Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Packer and Schwartz

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Packer and Schwartz

    Hi to All,

    Over in the 'broken window' thread the other day, Simon Wood said:

    "Packer and Schwartz were not called to the inquest because their testimony would have given the lie to the "double event.""

    I'm curious. Can anyone, including Simon if he is willing, tell me how Packer and Schwartz's testimony, jointly or separately, could have disproved the notion that Stride and Eddowes were murdered by the same person?

    I have, incidentally, read Simon's book.

  • #2
    I'm interested too. Schwartz has always been my favorite witness.
    Is it progress when a cannibal uses a fork?
    - Stanislaw Jerzy Lee

    Comment


    • #3
      I do think they are the only 2 witnesses of any importance in the stride murder and it was scandalous that they weren't called to testify. It's down to behaviour like this that many believe a cover up or conspiracy was in full flow.We get shouted down a lot but things like this shouldn't have happened, no smoke.....
      But no, I don't know personally why it would dismiss the double event but I suspect that stride was mistaken for Liz long anyway, as you know from the other thread, so was an attempt to silence a possible witness but mistaken identity. Speculation obviously, a punt if you like
      You can lead a horse to water.....

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't want to misrepresent him but, as far as I can make out from looking again at his book, the fact that Schwartz saw a man attacking a woman at 12.45am in Berner Street disproves what he calls the mutilandum interruptus theory, by which I think he means that, if the murder took place at 12:45am, Louis Diemshitz could not have interrupted the murderer at 1am, which in turns means that the absence of any mutilation was deliberate so that Stride wasn't killed by the same person who murdered and mutilated Eddowes.

        I think that's the point. He seems to believe that the notion that Schwartz did not see Stride being murdered (and that two separate attacks took place on the same spot within 15 minutes that night) is an 'Alice in Wonderland' notion although if Schwartz was witnessing the murder in progress then I would have assumed that he was the cause of the mutilandum interruptus.

        Alternatively, it seems to me, the murderer could have been interrupted by any number of (unknown) things.

        Why Packer's testimony, which would only have been to the effect that he sold Stride some grapes at 11pm and last saw her at 11.30pm, would have made any difference to anything I am unable to fathom.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
          Hi to All,

          Over in the 'broken window' thread the other day, Simon Wood said:

          "Packer and Schwartz were not called to the inquest because their testimony would have given the lie to the "double event.""

          I'm curious. Can anyone, including Simon if he is willing, tell me how Packer and Schwartz's testimony, jointly or separately, could have disproved the notion that Stride and Eddowes were murdered by the same person?

          I have, incidentally, read Simon's book.
          I have often wondered about that to, but never got an answer.
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
            I don't want to misrepresent him but, as far as I can make out from looking again at his book, the fact that Schwartz saw a man attacking a woman at 12.45am in Berner Street disproves what he calls the mutilandum interruptus theory, by which I think he means that, if the murder took place at 12:45am, Louis Diemshitz could not have interrupted the murderer at 1am, which in turns means that the absence of any mutilation was deliberate so that Stride wasn't killed by the same person who murdered and mutilated Eddowes.

            I think that's the point. He seems to believe that the notion that Schwartz did not see Stride being murdered (and that two separate attacks took place on the same spot within 15 minutes that night) is an 'Alice in Wonderland' notion although if Schwartz was witnessing the murder in progress then I would have assumed that he was the cause of the mutilandum interruptus.

            Alternatively, it seems to me, the murderer could have been interrupted by any number of (unknown) things.

            Why Packer's testimony, which would only have been to the effect that he sold Stride some grapes at 11pm and last saw her at 11.30pm, would have made any difference to anything I am unable to fathom.
            Hi david
            I agree.

            and whether it was Schwartz or Diemshitz or sounds coming from the club or something else, or a combination of above, the killer being interrupted, ripper or not (Though I lean toward the ripper), seems reasonable to me.
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
              I don't want to misrepresent him but, as far as I can make out from looking again at his book, the fact that Schwartz saw a man attacking a woman at 12.45am in Berner Street disproves what he calls the mutilandum interruptus theory, by which I think he means that, if the murder took place at 12:45am, Louis Diemshitz could not have interrupted the murderer at 1am, which in turns means that the absence of any mutilation was deliberate so that Stride wasn't killed by the same person who murdered and mutilated Eddowes.

              I think that's the point. He seems to believe that the notion that Schwartz did not see Stride being murdered (and that two separate attacks took place on the same spot within 15 minutes that night) is an 'Alice in Wonderland' notion although if Schwartz was witnessing the murder in progress then I would have assumed that he was the cause of the mutilandum interruptus.

              Alternatively, it seems to me, the murderer could have been interrupted by any number of (unknown) things.

              Why Packer's testimony, which would only have been to the effect that he sold Stride some grapes at 11pm and last saw her at 11.30pm, would have made any difference to anything I am unable to fathom.
              Hi David
              If I'm right and stride was just a 'silencing' crime, the mutilations weren't intended anyway,there was no interruption.There was no intent to mutilate Stride.
              Packers statement is only contentious once the hour was put back... As he was adamant of the time initially going by the closing of the pubs can you think of a sane reason why he personally would put the hour back? What would packer personally achieve by pushing the hour back?
              Nothing.Yet on the official report the hour was pushed back!! Enough to make you think someone wanted to distance the grapes and witnessing from the TOD
              Can't imagine why?
              You can lead a horse to water.....

              Comment


              • #8
                I would imagine the reason Packer didn't appear at the inquest is probably the same reason Maurice Lewis didn't appear at the Kelly inquest: the authorities considered both of them to be highly unreliable witnesses.

                I'm also far from convinced about the reliability of Schwartz as a witness, and I have significant doubts about Stride being killed by BS man.

                Nonetheless, I agree that Stride's killer could have been agitated by all manner of things. In fact, he didn't actually have to be interrupted by anyone: just a belief that he was about to be interrupted, I.e. noises emanating from the club, may have been sufficient for him to have fled the scene.
                Last edited by John G; 10-14-2015, 11:07 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by John G View Post
                  I would imagine the reason Packer didn't appear at the inquest is probably the same reason Maurice Lewis didn't appear at the Kelly inquest: the authorities considered both of them to be highly unreliable witnesses.
                  But Mrs Maxwell dd, was she considered reliable?
                  G U T

                  There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by GUT View Post
                    But Mrs Maxwell dd, was she considered reliable?
                    Not by me, and clearly not by the coroner either! However, I suspect that it was a simple case of misidentification of someone she didn't know that well-and having come forward she probably felt obliged to stick to her guns, especially considering her reputation in the neighbourhood. However, as she didn't come across as an obvious attention seeker she was allowed to give evidence at the inquest. As Walter Dew put it: "If Mrs Maxwell had been a sensation-seeker-one of those women who live for the limelight-it would have been easy to discredit her story. She was not. She seemed a sane and sensible woman, and her reputation was excellent."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by John G View Post
                      I would imagine the reason Packer didn't appear at the inquest is probably the same reason Maurice Lewis didn't appear at the Kelly inquest: the authorities considered both of them to be highly unreliable witnesses.

                      I'm also far from convinced about the reliability of Schwartz as a witness, and I have significant doubts about Stride being killed by BS man.

                      Nonetheless, I agree that Stride's killer could have been agitated by all manner of things. In fact, he didn't actually have to be interrupted by anyone: just a belief that he was about to be interrupted, I.e. noises emanating from the club, may have been sufficient for him to have fled the scene.
                      It seems. Unreliable just means controversial.
                      If it doesn't depict what the authorities want it to depict then it's 'unreliable' clearly.
                      Begs the question 'why bother with witnesses,
                      You've clearly decided what's happened without them so why bother '
                      I'm not interested in who thought who was reliable at the time when they've got no good reason to believe they're unreliable apart from anyone who came forward too late like Hutchinson.He's the only one I'd truly class as unreliable
                      You can lead a horse to water.....

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by John G View Post
                        Not by me, and clearly not by the coroner either! However, I suspect that it was a simple case of misidentification of someone she didn't know that well-and having come forward she probably felt obliged to stick to her guns, especially considering her reputation in the neighbourhood. However, as she didn't come across as an obvious attention seeker she was allowed to give evidence at the inquest. As Walter Dew put it: "If Mrs Maxwell had been a sensation-seeker-one of those women who live for the limelight-it would have been easy to discredit her story. She was not. She seemed a sane and sensible woman, and her reputation was excellent."
                        My point was though, why call unreliable Maxwell but not the other unreliable witnesses?
                        G U T

                        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by GUT View Post
                          My point was though, why call unreliable Maxwell but not the other unreliable witnesses?
                          Why call anyone at all.The ones that people seem to think are reliable actually saw nothing at all
                          Wouldn't it have made more sense to say 'forget it,we don't need em'
                          You can lead a horse to water.....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by GUT View Post
                            My point was though, why call unreliable Maxwell but not the other unreliable witnesses?
                            I suppose the had to draw the line somewhere! Of course, there is the possibility that some witnesses were simply caught out in lies or inconsistencies in their evidence. Packer, for example, initially told Sergeant White that he'd closed his shop at 12:30 am because of the rain and that he'd seen no one or anything off a suspicious nature. However, he subsequently told Le Grand and Batchelor that he'd sold grapes to a man who was with a woman fitting Stride's description. I think that might count as a inconsistency!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I suppose the had to draw the line somewhere! Of course, there is the possibility that some witnesses were simply caught out in lies or inconsistencies in their evidence. Packer, for example, initially told Sergeant White that he'd closed his shop at 12:30 am because of the rain and that he'd seen no one or anything off a suspicious nature. However, he subsequently told Le Grand and Batchelor that he'd sold grapes to a man who was with a woman fitting Stride's description. I think that might count as a inconsistency!
                              I dont see this as an inconsistancy, it all depends what he was asked.
                              Seeing something suspicious around the club or selling anything to anyone are two seperate questions.
                              Maybe the police already had a suspect and didn't want to give too much away?
                              Not appearing at the inquest could have been for two reasons: One not reliable evidence and the second credible evidence that needed to be kept under wraps?

                              Pat....

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X