or cachous) and all.

Best wishes
C4

Hello C4,

Yes, I agree, your scenario is the only one that logically explains the cachous problem.

From the police report: "The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway."

Now, "but he turned her" might suggest a change in strategy. In other words, having failed to get her into the street, he grabs hold of her shoulders and, as you suggest, forces her to the ground, which I agree would not cause her to drop the cachous; in fact, if she was tense she might grab them tighter.

Perhaps he then holds her there, i.e. to prevent her from running off whilst he sees off Schwartz and Pipeman. Stride is seriously alarmed at this stage, so she screams. After Schwartz has departed he strangles her with the scarf. Why not simply slit her throat? Well, as I suggested earlier, strangulation maybe part of the ritual. Also, his first priority at this stage is to stop Stride from screaming, so grabbing hold of her scarf may have been an instinctive reaction, particularly if his knife wasn't already in his hand and reaching for it would result in further delay.

[curious4]

Hi C4
....and your reasons for calling maxwell a dodgy witness are?? Just because her evidence does not fit with a theory it does not make her a 'dodgy witness'
Unlike Hutchinson, we know she existed, turned up at the inquest and was adamant about her sighting despite attempts to lead her away from giving that evidence...Hutchinson on the other hand,polar opposite

Hello Packers

Nice to be crossing swords again :-). Maxwell's testimony was completely contrary to all of the other witnesses, for a start. And if she last saw her at nine, away from her room, how could there have been time for her, unseen, to pick up a new client, for him to murder her and complete all of the mutilations and escape in broad daylight, if not covered in blood, at least bloodstained?

If Hutchinson didn't exist Abberline must have looked a complete idiot shepherding the invisible man round the market the day after.

Best wishes
C4

[curious4]

Hello C4,

Yes, I agree, your scenario is the only one that logically explains the cachous problem.

From the police report: "The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway."

Now, "but he turned her" might suggest a change in strategy. In other words, having failed to get her into the street, he grabs hold of her shoulders and, as you suggest, forces her to the ground, which I agree would not cause her to drop the cachous; in fact, if she was tense she might grab them tighter.

Perhaps he then holds her there, i.e. to prevent her from running off whilst he sees off Schwartz and Pipeman. Stride is seriously alarmed at this stage, so she screams. After Schwartz has departed he strangles her with the scarf. Why not simply slit her throat? Well, as I suggested earlier, strangulation maybe part of the ritual. Also, his first priority at this stage is to stop Stride from screaming, so grabbing hold of her scarf may have been an instinctive reaction, particularly if his knife wasn't already in his hand and reaching for it would result in further delay.

Hello John

With you all the way there.

Best wishes
C4

[curious4]

Hi C4
as I said before-makes perfect sense to me!

Hello Abby

Thanks (again)! :-)

Best wishes
C4

[John G]

Hello John

With you all the way there.

Best wishes
C4

Hello C4,

Thanks, it's nice to be in accord! To be honest, until I considered the cachous argument I'd never really doubted Schwartz's evidence. However, I must admit that, considering matters objectively, you make a very persuasive counter argument.

Maybe the problem is that when I first started to read about this subject I simply believed every witness, including George Hutchinson-okay, maybe not Matthew Packer! In fact, I even considered Caroline Maxwell to be a plausible witness.

However, I seemed to have transformed into a bit of a cynic-I remember in one thread suggesting that Lawende might not be totally reliable!

It's therefore refreshing when a poster such as yourself compells me to rethink my ideas, and consider things from a very different perspective.

[curious4]

Hello C4,

Thanks, it's nice to be in accord! To be honest, until I considered the cachous argument I'd never really doubted Schwartz's evidence. However, I must admit that, considering matters objectively, you make a very persuasive counter argument.

Maybe the problem is that when I first started to read about this subject I simply believed every witness, including George Hutchinson-okay, maybe not Matthew Packer! In fact, I even considered Caroline Maxwell to be a plausible witness.

However, I seemed to have transformed into a bit of a cynic-I remember in one thread suggesting that Lawende might not be totally reliable!

It's therefore refreshing when a poster such as yourself compells me to rethink my ideas, and consider things from a very different perspective.

Hello John

I think your experience is par for the course. And I 'm not immune to far out theories and have been shot down numerous times! We have to put the ideas out there to see if they will hold water. And sometimes they won't! I have really appreciated yours and GUT's legal information which has clarified several things in my mind.

Best wishes
C4

[Jeff Leahy]

Perhaps he then holds her there, i.e. to prevent her from running off whilst he sees off Schwartz and Pipeman. Stride is seriously alarmed at this stage, so she screams. After Schwartz has departed he strangles her with the scarf. Why not simply slit her throat? Well, as I suggested earlier, strangulation maybe part of the ritual. Also, his first priority at this stage is to stop Stride from screaming, so grabbing hold of her scarf may have been an instinctive reaction, particularly if his knife wasn't already in his hand and reaching for it would result in further delay.

Yes interesting...but Stride is described as 'Pale' not 'rudy' suggesting she 'fainted' rather than 'strangled'

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello John

I think your experience is par for the course. And I 'm not immune to far out theories and have been shot down numerous times! We have to put the ideas out there to see if they will hold water. And sometimes they won't! I have really appreciated yours and GUT's legal information which has clarified several things in my mind.

Best wishes
C4

Hey there are people here who have been doing this for years...I've interviewed most of the experts and they, 'while having theories' have no more clue than the rest of us

We are trying to create a theory that makes sense, perhaps explain stuff?

But the identity of 'Jack the Ripper' is long since beyond anyones positive grasp...we must accept this? right?

Jeff

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

In McKenzie`s case the bruises were attributed to the killer, forcing and holding her down.

Hi Jon.

I understand it was conjectured that she was forced down, but it doesn't say how or in what way.

Then it is observed:
"The bruises over the collar-bone may have been caused by finger pressure."

It must have been apparent by the pattern that they were caused by finger pressure, but no conjecture is advanced as to whether they were caused in the attack, or did I miss it somewhere?

Did they assume she was forced down because of the presence of the finger marks, or independently of those marks?

[Wickerman]

Thanks Observer. As I said before, it's a strange thing that so much time is spent trying to discredit credible witnesses such as Schwarz and Hutchinson (who is accused of being too good, as was a witness in the case of the murder of the Swedish foreign minister, who was proved right) trying to prove dodgy witnesses, such as Maxwell, correct. Almost as big a mystery as the murders lol

Best wishes
C 4

It isn't often that we hear from the silent majority, but yes you nailed it right on the head. I also find it odd that anyone who believes "the witness" is then labeled naive, but in all cases the accusations thrown at these same witnesses by the vocal minority have no foundation in fact.
Unbelievable! but hey, this is Casebook, the yellowbrick road of Ripperology..

[Wickerman]

Hello Ben

How? Where? Reference please!

Best wishes
C4

This is how it works Gwyneth, you select an unsourced, unreferenced & uncorroborated article written to cause a stir among the readers.
You then claim this article demonstrates that the witness was discredited, but when asked for proof, which in the rational academic world means an "independent" source, you then turn back to this press article and claim, "Here is the proof".
Circular reasoning, time and time again, all we get are circular arguments.

There is no proof, there is no evidence, it was mere conjecture a 125 years ago, and some gullible types just soak it up and build a theory around it, then defend it to the death!

[Wickerman]

Of course, he was also diagnosed with schizophrenia, which is one of the reasons why I still think Kosminski remains a good suspect.

Not knowing what he looked like, yet knowing he was only 23 in 1888, are two significant factors against him, in my opinion.