Packer and Schwartz

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello (yet again) Jeff.

"That's why we are arguing we should go back and listen to what Cox, Sagar, Macnaughten, Swanson and of course Anderson said... and come to the conclusion what they said was correct."

I think Mac was spot on--he exonerated Kosminski.

Cheers.
LC

We're sought of going in full circles here but yes... thats what is being argued on this thread... MacNaughten was inclined to think Kozminski a weak suspect

WHY???

Thats the big question, why did Mac think differently from Swanson and Anderson?

Thats why Karsten has been arguing that not only was Schwartz a poor witness but that he possibly failed to ID the suspect Kozminski

The evidence must have been poor or they would have put him to Trial in November 1888.... Why didn't they? Why did they let him go and follow him for almost three months?

This is all tied with what MacNAughten actually says MARCH 1889

Thats when MacNAughtens knowledge of Kozminski ended...stop..zielch ..caput

MacNAughten never knows that Kozminski is in Colney Hatch, if he did he would have said so, as was his style

Yours Jeff

[S.Brett]

Hello Jeff!

Thats why Karsten has been arguing that not only was Schwartz a poor witness but that he possibly failed to ID the suspect Kozminsk

"Identification being impossible" (Sagar) and "no one ever saw the Whitechapel Murderer" (Macnaghten) can mean many things and it could mean that Schwartz and Lawende failed long before the Seaside Home ID took place.

(Off topic:

I am currently working on our "Brick Lane" problem and I saw that the Brick Lane is not comparable with the Tailor Streets of this kind (New Road,Settles Street, Nottingham Place, Greenfield Street, Plumbers Row etc.):

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=470

I think "the shop" (Cox) was not in Brick Lane. It seems to me "near" Brick Lane is a better option.

What do you think?)

Yours Karsten.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff!



"Identification being impossible" (Sagar) and "no one ever saw the Whitechapel Murderer" (Macnaghten) can mean many things and it could mean that Schwartz and Lawende failed long before the Seaside Home ID took place.

(Off topic:

I am currently working on our "Brick Lane" problem and I saw that the Brick Lane is not comparable with the Tailor Streets of this kind (New Road,Settles Street, Nottingham Place, Greenfield Street, Plumbers Row etc.):

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=470

I think "the shop" (Cox) was not in Brick Lane. It seems to me "near" Brick Lane is a better option.

What do you think?)

Yours Karsten.

Yeah I think close to the Smith murder scene...Osbourne Street and Brick lane

Martin Fido always banged on about Black Lion Yard which is just off the junction... He always connected Kaminsky of course but if anything comes up there worth a try..

Yours Jeff

PS only two more days to go, we will have a 4 am start...

[S.Brett]

PS only two more days to go, we will have a 4 am start...

In spirit we will be there!

[Michael W Richards]

Again I dispute the using of the word Mere...

Suspect ripperology is primarily SPECULATION

There is good and bad speculation depending on the facts and supporting evidence

Yours Jeff

Since you've acknowledged the above Im curious as to what your intentions are by pursuing arguments about what constitutes a viable "suspect".

Good speculation, bad speculation...its all the same really,..its just opinion based information that is not connected with any physical evidence.

Maybe its good enough to simply chat about, certainly not good enough to use as a foundation for a direct accusation.

Schwartz is a great example here.....he appears nowhere in the Inquest records, his story is authenticated by no other witness of that night, and we do not even know where he lived on the morning before the crime. Yet people love to speculate about evidence that might have been quietly submitted to the Inquest or been withheld from it. Even though we have an example of how withheld information was dealt with during Inquests from Joseph Lawendes appearance.

Try using what is actually known, hard evidence, and perhaps you will see that very few questions are answered by it.

There is no Canonical Group...mere opinion formed it...there is no Jack the Ripper, just some hoax letters that used that nomme de plume,..there is no "Suspect" per se, (as in someone linked by evidence with any of the crimes), there are people that have been suggested as possible based on peoples opinions of the individuals put forth.

Speculation is fun for parlour games, not for investigations.

[Paddy]

Karsten in my own opinion Sagar and Cox were watching different men at different times.
Sagar was opposite Butchers Row just West of Whitechapel road and Cox was amongst Tailors.

Henry said they sat and drank Kosher Rum with the Jewish people so I think it must have been a cafe or pub opposite. I believe there may be goad maps on Casebook. My guess for Henry would be any of the streets between Commercial road and Whitechapel road, but that is only a guess.

I dont think that Sagars brother would have been living in London as the family all seemed to stay in Lancashire. His brother was a farmer there. The place where he was born was Simonstone Lancashire.

Pat...........

[Abby Normal]

Since you've acknowledged the above Im curious as to what your intentions are by pursuing arguments about what constitutes a viable "suspect".

Good speculation, bad speculation...its all the same really,..its just opinion based information that is not connected with any physical evidence.

Maybe its good enough to simply chat about, certainly not good enough to use as a foundation for a direct accusation.

Schwartz is a great example here.....he appears nowhere in the Inquest records, his story is authenticated by no other witness of that night, and we do not even know where he lived on the morning before the crime. Yet people love to speculate about evidence that might have been quietly submitted to the Inquest or been withheld from it. Even though we have an example of how withheld information was dealt with during Inquests from Joseph Lawendes appearance.

Try using what is actually known, hard evidence, and perhaps you will see that very few questions are answered by it.

There is no Canonical Group...mere opinion formed it...there is no Jack the Ripper, just some hoax letters that used that nomme de plume,..there is no "Suspect" per se, (as in someone linked by evidence with any of the crimes), there are people that have been suggested as possible based on peoples opinions of the individuals put forth.

Speculation is fun for parlour games, not for investigations.

Hi Mike

Schwartz is a great example here.....he appears nowhere in the Inquest records, his story is authenticated by no other witness of that night, and we do not even know where he lived on the morning before the crime. Yet people love to speculate about evidence that might have been quietly submitted to the Inquest or been withheld from it. Even though we have an example of how withheld information was dealt with during Inquests from Joseph Lawendes appearance.

I think that detectives trying to solve a case have to speculate about all the evidence and what it means and how it may be connected or not connected to other evidence during an investigation into a crime. And that's pretty much what anybody does here whos interested in the whodunit aspect of the case.

You seem to be dismissing Schwartz as a witness for some reason, but lets see what we have here in terms of his possible validity:

1. A man claims to have seen an assault on a woman approx. 15 minutes before she is found murdered a few feet away.

2. His description tallys with other descriptions of suspects through out the series.

3. His description SPECIFICALLY matches with several other witness descriptions of that night of a man seen with the woman and subsequent murder victim as wearing a peaked cap.

4. Nowhere in the police record does anyone ever question the truthfulness of his story.

5. Schwartz was described as having a heavy jewish appearance and the suspect he saw yelled a racial slur Lipski at him. Later in the evening, during the subsequent investigation of another similarily murdered woman, who was also seen with a suspect wearing a peaked cap, an anti semitic graffiti was found next to a proven clue.

6. Scwhartz had a very viable reason to be where he was when this took place-he was on his way home.

7. Schwartz was a new immigrant to the country, didn't speak the language, and from his timid actions, it dosnt seem he would be the type to lie in a major police investigation, thereby endangering himself and family to the legal ramifications.


From the above I come to the rather obvious conclusions that:
1. He was an honest witness. (95%)
2. He probably saw Strides killer. (90%)
3. He more than likely saw the ripper. (80%)

(Ive just added the percentages to weight the likelihood IMHO.)

Now in terms of you questioning that this wasn't a series of murders-the police at the time held all the cases as the "Whitechapel Murders" and all and any police who weighed in on how many of these were linked to the same man, everyone ascribed at least an amount of victims that would be defined as being murdered by a serial killer.

Unless every police officer at the time was a complete an utter moron, and the doctors were all wrong, the press and the public were all wrong,and over a hundred years of expert experience in criminal investigations that include linking crimes via victomology, MO/sig and geographic profiling is all awaste of time, then in all likelihood there was a serial killer on the loose and its the onus on people such as yourself who dispute this to come up with evidence that there was not.

[S.Brett]

Hello Pat!

Thanks.

Karsten in my own opinion Sagar and Cox were watching different men at different times.
Sagar was opposite Butchers Row just West of Whitechapel road and Cox was amongst Tailors.

Henry said:

While the Whitechapel murders were being perpetrated his place of business was in a certain street, and after the last murder I was on duty in this street for nearly three months.

and

as this madman was put under observation, the mysterious crimes ceased, and that very soon he removed from his usual haunts and gave up his nightly prowls

Sagar and Macnaghten (March 1889) mentioned that he was removed to an asylum. Cox did not mention that his man was removed to an asylum but he said: gave up his nightly prowls and (later?) was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey. Could it be possible that Henry Cox watched December 1888, January & February 1889 (nearly three months) and Sagar watched February - März 1889 (for a few weeks) the same man at different locations?

While the Whitechapel murders were being perpetrated his place of business was in a certain street and after the murders? Where was his place of business?

He occupied several shops in the East End and, maybe, one of these shops was a shop in Butchers Row?

When he gave up his nightly prowls what were the reasons for this? Could he have changed his place of business from his shop in a street of tailors to a shop in Butchers Row after Cox?

My man was evidently of opinion that he might be followed every minute

If his man stopped killing prostitutes because he was evidently of opinion that he might be followed every minute a job in Butchers Row would have been a "good compensation".

Of course, pure speculation.

Karsten.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

I'm a bit confused by your post with regard to Schwartz. You admonish people to not speculate and to rely solely on hard evidence, yet you constantly tout the fact that Schwartz did not appear at the inquest to confirm your belief that he was lying. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that blatant speculation on your part when no one knows why he did not appear?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

humour

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Yes, I know about maps. But my remark about "no brainer" involved double entedre. Humour.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Karsten in my own opinion Sagar and Cox were watching different men at different times.
Sagar was opposite Butchers Row just West of Whitechapel road and Cox was amongst Tailors..

Ki Pat

Very interesting.

Of course what I've been arguing is that they were watching the same man at different times..

Cox was following his man following the Kelly murder and unto a time when he went into a Private Asylum in Surrey when MacNAughten says March 1889

The man was only in the private asylum for one or two quarters when the money ran out and was released.

He was later followed at watched at Butchers Row by Sagar

And of course we know he was also followed, following the Seaside Home ID sometime late 1890 when Swanson says for a short time on return to his brothers house.

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

out of town

Hello (again) Jeff. Thanks.

"That's the big question, why did Mac think differently from Swanson and Anderson?"

From Anderson--not necessarily Swanson.

Perhaps it's because Mac was not out of town during the investigation, like Anderson?

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Good Morning Michael

Your post is obviously far reaching in its question. I will however attempt to answer it as honestly as possible. But at its heart I believe it goes to the core of what it is to actually be human.

Human beings evolved to survive within their environment and are thus biological machines evolved to INTERPRET their environment, so interpretation and SPECULATION of environment is actually the nature of what we are.

I may have this wrong but you seem to be suggesting that Speculation is a bad thing? And there clearly we must disagree.. Anyone who has ever played a decent game of chess will understand the importance of speculating what your opponent will do actually is...

And most of the great achievements in science have been speculated long before they have been proven...

The discovery of the recent Higgs Boson particle being a point in hand... And it was while taking an interest in the cern project last year that I first started re-thinking the Fido conundrum...

Since you've acknowledged the above Im curious as to what your intentions are by pursuing arguments about what constitutes a viable "suspect".

I first started my interest in the case when I was allowed to stay up after nine O'clock and watch Barlow and Watts, back in those days was the royal conspiracy and later in the eighties the Maybrick Diary but by the naughties my interests had narrowed to the police suspects. The problem and mystery of course is why the various police accounts appear to contradict each other.

Why does Abberline refute MacNAughten and Anderson. Why do these men (All good Coppers) appear to get basic stuff wrong about the various suspects? Why do they appear to argue stuff that is not supported.

This for me has always been the biggest mystery rather than necessarily who JtR actually was.

Good speculation, bad speculation...its all the same really,..its just opinion based information that is not connected with any physical evidence.

No No No... There clearly is good a bad speculation. We no this because scientists have speculated the existence of the Higgs boson and discovered it existed..thats good speculation. They are now speculating that Dark matter and Dark energy exist. In the future I believe they will be proved correct because its GOOD speculation.

In other words Good speculation can lead people to look and search in the correct place.. That is the aim.

Maybe its good enough to simply chat about, certainly not good enough to use as a foundation for a direct accusation.

Firstly I'm far from convinced Anderson and Swanson are correct. Thats not what is being speculated. What I think can be proved is what all the senior police officers said was the truth based on their point of view.

If speculation can lead us to new evidence to that...then that is the aim.

Schwartz is a great example here.....he appears nowhere in the Inquest records, his story is authenticated by no other witness of that night, and we do not even know where he lived on the morning before the crime. Yet people love to speculate about evidence that might have been quietly submitted to the Inquest or been withheld from it. Even though we have an example of how withheld information was dealt with during Inquests from Joseph Lawendes appearance.

I'm not sure I totally agree with you. Schwartz story is supported by what people don't see rather than what they do. Schwartz story of 12.45 am is the only time that what he claims could possibly have happened. If he had stated it at any other time it would have been contradicted by the other witnesses...it wasn't

To understand what happened in Berner street that night you must understand that what people don't see is as important as what they do see.

But this is all rather a red herring, as Karsten has pointed out if Schwartz had of seen JtR and the police were holding the suspect (Kozminski) then is it not reasonable to suppose that he would have been used?

And if he was used he must have failed to ID the suspect or he would have gone to Trial... What we know is the suspect 'must' have been released because Cox was following that suspect for several months afterwards up-unto Mac says he goes into an Asylum March 1889

Speculation: So Schwartz can't have been Swanson's Seaside Home ID witness...the only logical conclusion...

Try using what is actually known, hard evidence, and perhaps you will see that very few questions are answered by it.

I once thought as you do. It wasn't until a 'eurika' moment in the bath last Xmas that the apparent reason for the evidence 'apparently' contradicting itself suddenly hit me... like a bolt from heaven...

Of course ripperologist like Rob House and Karsten Giese had been speculating that Kozminski possibly was involved far earlier than ripperologist had previously considered...

But experiencing the answer for ones self, is what placed me on the road to damascus, as they say...

Its very very simple... What the various policeman say can simply be explained by them talking about completely different events but about the same suspect.

Once you have that...everything makes sense and drops into place

There is no Canonical Group...mere opinion formed it...there is no Jack the Ripper, just some hoax letters that used that nomme de plume,..there is no "Suspect" per se, (as in someone linked by evidence with any of the crimes), there are people that have been suggested as possible based on peoples opinions of the individuals put forth.

Clearly the letters are hoax's and the name Jack the Ripper was the invention of an enterprising journalist.. We know this as Swanson tells us so in the marginalia...

If your trying to argue that because of this a lone serial killer didn't exist then its the sought of reasoning I'd expect from Trevor Marriot

All our knowledge and experience of such murders suggest a lone serial killer, at least of those victims where violence aimed at the female genitalia is evident..thats why so much time is argued about Stride.

Speculation is fun for parlour games, not for investigations.

As i previous said I must disagree with you... Speculation and interpretation is the basis of human survival and our species development, not just a parlour game... One day I believe that speculation will lead to the answer to the universe..

But I once interviewed an ex-member of the CIA who had been responsible for creating a remote viewing program. Being somewhat cynical about the ability of humans to be Psychic I asked him why they spent all that money which was surely a complete waist of time?

He replied that he also doubted that remote viewers where psychic but that it worked and delivered results in finding USSR missiles... His reasoning for this was simply that it was easier to discover missiles if the search area was narrowed down to a specific areas by the remote veiwers..It was a question of mathematics not psychic ability

Thats what I'm hoping the current speculation being advanced will lead to... People searching new areas and going back over once glanced at records..

Martin Fido only ever searched the Colney Hatch asylum records...out there everyday new records come on line... And if people can be encouraged to search them then somewhere is the answer

Karsten is currently reasoning that Kozminski must have had a small shop in the Bricklane area... Yes its a needle in a haystack.. but if the search is narrowed by speculated reasoning then just perhaps something new can be discovered

Its my belief that it is suspect ripperology that has driven the field of research..obviously not always there are great ripperologist who are not suspect based, Neil Sheldon being one in mind, but i do feel that the desire to solve the puzzle is the fields biggest driving force

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello (again) Jeff. Thanks.

"That's the big question, why did Mac think differently from Swanson and Anderson?"

From Anderson--not necessarily Swanson.

Perhaps it's because Mac was not out of town during the investigation, like Anderson?

Cheers.
LC

Lynn... Mac hadn't even joined the force, so this argument is beneath you

As you know I think Swanson the driving force behind the Kozminski theory...I don't think Anderson came by the solution until after August 1889

Two separate events, the same suspect

Yours Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Ki Pat

Very interesting.

Of course what I've been arguing is that they were watching the same man at different times..

Cox was following his man following the Kelly murder and unto a time when he went into a Private Asylum in Surrey when MacNAughten says March 1889

The man was only in the private asylum for one or two quarters when the money ran out and was released.

He was later followed at watched at Butchers Row by Sagar

And of course we know he was also followed, following the Seaside Home ID sometime late 1890 when Swanson says for a short time on return to his brothers house.

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff
This is an interesting take. Where does Koz trial for the dog thing fit in this time line.

Also, who followed him after the ID after he returned to his brother? was that Sagar?