Packer and Schwartz

[lynn cates]

far-fetched

Hello (again) Abby.

"There are zero inconsistencies with his story-only people inventing them to push there own far fetched theories."

Nothing could be more far-fetched than Schwartz's story.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

tale

Hello Karsten. Thanks.

Yes, one story about "Leather Apron" involved his snobbery.

Good luck in sorting out the Wirtkofsky tale.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

doctor

Hello CD.

"But a key, a sixpence, and a cork can all hit the ground without breaking or spilling unlike a packet of cachous wrapped in tissue paper."

Of course--just as the doctor pointed out.

cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Abby. Thanks.

This is from "The Star" for 2 October.

"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."

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn

Yes most interesting it suggests suspects were detained... no charges were bought, presumably because they either had strong alibi's or because Schwartz fail to identify them..

MacNaughten ' There were many circumstances'

Was one of these circumstances a failed ID?

I say this because the man followed by Cox was clearly a strong enough suspect to spend large amounts of time , money and man power following, but fore whom there was no firm evidence

Of course there were a number of people arrested, there appears to have been arrests following the Batty Street bloody shirt incident, specifically 14th October, if the police had a witness they trusted, and Swanson makes little doubt that he believed Schwartz, isn't it reasonable to assume they would use him then? Why would they wait almost two years?

Yours Jeff

[curious4]

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

"Well no, before pushing her down. And I don't believe she would have dropped the cachous if pushed/forced down to her knees."

But surely she is making some rather exaggerated hand/arm movements whilst being pushed down and not just passively assuming a kneeling position?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn

No I'm not sure she would. This was an attack and people tend to freeze in fear. She may even have had time to suspect she was in the hands of the Ripper. And I suspect she was throttled quickly, before she really had time to react.



Best wishes
Gwyneth

[Jon Guy]

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?

Hi Jon

In McKenzie`s case the Doctors came to the conclusion following the post mortem that the bruising over the shoulders and chest were caused by the killer forcing and holding McKenzie down.
In my opinion, the same bruising is present on Stride. (However, Dr Phillips saw both victims and said bruising, but didn`t think they were caused by the same killer)

[curious4]

Hello Abby. Thanks.

This is from "The Star" for 2 October.

"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."

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn

You don't think this could be to put journalists off the scent and protect a valuable witness? I gather the police weren't usually keen to share things with the press.

Best wishes
C4

[lynn cates]

altercation

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Possibly, but at the station.

It's marginally possible that Israel saw an altercation but not involving Liz. Perhaps that is what was meant?

Cheers,
LC

[lynn cates]

sequence

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

And then he carried her into the yard?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

source

Hello (again) Gwyneth. Thanks.

Actually, "The Star" seem to have had a source at the MET.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Possibly, but at the station.

It's marginally possible that Israel saw an altercation but not involving Liz. Perhaps that is what was meant?

Cheers,
LC

Good Morning Lynn

Yeah I guess that sort of gets to the heart of this discussion with four possibilities

1. Schwartz saw a different man to PC Smith

2. Schwartz saw the same man as PC Smith but gives a different description because of his largely rear view

3. Schwartz saw the murder

4. Schwartz saw an altercation involving Stride but BSM wasn't the murderer

I guess theres a fifth, he lied or made it up for some reason but that seems improbable, though not impossible if your running a club cover-up theory.

I guess the importance of this is the 'Seaside Home' positive ID.. Anderson is very clear that 'the only man who ever had a good look at the murderer immediately identified him' the implication by Swanson that 'he knew he was identified'

As this witness must have been 'Jewish' it has often been assumed it was either Lawende or Schwartz, and logical reasoning seems to suggest it wasn't Lawende, because he would not recognise the man again' and was still being asked to ID people after Kozminski went into Colney Hatch.

Leaving Schwartz as the leading contender as Swanson's witness..

What I'm getting at is however you roll the dice it seems increasingly unlikely he was the witness based on the above four reasons..

Besides surely logic dictates that if Kozminski was arrested at the time and questioned, I think Dec 22 nd the most probable date....

Then why wasn't Schwartz used then? And if he was, why did he fail to identify him? Of course one possible conclusion that might have been reached by MacNaughten reading the file upto March 1889, was that Kozminski was NOT the ripper, especially if there was a failed ID by schwartz

'There were many circumstances'

Yours Jeff

[Hunter]

Actually, "The Star" seem to have had a source at the MET.

And that source may have mislead them giving what we know they did from official records posted subsequently. They initially denied the graffiti too, forcing the press to even print a retraction.

[curious4]

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

And then he carried her into the yard?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn

Yepp. To knees, choke, carry into yard (that is a guess, of course, but she was slight of build and if he wanted to get down to business asap. To any passer-by it would look as though she was drunk and he was carrying her in off the street, had there been one, of course. Hands still clenched after choking.

They may well have had a source, as you say, but protecting a witness would perhaps take precedence?

Cheers
C4

[packers stem]

Hello (again) Gwyneth. Thanks.

Actually, "The Star" seem to have had a source at the MET.

Cheers.
LC

Not Swanson then....who did clearly believe Schwartz... But hush.. can't have the minions knowing for a hundred years...so we'll keep him away from the inquest so we keep looking for a sailor or a jew
This was just the met's standard unhelpful attitude in attempting discredit the best witnesses

[Jeff Leahy]

Not Swanson then....who did clearly believe Schwartz... But hush.. can't have the minions knowing for a hundred years...so we'll keep him away from the inquest so we keep looking for a sailor or a jew
This was just the met's standard unhelpful attitude in attempting discredit the best witnesses

OK he was the best witness?

But it does not fit what either Anderson or Swanson says?

The argument Karsten has put forward here about; Aron,Davis,Cohen or David Cohen, is far more revealing is it not?

What we actually know is that arrests were made around 22nd Dec 1888 and the suspect was let go? Is that not the facts?

Yours Jeff