Packer and Schwartz

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello (yet again) Jeff. Thanks.

OK, if he were in for a long time beginning March 1889, he must have been out whenever he was in court for his unmuzzled dog.

A time line would be helpful.

Cheers.
LC

We can only guess at a time line..

If he goes into a Private Asylum in March 1889, its safe to assume they paid quarterly upfront. That would place him out either end of June 1889 or if two months October 1889

One lets him out to kill MacKenzie and walk the dog

The other allows only to walk the dog

When Does packer say that he had again seen the man who killed Stride on the street? That would gibe another potential date

Yours Jeff

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

""Their suspicions"? You mean Leman Street?"

Quite.

Hi Lynn.

It may be nothing more than the fact the police have two witnesses, Brown & Schwartz, who both claim to have seen the same woman at the same time in different locations.
This is sufficient to render a little doubt in one or the other's story.

[lynn cates]

inference

Hello Jeff. Thanks. Hope the situation is resolved.

"Cox describes following a suspect after the Kelly murder and this would fit Kozminski if he indeed went into a private asylum in Surrey in March 1889."

Indeed. but it could fit MANY others as well.

"If it wasn't Kozminski why don't we have another name on the list? Say he was following Hyam Hyams, why isn't he down as a more important suspect than Cutbush?"

You mean Mac's list? I don't think Mac was keen on others than Druitt. In fact, we was not keen on Kosminski, either.

"What they describe certainly does [not?] fit Ostrog or Druitt."

Well, so far as we know. But not sure it fits Kosminski either?

"So by elimination we are left with Kozminski."

Well, with all due respect, Kosminsk--and scores of others.

But I suppose your case is based primarily on his being named by Mac?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

implicate

Hello (again) Jeff. Thanks.

"Because Anderson didn't write the note it was written by Crawford, a letter of introduction not mentioning her name suggesting a third person involved between the woman and Crawford."

Indeed. But how does this implicate, specifically, Kosminski?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Packer

Hello (yet again) Jeff. Thanks.

That helps a bit.

Not sure I would bet much on Packer, though.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

after

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Yes, indeed. But I'm not sure their doubts arose until AFTER they began their investigation? It seems that, only then, were they disposed to disregard his story.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Lynn.

It may be nothing more than the fact the police have two witnesses, Brown & Schwartz, who both claim to have seen the same woman at the same time in different locations.
This is sufficient to render a little doubt in one or the other's story.

Good Morning Jon

But the police were on the ground and knew this territory, they patrolled the distances and therefore would have realised instantly that Schwartz and Brown don't contradict each other...You merely have to know the terrain and the distance between Commercial Street and the Shop on the corner of the junction Fairclough Street, some distance apart

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff. Thanks. Hope the situation is resolved.

No still on the emergency waiting list...bags packed...but a def date 13th Nov

"Cox describes following a suspect after the Kelly murder and this would fit Kozminski if he indeed went into a private asylum in Surrey in March 1889."

Indeed. but it could fit MANY others as well.

Again I draw you back to Mac's list.. A suspect followed as long and considered to be the murderer by Cox must have been an important suspect... So if it wasn't Kozminski then why isn't another suspect named?

Cox and Sager can't have been describing Druit , who was dead or Ostrog who was in Jail.

"If it wasn't Kozminski why don't we have another name on the list? Say he was following Hyam Hyams, why isn't he down as a more important suspect than Cutbush?"

You mean Mac's list? I don't think Mac was keen on others than Druitt. In fact, we was not keen on Kosminski, either.

Yes Yes precisely, thats what Karsten has been arguing... Why did MacNAughten prefer Druit, when Swanson and Anderson say he was positively ID'd by the only man who ever had a good look at the murderer and he knew he was identified?

Thats because MacNaughten had the original file created by Cox.... And that doesn't mention anything after March 1889... And the ID took place shortly before Kozminski entered Colney Hatch Feb 1891

Macanughten didn't know about the ID. or what happened after March 1889

"What they describe certainly does [not?] fit Ostrog or Druitt."

Well, so far as we know. But not sure it fits Kosminski either?

Cox gives quiet detailed description of surveillance at a sweater premises. Of a man with short dark curley hair

He's talking about Kozminski alright...if he isn't where is his suspect?

"So by elimination we are left with Kozminski."

Well, with all due respect, Kosminsk--and scores of others.

Scores? I'm not certain about that..but there was another man on the street that was the same age, the same condition and a similar name..David Cohen.. Were they both bought to Leaman police station...was there confusion?

But I suppose your case is based primarily on his being named by Mac?
Cheers.
LC

No my case is primarily on him being named by Swanson...'Kozminski was the suspect'

It cooberated to an extent by Anderson, MacNaughten, Sims, Griffiths, Abberline, Reid, and of course Cox and Sagar

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello (again) Jeff. Thanks.

"Because Anderson didn't write the note it was written by Crawford, a letter of introduction not mentioning her name suggesting a third person involved between the woman and Crawford."

Indeed. But how does this implicate, specifically, Kosminski?

Cheers.
LC

It would certainly fit with a theory that sujests Kozminski entering an Asylum in March 1889...

But an ID not happening until late 1990

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Not sure I would bet much on Packer, though.

Cheers.
LC

Yes I can see your odd kozminskite choking on his Cornflakes with this suggestion.

It was something that Karsten first suggested and at first I thought the same as you do...

However if you think about it, packer and Kozminski were neighbours. Kozminski had lived next door to Dutfield yard as a child. He lived around the corner Greenfield street and provenance street in 1888.

Kozminski was therefore the local nutter.

We have Fanny stood at her door why? Because she was waiting for local gossip and chat....

So if there was a local nutter in the area isn't it reasonable to expect lots of local gossip... on the street, in the shops, by the neighbouring residents..

Is the idea that Packer knew Kozminski so far fetched? He may be unreliable, but the idea he knew Kozminski is not so far fetched...

And Packer clearly goes to the local press and says he's seen the man at a later date, some months afterwards....Why?

Yours Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Lynn.

It may be nothing more than the fact the police have two witnesses, Brown & Schwartz, who both claim to have seen the same woman at the same time in different locations.
This is sufficient to render a little doubt in one or the other's story.

Actually Jon there are reasons to doubt both as authentic sightings of Elizabeth Stride, since Israel has what seems like an improbable storyline and zero corroborative evidence, and Browns ID isn't validated by anyone else either.

None of the key players in the Stride witness pool have any corroborative accounts to help validate their assertions, other than Fanny Mortimer.

Cheers
Mike

[Abby Normal]

Actually Jon there are reasons to doubt both as authentic sightings of Elizabeth Stride, since Israel has what seems like an improbable storyline and zero corroborative evidence, and Browns ID isn't validated by anyone else either.

None of the key players in the Stride witness pool have any corroborative accounts to help validate their assertions, other than Fanny Mortimer.

Cheers
Mike

ahh. fanny Mortimer. Now theres a valuable witness! ; )


I find the un corroborated witness argument weak. Most witnesses are uncorroborated by other witnesses. People are convicted every day in court by an uncorroborated witness.

In the ripper case, only Lawende is corroborated.

PC smith is uncorroborated-does that make his testimony useless?

Besides, Marshall, Schwartz, lawende and even possibly smith all describe a similar man-wearing a peaked cap. so does the anon church street sighting.

They also all think the woman was similar to Stride.

Not sure if it all fits the definition of corroboration-but its close enough in my book.

[S.Brett]

It was something that Karsten first suggested and at first I thought the same as you do...

However if you think about it, packer and Kozminski were neighbours. Kozminski had lived next door to Dutfield yard as a child. He lived around the corner Greenfield street and provenance street in 1888.
Yours Jeff

Hello Jeff,

"In 1871, the couple were living at 1 Princes Street, Whitechapel (now part of Old Montague Street)[3] where Matthew is listed as a fishmonger. They later moved to 25 Fairclough Street and were joined by Matthew's stepmother Sarah[4]. By 1888, the Packers were living at 44 Berner Street, with lodgers Sarah Harrison and Harry Douglas. Matthew ran a fruit and sweet shop from the premises."

http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/w/Matthew_Packer.html

I do not know if Packer and Woolf & Aaron were neighbors in Berner Street 1881/82. Nonetheless, they might have known each other. 25 Fairclough Street to 25 Providence Street is the same distance as 44 Berner Street to 25 Providence Street. Woolf lived before December 1886 - after July 1887 in 62 Greenfield Street.

And Packer clearly goes to the local press and says he's seen the man at a later date, some months afterwards....Why?

I posted (No.186):

Hello!

It is nice to see that someone thinks the same way about it.

"Newspaper parcel" seen by PC Smith:

Packer: "I put the grapes in a paper bag and handed them to him."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_news/18881004.html

Evening News, 20 October 1888:

"The police called on Mr. Packer, of 44, Berner-street, yesterday morning. Mr. Packer, when asked his opinion as to where the murderer lodged - for he had seen him several times before the fatal night - remarked, "In the next street." It is considered he is not far wrong in his conjecture; but the police do not deem it prudent to say what steps are being taken in the matter."

Evening News, 31 October 1888:

“He alleges that he had often seen the man before the murder, as well as the woman who was murdered in Berner-street, but he had not seen any one resembling the man since the murder till he saw him again last Saturday night” (27 October)

"Between seven and eight o'clock, on Saturday evening last, I was standing with my barrow at the corner of Greenfield-street, Commercial-road, when I saw a man pass by on the opposite side of Greenfield-street, near the watchmaker's shop. I recognized him in a minute as the man I had seen outside my shop on the night when Elizabeth Stride was murdered in Berner-street. It was the man who bought the grapes and gave them to the woman that was afterwards found murdered in the yard. I shall never forget his face, and should know him again amongst a thousand men."

Birmingham Daily Post, 14 September 1889:

"Shortly after the commission of the murder preceding the Pinchin Street discovery Packer again expressed an opinion that the criminal did not live "very far from Batty Street," which is within three minutes walk of the railway arch."

"In the next street." Woolf Abrahams, 25 Providence Street

"did not live very far from Batty Street" Providence Street/ Greenfield Street

"Greenfield-street" Isaac Abrahams & Matilda Lubnowski

We should keep an eye on Packer.

Karsten.

All I can say is:

In 2003/204 when I came from a club I witnessed a similar incident similar to Dutfields Yard. In this situation I "was" Schwartz, but honestly, I would have been a very poor witness. The people involved looked like the most people I had seen in that night.

Once more I beg you, Jeff, Lynn and the other people here:

The man in the photo, what is his age?

[Jeff Leahy]

The man in the photo, what is his age?

Guess would be 28 years old..

Yours Jeff

PS I thought there was another article where Packer claimed to have seen the man in Commercial Street?

[S.Brett]

It strikes me that between the black, dark, pepper & salt and grey descriptions there is a "spot of colour", Lawende´s red neckerchief, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot

The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, 2 October, 1888:

"a man was, later in the day, brought to the Leman-street Police-station by a constable who found him prowling about not far from Mitre-street. His face was haggard, and he seemed unable to give any account of himself. Upon him were found 1s 4½d in money and a razor, and round his throat was a woollen scarf of a violet colour, upon which were several long hairs, supposed to be those of a woman." (1 October 1888)

A violet scarf in the darkness of Duke Street... has a reddish tint... isn´t it...

New York Times 2 October 1888:

"The only trace considered of any value is the story of a watchboy who saw a man and woman leave Aldgate station, going towards Mitre-square. The man returned shortly afterward alone. The police have a good decription of him".

Sims:

“The policeman who got a glimpse of Jack the Ripper in Mitre Court said, when some time afterwards he saw the Pole, that he was the height and build of the man he had seen on the night of the murder.”

Macnaughten:

“This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square”.

My question is:

Could this Watchboy/Policeman be the City PC? If the man he saw wore a violet woolen scarf then it is possible that this man might be the man Lawende saw with a red neckerchief.