Packer and Schwartz

[Jeff Leahy]

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?

Hi Abbey

I think Kartsen and i have a slightly different take on this...

I think McKenzie was a ripper attack, so i think he was out quite quickly July 1889

Karsten prefers November 1889....walking the dog incident December 1889

At this time (August 1889) Anderson is still claiming he hasn't a clue about the ripper...

Anderson and Monroe fall out over something (Supposedly pensions) in June 1890, I think the Crawford letter relates to this period

By July 1890 six months later Kozminski is taken to the work house but released after a few days, presumably because he is deemed NOT insane

So its possible Sagar is referring to the period following this between and during the Seaside Home ID

Kozminski entering Colney Hatch shortly afterwards Feb 1891

Anderson is saying 'There there is your answer a Maniac revealing in blood' the next year 1892

Yours Jeff

PS and yes I believe Sagar was the person 'on brothers return' the problem is Smith? He must have had to sign off on the expenses as Monty has pointed out.....So Smith knew

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Actually cd my comments on Schwartz are not based on whether or not he told the truth or lied, they are to point out that IF he was fully believed by the authorities before the Inquest then his story would HAVE to have been submitted in some form at that same Inquest. The story of BSM's attack on someone who is mortally wounded within a very few minutes would have been crucial to the question as to whether her wounds were accidental, self inflicted, or whether she was a victim of a fatal assault.

The fact that there are zero records in existence that suggest anything about Israel' story was entered as evidence in any format should suggest to investigators that his story was not withheld, it was disbelieved.

Now...if that's what the authorities felt about his sighting, then its possible they thought so because they discovered a falsehood or 2 while investigating his claim.

As the records indicate, there is only 1 witness presented at the Inquest as to what he saw at 12:45am, and that is Mr Brown. A sighting which could easily have been the young couple known to be in that immediate area at the time. If he didn't seen Liz, then its probable no-one saw her on the street after 12:35. Which suggests she was off the street..likely already in that alley.

You see cd, if you start with a defensible, sound argument...Israel was not believed by the authorities based on his and his story's absence, then you have a platform from which you can posit some potential outcomes and answers that would be logical.

People appearing and disappearing all unseen or unheard by a witness who, for the period from 12:30 until 1am, was at her door facing the street off an on, seems to suggest that she must have missed seeing anyone who came by the gates during that entire half hour...like Eagle, Israel, BSM, Pipeman, Louis Diemshitz arriving just before 1am. The fact that we know she saw Goldstein at 12:55 shows us that she was indeed at her door during that last 10 minutes at least, and coupled with her statement, makes it a little hard to accept she just happened to have missed seeing or hearing all those people near the gates.

[S.Brett]

Hello Jeff, Abbey...

I think Kartsen and i have a slightly different take on this...

I think McKenzie was a ripper attack, so i think he was out quite quickly July 1889

Karsten prefers November 1889....walking the dog incident December 1889

Or else, he was under observation when the Mackenzie murder took place.

Sagar:

"atrocities came to an end", "no more Ripper atrocities", "the series of murders came to an end" sounds like after Kelly... at the same time Cox watched his suspect...

"placed in a lunatic asylum", "removed to a private asylum", "Eventually we got him incarcerated in a lunatic asylum"

Cox did not mention that they got him incarcerated in a lunatic asylum but said:

"It is indeed very strange that as soon 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" and "but from time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey"

Is it possible that Cox watched mid- December 1888 - mid February 1889? And after this, while Sagar watched "Kosminski", the man became insane again ("from time to time"). Assuming that Cox left his post on 10 February 1889 and "about March 1889" means 24 March 1889 then we have six weeks for "Kosminski" changing his place of business from a shop in a Tailor- Street to Butchers Row.

After the suspect was removed Sagar told Cox that "Kosminski" is in a private asylum in Surrey.

Sagar´s "Identification being impossible" could mean that the ID's with Schwartz and Lawende failed at that time. The "Kosminski" case was weak. But (Cox): He "was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes" and "There were several other officers with me, and I think there can be no harm in stating that the opinion of most of them was that the man they were watching had something to do with the crimes" and (Sagar) "I feel sure we knew the man, but we could prove nothing".

"No one ever saw the Whitechapel Murderer" (Macnaghten).

In this case, Schwartz and Lawende were not at the Seaside Home in 1890/1891. There was another Jewish witness.

I think that Schwartz and Lawende were already confronted with him in October 1888, unsuccessful.

Anderson:

"One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of a virulent type; that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house (I guess Berner Street inquiries) search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were low-class Jews, for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice."

"And the result (The Seaside Home ID two years later) proved that our diagnosis was right on every point."

"Kosminski" was living alone the most of the time ("while the murders were being perpetrated"). At the time of the murders his place of business was in a certain he worked and lived in a little shop and Cox watched him in this street for nearly three months after the Kelly murder.

Cox stated: "it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail"

After Kelly there was an incident on the morning of the 22 November 1888 near Brick Lane.

I guess that "Kosminski" was already found by the police in October 1888 and the IDs with Schwartz and Lawende failed. It is possible that Sagar was in Butcher Row again in December 1890, after the Seaside Home identification took place, shortly before "Kosminski" was admitted to Colney Hatch. Maybe, the Butchers Row was one of "the several shops" but this time, "Kosminski" was not seen there.

Yours Karsten.

[lynn cates]

epistemic dimensions

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"As you know I think Swanson the driving force behind the Kozminski theory"

Yes. But not sure why.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"As you know I think Swanson the driving force behind the Kozminski theory"

Yes. But not sure why.

Cheers.
LC

Because Swanson was the man in charge of the investigation from the out..

Anderson is clear to a reporter in August 1889 that they didn't know who the culprit was, their failure to bring a case...

However it seems probable that among the suspects at the time, 1888, an important one was Kozminski... but no proof could be found...perhaps there was a failed ID?

But surveillance was kept on a suspect and reports via City CID (Cox) were given to Swanson.... And its these reports MacAnughten discovers and uses in 1894 to write the memo...

Once you figure out that Anderson and MAcNaughten are describing two completely different events. MacNAughten the events up to March 1889 and Anderson the events following the Crawford letter in 1890 almost two years later....

Then its Swanson who knows the whole story....and what all three say is true from their perspective...

Two different events...the same suspect

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

I guess that "Kosminski" was already found by the police in October 1888 and the IDs with Schwartz and Lawende failed. It is possible that Sagar was in Butcher Row again in December 1890, after the Seaside Home identification took place, shortly before "Kosminski" was admitted to Colney Hatch. Maybe, the Butchers Row was one of "the several shops" but this time, "Kosminski" was not seen there.

Yours Karsten.

Morning Karsten

I'd not considered that Sagar failed to find kozminski in Butchers Row? Personally I prefer a connection, his grandfather was after all a butcher, and at this time using the hides and oral in other manufacture...leather ..Boots would make some sense in the family trades..

But I still can't get MacKenzie out of my mind.. While I accept Swanson didn't count MacKenzie and its possible neither did Cox and Sagar

Is it not possible that Kozminski was back on the streets or temporarily out of the asylum without the police knowledge?

It just seems to me that the rarity of such mutilation murders and its obvious targeting of the female genitalia would point towards a Jack kill...

Yours Jeff

[S.Brett]

Morning Jeff,

But I still can't get MacKenzie out of my mind.. While I accept Swanson didn't count MacKenzie and its possible neither did Cox and Sagar

Is it not possible that Kozminski was back on the streets or temporarily out of the asylum without the police knowledge?

I have got an idea where the "certain street" (Cox) was and it is possible that during the surveillance of "Kosminski" there the Mackenzie murder took place and Sergeant Stephen White with his "behind Whitechapel Road" was right.

It was not a "Tailor Street" but a Street that had something to do with the Tailors system.

It could take a few hours (until tommorow?). As I said, just an idea...

Yours Karsten.

[Jeff Leahy]

Morning Jeff,

I have got an idea where the "certain street" (Cox) was and it is possible that during the surveillance of "Kosminski" there the Mackenzie murder took place and Sergeant Stephen White with his "behind Whitechapel Road" was right.

It was not a "Tailor Street" but a Street that had something to do with the Tailors system.

It could take a few hours (until tommorow?). As I said, just an idea...

Yours Karsten.

Cool Karsten

We are starting to pack and prepare for the big one tomorrow..

I think I'm planning to stay in the Eastend for a few days so might take my camera, a new toy with lots of buttons turned up yesterday to keep me busy

Yours Jeff

[S.Brett]

We are starting to pack and prepare for the big one tomorrow..

Our fingers are tightly crossed!

I think I'm planning to stay in the Eastend for a few days so might take my camera, a new toy with lots of buttons turned up yesterday to keep me busy

Great! On the trail of Cox...

[Jeff Leahy]

Great! On the trail of Cox...

Anything Particular you would like me to photograph?

I'll certainly be on the junction of Osbourne Street and Brick Lane

I'll take the route South down to Berner street (Henrique Street)

Yours Jef

[S.Brett]

Anything Particular you would like me to photograph?

Yes...

Cox:

"The Jews in the street soon became aware of our presence. It was impossible to hide ourselves. They became suddenly alarmed, panic stricken, and I can tell you that at nights we ran a considerable risk. We carried our lives in our hands so to speak, and at last we had to partly take the alarmed inhabitants into our confidence, and so throw them off the scent. We told them we were factory inspectors looking for tailors and capmakers who employed boys and girls under age, and pointing out the evils accruing from the sweaters' system asked them to co-operate with us in destroying it."

"They readily promised to do so, although we knew well that they had no intention of helping us. Every man was as bad as another."

"We had the use of a house opposite the shop of the man we suspected, and, disguised, of course, we frequently stopped across in the role of customers."

"he was a mad, poverty stricken inhabitant of some slum in the East End".

...factory inspectors looking for tailors and capmakers (from the sweaters´system) who employed boys and girls under age...asked them to co-operate with us in destroying it... They readily promised to do so, although we knew well that they had no intention of helping us...

Can it be that the "factory inspectors" asked Non- Tailor Jews to co-operate with them in "destroying" (sweaters´system) the business of Jewish Tailors (and capmakers) in this "certain street" who employed boys and girls under age? Greenfield Street had over thirty Tailors in 1888. Does it make sense?

"I can tell you that at nights we ran a considerable risk. We carried our lives in our hands so to speak" Is it Greenfield Street?

"I allowed him to get right out of the street before I left the house, and then I set off after him. I followed him to Lehman Street"... and ..."down to St George's in the East End".

To me it seems that the shop of the man was not far from Leman Street. I can well imagine that the suspect went through Old Castle Street/ Castle Alley before entering Leman Street. So it is possible that the shop of the man had been in Wentworth Street. Instead of Old Castle Street/ Castle Alley, Goulston Street and Commercial Street also make sense. Assuming that the shop was in Wentworth Street we would find it in the section between Middlesex Street and Commercial Street. If the shop was in the section between Commercial Road and Osborn Street the street leading to Leman Street could have been the George Yard.

Rob House described in "Prime Suspect" the "chazar mark" ("pig market" a slave-market) on Goulston Street where Jewish immigrants ("greeners") try to get work with the master tailors. If Cox watched in Wentworth Street, maybe, he "could see" the "chazar mark" and, maybe, it was easier to say that they are factory inspectors looking for tailors and capmakers who employed boys and girls under age, there, than in Greenfield Street.

"I allowed him to get right out of the street" and "We had the use of a house opposite the shop of the man we suspected"

Out of the street and opposite the shop could mean that Cox & Co. used a house on the north side of Wentworth Street and the shop of the man was on the south side where he get right out of the street towards Leman Street via Goulston Street or Old Castle Street/ Castle Alley.

"Not far from where the model lodging house stands he met another woman, and for a considerable distance he walked along with her."

Model lodging house?

George Yard Building in George Yard or Wentworth Model Dwelling in Goulston Street (GSG, Piece of apron) ?

Smith, Tabram the GSG/ Apron they all had something to do with the Wentworth Street. When the Ripper fled from Berner Street, it seems that he paused in Church Lane opposite Osborn Street towards Wentworth Street. The same night he fled from Mitre Square via Wentworth Street towards Goulston Street. Next to Old Castle Street/ Castle Alley were Newcastle Street/ Newcastle Place etc. There were living some people from Kalisz (Poland).Somewhere in Wentworth Street not far from the entrances to Goulston Street and Old Castle Street/ Castle Alley might have been the shop of "Kosminski". If this is right then Sergeant Stephen White´s street behind Whitechapel Road (Whitechapel High Street) could have been Wentworth Street not far from the Mackenzie crime scene in Castle Alley and the men in hiding were City Detectives watching "Kosminski". But he was not her killer... his case got weaker...

"I can tell you that at nights we ran a considerable risk. We carried our lives in our hands so to speak"

Behind this section in Wentworth Street were George Street and Thrawl Street together with the "Chazar Mark" + "he was a mad, poverty stricken inhabitant of some slum in the East End".
...

...I might understand why Cox & Co ran a considerable risk at night...

The incident near Brick Lane:

22 November 1888 Morning Advertiser (London):

"A man was arrested in the East-end early this morning (22. November?) under very suspicious circumstances. Between one and two o’clock a woman, who was in the company with a man in a narrow thoroughfare near Brick-lane, was heard to call "Murder!" and "Police!" loudly."

This narrow thoroughfare, is it Wentworth Street?

Examples:

JACOB CASHTEIN (born Russia), a Jew's butcher of 122 Wentworth Street, Whitechapel (1890) and 95 Goulston Street in 1891 (Census) but Post Office Directory in 1891 his shop is 132 Wentworth Street (this is corner Goulston Street). Maybe he lived in 95 Goulston Street and worked in 132 Wentworth Street.

NATHAN COHEN (born Russia, Poland), a Tailor, 164 Wentworth Street in 1891 (Census) but his shop is 126 Wentworth Street (Post Office Directory).

I am not sure but I guess that both shops (126&132) were between the entrances of Goulston Street and Old Castle Street/ Castle Alley. Both shops were on the south side and in each case, Cox could allow him to get right out of the street... towards Leman Street...

In the case of Nathan Cohen I remember N. Cohen (brothel incident with Schmidt/Hickey/ Jones and Aaron Davis Cohen). In the case of Jacob Cashstein I think of the Butchers Row and I think of the dog belonging to Jacobs (Dog incident Dezember 1890). In one of the shops "Kosminski" could have worked and lived there. During the night, on weekends and on holidays he could have lived alone there.

Just an idea, just examples, speculation as always...

Yours Karsten.

[Jeff Leahy]

Ok I've got that have printed out a map..

We're leaving now, we may be gone some time

Jeff and Catx

[S.Brett]

Ok I've got that have printed out a map..

We're leaving now, we may be gone some time

Jeff and Catx

Best wishes...

[Paddy]

Sheffield Evening Telegraph Fri 12th Oct 1888

The police on examination found that the murdered woman's husband was a much older man than the individual now detained and without sending for Catherine Eddowes sister , they let the man go.
The police now have under close observation in connection with the Whitechapel murder a man now inmate of the East End infirmary who was admitted since the murder under suspicious circumstances.

Any ideas who this chap was?

Pat........

[S.Brett]

Sheffield Evening Telegraph Fri 12th Oct 1888... The police now have under close observation in connection with the Whitechapel murder a man now inmate of the East End infirmary who was admitted since the murder under suspicious circumstances.

Any ideas who this chap was?

Hi Pat!

Not really...

The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, 2 October, 1888:

"In addition to these 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. At the station he said, in reply to the inspector, that he had walked from Southampton, and belonged to the Royal Sussex Regiment. An examination of his boots was not confirmatory of his statement about his travels, and he was detained that inquiries might be made. No blood was found upon his clothes, nor any weapon likely to have inflicted the wounds. No importance is attached to this arrest, and the man has since been liberated. The only curious thing about this incident is that the mark of the Royal Sussex Regiment, to which he said he belonged, was upon the torn envelope found on the body of the Hanbury-street victim, Annie Chapman."

Connection with the Batty Street Story (Rob House) and with Lawende´s red neckerchief, reddish handkerchief (a woollen scarf of a violet colour)?

Just an idea...

Karsten.