Packer and Schwartz

[c.d.]

Hello Jon

Her hands were clenched (sign of quick throttling with a ligature) but no protruding tongue (if she had been choked for longer). I think if he was quick in twisting the handerchief she would have had no time to cry out/scream again. He only needed her unconscious until he cut her throat. The doctor only said he could not say. As do I, but I think my scenario explains why she didn't drop the cachous and how he got her into the yard behind the door.

Best wishes
Gwyneth

Hello Gwyneth,

But do you consider the cachous surviving her being thrown to the ground as Schwartz described to be a problem?

c.d.

[c.d.]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Schwartz is telling the truth as to what he saw. When he leaves the scene, Stride (according to his story) is not in the place where she was found dead. So how does the B.S man get her back into the yard? I can think of three ways:

A. She goes with him voluntarily. This doesn't seem very probable especially if she has just been brutally attacked by the B.S. man as some people believe and he has also just threatened Schwartz. Liz would have to be extremely naive to think that they were going back into the yard to discuss the weather. A severe beating would be the least of her worries. And what reason would the B.S. man give her for needing to go back into the yard?

B. He threatens her, possibly with a knife. If this is what happened wouldn't she believe that her life is in danger? If so, why not scream for help? What does she have to lose? Yes, there was singing coming from the club but Mrs. Diemschutz and Eagle stated that there was a door open and they believed that despite the singing they would have heard an argument or anything out of the ordinary. Yet, they heard nothing.

C. He drags her possibly by her scarf. At this point, she would have to believe that she was being dragged to her death. Now if her scarf was wrapped around her neck and the B.S. man was using it to drag her, wouldn't the natural reaction be to insert your hand between the scarf and neck and try to pull the scarf away? Try this yourself and notice what shape your hand is in. Wouldn't the cachous fall out if your hand was in this position? And even if you were trying to push the B.S. man away what effect would this have on the cachous which were between her thumb and forefinger? Wouldn't that have ripped the tissue paper that was covering them and wouldn't the cachous scatter as a result?

It seems to me that if you believe the B.S. man to be her killer that you have to come up with a reasonable way to answer this question.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

records

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

St Mary's Bethlehem? Although it has moved a few times over the years, didn't know it was in Surrey?

Don't they have intact records from the period?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

slip knot

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

"The KNOT was tied tightly. And if she had had the scarf tied tightly for longer than the time to render her insensible, don't you think there would have been more signs of strangulation than just the clenched hands - tongue protruding for example?"

In my opinion, she was taken down that way. In trials, my wife and I tried pulling a standard slip knot. It decreased the circumference of the scarf and made the knot tight. Then, as neck was cut, it would have frayed the scarf.

"And finally, in order for the scarf to be as you say, he would first have had to undo the knot and tie it again tightly. Much easier to pull and twist, thus tightening the knot, but not the scarf."

Well, if it were a slip knot (see above), it would be both.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

which?

Hello Karsten. Thanks.

Yes, that MIGHT be the one. But can we be sure that this is Swanson's reference?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Inductions R Us

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Perhaps you mean logical INDUCTION? There can be no deduction like this.

They might be the same, but I see no reason to assume so.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

inference

Hello Abby. Thanks for the kind words.

A weak inductive inference might be that the lads at Leman had understood the significance of the unspilled cachous.

Perhaps that prompted the question put to the doctors at inquest regarding spillage HAD she been thrown to the ground?

Also, it is interesting that the club, in their official Arbeter Fraint story, make NO mention of Schwartz.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

non-threatening

Hello CD. Thanks.

"But only if she felt threatened in the first place."

And, I suppose being bounced off the pavement by a drunken brute is non-threatening? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

reason

Hello (again) CD.

"Of course you now have to come up with a REASON why Schwartz would lie. That could be kind of tough."

Hasn't this been discussed many times before? If you look at the AF piece I had translated, the club lads complained about police harassment.

If they felt threatened by possible police suspicions, what more natural than such a fib?

And if the Leman lads figured it out, then:

1. They would doubt the story.

2. Schwartz would not get called to inquest.

3. The club lads would hope for the story to pass into oblivion, and so would certainly NOT bring it up in their account of that night.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

tommyrot

Hello (yet again) CD.

Excellent trifurcation. Yes, all three make such seem unlikely.

Yet, IF the BSM story be true, he surely killed her.

So why not jettison this tommyrot and reject Israel's story?

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Hello Gwyneth,

But do you consider the cachous surviving her being thrown to the ground as Schwartz described to be a problem?

c.d.

Hello cd

It has always been a puzzle - and I like to solve puzzles. If she had been thrown headlong she must have dropped them. I don't go for the going into the yard with a new customer after picking herself up again, even if Swanson thought it was possible.

Best wishes
C4

[curious4]

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

"The KNOT was tied tightly. And if she had had the scarf tied tightly for longer than the time to render her insensible, don't you think there would have been more signs of strangulation than just the clenched hands - tongue protruding for example?"

In my opinion, she was taken down that way. In trials, my wife and I tried pulling a standard slip knot. It decreased the circumference of the scarf and made the knot tight. Then, as neck was cut, it would have frayed the scarf.

"And finally, in order for the scarf to be as you say, he would first have had to undo the knot and tie it again tightly. Much easier to pull and twist, thus tightening the knot, but not the scarf."

Well, if it were a slip knot (see above), it would be both.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn

You may well be right. I don't tie my scarves with a slipknot, but Liz may have, I just don't know :-). Watched your enactment, and very impressive it was! Think my scenario is just as likely though!

Best wishes
Gwyneth

[curious4]

I was glancing through Scotland Yard Investigates last night when I came across this: Swanson wrote a long report to the Home office on the 20th October. In it he is doubtful regarding Schwartz' evidence. Not because he thought he was lying, but because he thinks there would have been time for Liz (who he believes was picking up clients that night (I don't agree, sorry Swanson) to pick up another "client". This means that he did believe Schwartz, but found what he thought was a weakness in his evidence as to getting a conviction.

Personally I think that if Liz had picked herself up and got away she would have legged it home as fast as she could but Swanson does have a point - if all the times are correct.

Best wishes
C4

[S.Brett]

Hello Karsten. Thanks.

Yes, that MIGHT be the one. But can we be sure that this is Swanson's reference?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

No, we can´t be sure.

But I see a strong connection between Swanson´s "where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification" and "he was watched by police (City CID)". I think that the "Sender" was the same as the "Watcher", the City Police CID.

Detective Robert Sagar (City Police):

"We had good reason to suspect a certain man who worked in 'Butcher's-row,' Aldgate," he said, "and we watched him carefully. There was no doubt that this man was insane, and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum."
(second half of 1890?)

Detective Harry Cox (City Police):

"He occupied several shops in the East End, but from time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey." (December 1888-about March 1889?)

I think it is possible that Sagar spoke about Swanson´s "sent by us". They, the City Police, brought "Kosminski" to the Police Seaside Home in Brighton. They brought "Kosminski" to the MET Police and to a MET Police witness. In this case the witness cannot be Lawende. And I see no reason why Schwartz would not have been used as a witness before the second half of 1890. Schwartz might have been seen "Kosminski" and did not recognize him (as Lawende) or BS Man had not been "Kosminski". The Jewish Seaside Home witness, I suspect, he is from the Kelly-Case.

Sagar:

"There was no doubt that this man was insane"

This could be the reason for "with difficulty" (Swanson). If the City Police brought "Kosminski" to his private asylum in Surrey (Holloway?) and then again towards to Holloway´s Seaside Home (if in Brighton) they could bring "Kosminski", across the street, to the Police Seaside Home where he, in a case of a positive identification, could be kept safe. The question is, is it possible that Holloway did use the Seaside Home in Brighton before June 1891? Unless, who was the user of this Seaside Home in 1890? This "user" could tell us something about a private asylum in Surrey.

Anderson (Blackwoods):

I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him; but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.

Karsten.

[S.Brett]

Are you making a distinction between the Whitechapel murderer, and the Killer?

Thank you, Jon!

No, they are always the same.


Karsten.