Packer and Schwartz

[Hunter]

Yes Cris.

[I] The notice is headed: "Apprehensions sought. Murder. Metropolitan Police District"; and it proceeds:

"The woodcut sketches, purporting to resemble the persons last seen with the murdered women, which have appeared in The Daily Telegraph, were not authorised by police. The following are the descriptions of the persons seen:

"At 12.35 a.m., 30th September, with Elizabeth Stride, found murdered at one a.m., same date, in Berner-street - A man, aged 28, height 5ft 8in, complexion dark, small dark moustache; dress, black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; respectable appearance; carried a parcel wrapped up in a newspaper.

At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street, a man, aged about 30, height 5ft 5in, complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.

"Information to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Police Office, Great Scotland-yard London, S.WW...

Yes, Jon...November 12, the information provided by Israel Schwartz is publicly circulated by the Metropolitan Police . 3 weeks after the inquest had concluded. Nearly a month and a half after the murder of Elizabeth Stride took place...Yep, November 12, 1888.

People let their own bias get in the way. And that Star report gets to be the bait. Look at the peripheral events; look at what happened previously with Pizer; look at what Wynne Baxter was facing; look at the perceived danger that this witness might have been in if it was possible that he saw the beginning of an actual murder (whether we believe it or not is irrelevant)... And look at how little the Police had to go on...and one might come up with a rational explanation for why Israel Schwartz or his evidence wasn't presented at the inquest.

Thanks for posting that Jon. Maybe it'll have more impact on the theorists here than if I had posted it.

[curious4]

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.

Thanks cd :-)

Gwyneth

[Ben]

Wouldn't it be a reasonable assumption by the B.S. man during these minutes that Schwartz and/or the Pipeman had found the nearest P.C. and were now headed back to where Schwartz saw Stride?

A very reasonable assumption, CD, and it may explain the absence of abdominal mutilations; dispatch her quickly and scarper before the pesky "Lipski" could return with a copper.

I choose option B, incidentally, albeit with alterations. He threatens her, possibly with a knife, and explains to her that he has no intention of killing her; he simply wants to have his wicked way without paying, explaining that if she screams, she'll receive the knife treatment.

[Jeff Leahy]

It's hard to judge when we today have no idea what Kozminski looked like in 1888.

Actually Cox gives a very good description of the man he watches connected to a sweater shop.1888-89

A lot of time, energy and man power was put into following Cox's suspect, so a big pile of paper work..

The question is actually if it wasn't Kozminski why didn't MacNAughten list Cox's suspect as more likely than Cutbush? He did after all believe that the man he followed was the murderer....

MacNaughten: 'There were many circumstances'

But Schwartz must have either failed to ID the suspect or he didn't see the murder

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

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

Yeah the sight of the now `Imperial War museum (originally Bedlum) was in 1888 in surrey the boundaries going into Southwark

Records are still available near Bromley South London

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

Hi CD

As she turns BSM pushes one arm holding the cachous up behind her back hard causing extreme pain she grasps the mints..

At the same time with his other arm he grabs the scarf, leaving Strides other arm free but failing to pull the scarf away... (Check out the Jack the Stripper murders)

She faints still holding the cachous, she twists as she is dragged two paces into the yard and throat cut in two movements

Another possibility of course is that as Gwyneth said, he simply picked her up and cut her throat as he lay her down

I prefer the dragging as I've experimented drugging objects over slats...the skirt would glide quiet easily..

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

Yes its quite clear that the ID took place in a Surrey Asylum... A convalescent Home, Martin Fido never believed the Police Seaside Home theory

The suspect a witness in Millers Court not Dutfield yard?

Yours Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Yes its quite clear that the ID took place in a Surrey Asylum... A convalescent Home, Martin Fido never believed the Police Seaside Home theory

The suspect a witness in Millers Court not Dutfield yard?

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff
Fido never believed the Police seaside home "theory" ?Really? why not?
We have two high level police that mention very specific details regarding the ID including placing it into a series of events.

MM probably also alluded to it-Kosminsky..."strongly resembles.." etc.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff
Fido never believed the Police seaside home "theory" ?Really? why not?

The Police seaside Home theory was largely advanced by theorists at the time... Martin was aware that Anderson claimed the ID took place in an Asylum.

However in a recent email he told me they only ever searched the Colney Hatch Asylum records in Middlesex. Very little was known about Kozminski back in the eighties and Anderson called him a poor polish jew, they didn't know he had wealthy family members.

So when Kozminski turned up almost two years after MacNaughten said he went into the Asylum March 1889, it was assumed Aaron Kozminski must be the wrong man and he plumbed for David Cohen... Actually I now believe he may have been closer to the truth than he realised...there are many similarities between Kozminski and Cohen, possibly David Cohen was confused with a man running a boot shop in Bricklane...Aaron Cohen

But Martin didn't tie Cox and Sagars theory with Andersons.... 'From time to time became insane' 'Followed for three months' 'A Private Asylum in Surrey'

Colney Hatch is in Middlesex

We have two high level police that mention very specific details regarding the ID including placing it into a series of events.

MM probably also alluded to it-Kosminsky..."strongly resembles.." etc.

He strongly resembled a man seen by a City PC in Mitre Street...

A watchman saw a man and a woman head from Aldgate Station to Mitre Square...but only the man returned... was he here seen by a City PC as he left Mitre Sq down Mitre Street back towards Aldgate and left into Goulston Street?

That would explain why Kozminski was a City suspect and why he was followed by Cox and Sagar

Yours Jeff

[S.Brett]

Yes its quite clear that the ID took place in a Surrey Asylum... A convalescent Home, Martin Fido never believed the Police Seaside Home theory

The suspect a witness in Millers Court not Dutfield yard?

Yours Jeff

"identified" when he "was caged in an asylum" (Anderson)... could mean in a Seaside Home of an (private) asylum... but if its Seaside Home was located in Brighton, not far from the Police Seaside Home, then it is also possible that the identification took place at the Police home.

"My Seaside Home witness" had a really good view of "Kosminski", they stared at each other for a moment. "Kosminski" knew he was identified. He would not have killed Eddowes. In my opinion, it makes sense that he was seen in Dorset Street/ Millers Court. Maybe this is also a reason why he stopped killing prostitutes.

[c.d.]

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

Hello Lynn and Gwyneth,

The only account that we have of the incident comes from Schwartz. Due to the timing of his arrival on the scene we have no way of knowing what caused the altercation nor do we know who the instigator was. It could have been Stride. We also have no way of knowing (and Schwartz doesn't tell us) of how violently Stride was thrown to the ground. For all he knew, their legs could have gotten entangled or the B.S. man was pulling one way and Stride another when the B.S. man let go causing Stride to fall.

I don't think this was Stride's first time on the street and if she had ever solicited she would know from experience that there were hazards associated with that profession, i.e., drunken, brutish men. I would expect a prostitute to have a pretty thick skin in responding to these types of events and it could have been a source of pride that she said I am not going to let being shoved by some drunken jerk make me move from where I want to be.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Jeff,

If she fought off the B.S. man or was dragged wouldn't that be reflected in the state of her clothing such as a tear or ripped off buttons? To me, her clothing suggests being caught completely off guard as though she had been with a client.

c.d.

[c.d.]

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

Hello Lynn,

You seem to feel that the club members had no other choice than to concoct a conspiracy (which could blow up in their face and make a bad situation worse). Why not simply cooperate with the police as much as possible and show the police you had nothing to hide?

No one knows why Schwartz was not called to the inquest.

You seem to put a lot of faith in the Leman lads. Were they in full possession of all the facts before they voiced their opinion? And were they convinced that Schwartz had lied which is why they didn't believe his story or was it because Schwartz arrived in the middle of something coupled with his non-understanding of English and the problems inherent with a translation?

And even if the Leman lads believed Schwartz to be lying, had they personally questioned him before arriving at that conclusion? I would think that their opinion would be trumped by that of Swanson who had all of the facts at his disposal, who either questioned Schwartz personally or who conferred with Abberline who did. wSanson allows for the possibility of another killer in his report which erases many of the problems inherent in Schwartz's story. I have to go with Swanson over the Leman lads.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Yes, Jon...November 12, the information provided by Israel Schwartz is publicly circulated by the Metropolitan Police . 3 weeks after the inquest had concluded. Nearly a month and a half after the murder of Elizabeth Stride took place...Yep, November 12, 1888.

Yes Cris, originally circulated internally in The Police Gazette of Oct. 19th (same date as Swanson's report), to all officials throughout the UK, Keepers of prisons, Chief Constables, Mayors, and broadly speaking anyone who's duty it was to uphold the law.
There is no basis for an argument that the police (ie; Scotland Yard) did not believe Schwartz up to Oct. 19th.

The fact that the description provided by Schwartz was eventually released to the Daily Telegraph on Nov. 12th (and later in the Bury Free Press, and Taunton Courier), suggests there had been no change in police opinion, regardless of any press speculations.

Thanks for posting that Jon. Maybe it'll have more impact on the theorists here than if I had posted it.

Steady on ol' chap, I don't think anyone's listening.

[Hunter]

Lol...well the world series is on anyway.