Schwartz v. Lawende

[Tom_Wescott]

It is very common to spit out the skins and the seeds. Though a woman not so disposed to spitting in public will often take a more lady-like approach and wipe them from her lips with a handkerchief, hence the fruit stains on her handkerchief investigated by Dr. Phillips.




Packer makes no mention of a grape stalk in his statement, and Swanson does not attribute the story of the finding to Packer.



I don't recall this incident being questioned by police, or anyone else in authority.



Absolutely, anyone could have dropped it, and as "anyone" includes both Stride and her client, then by what reasoning can we dismiss either of them as the source?

Because none of the men Stride was seen with were holding grapes, nor was Stride. They might have found any number of things in the yard. There was a pile of dung but that doesn't constitute evidence that Stride took a dump. Same with the grape stalk. None of the coppers bought into it. And that's nonsense about fruit stains on handkerchief having anything to do with grapes. Where were the seeds and skins?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DJA]

I think I might have to bow out of this thread for the time being

Bye

[Tom_Wescott]

Bye

Would you prefer to be left to your illusions, Deej? I didn't mean to crash your party with solid research and hard facts.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DJA]

Right at the outset Packer denied seeing anyone or anything, yes agreed.
Public relations with the police were not always cordial. Packer could just as easily have been trying brush the police off, not wanting to have anything to do with the incident.
He wouldn't be the first witness to tell the police, [I]"I saw nothing, I heard nothing, go away copper!"

Sounds like Cross!

Agree with the rest also.

Did a little deeper.....why would two private eyes want to take him to Scotland Yard to see/not see Warren?

[DJA]

Three men, and not two, identified Stride as the woman they saw at the Bricklayer's Arms. So either all three were lying, all three were mistaken, or all three were telling the truth. I see no reason to suppose they were lying or mistaken. Unlike Tabram and Chapman, Stride did not have a common face.

Sincerely doubt that.

Your point about Fat Lip Liz is taken though.

Welcome back

Edit. Maybea not

[Tom_Wescott]

Did a little deeper.....why would two private eyes want to take him to Scotland Yard to see/not see Warren?

No one took Packer to see Warren, but I believe others have pointed that out to you by now.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Sincerely doubt that.

Your point about Fat Lip Liz is taken though.

Welcome back

Hippy meant to protrude, I believe. She was also known as Epileptic Annie because she'd fake seizures and fainting. I've often wondered if that's not what she did with the Ripper - faked fainting because she thought she was being robbed, but instead he cut her throat. I doubt that's the case, but possible. It's also possible she fainted for real. But most likely he choked her unconscious.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DJA]

Hippy meant to protrude, I believe.

Where were you in the 1960s....apart from watching The Tall Man on TV

[Abby Normal]

Hi all
IMHO packer is a more useless and obfuscating a witness than Mortimer.

Both gossipy busybodies looking for their 15 minutes of fame.
All they do is add confusion-Do yourself a favor and forget them.

Or perhaps they might make good candidates for the ripper?

[DJA]

IMHO packer is a more useless and obfuscating a witness than Cross.

Fixed

[John G]

Hi all
IMHO packer is a more useless and obfuscating a witness than Mortimer.

Both gossipy busybodies looking for their 15 minutes of fame.
All they do is add confusion-Do yourself a favor and forget them.

Or perhaps they might make good candidates for the ripper?

Hi Abby,

I agree about Packer, but Mortimer's testimony makes sense-well, the second version anyway! In fact, it gels very nicely with PC Smith's evidence, based upon a more realistic time line.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all
IMHO packer is a more useless and obfuscating a witness than Mortimer.

I should think so, since Mortimer is proved accurate and Packer is proved the opposite. Mortimer did seem to not mind the attention she was receiving, but the most sensational part of her story - the man with the black bag - turned out to be completely true, so that means we can't ignore her.

Where were you in the 1960s....apart from watching The Tall Man on TV

Waiting until the next decade to be born. I haven't seen the Tall Man, so that joke's lost on me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

Murdering victims in a public area, by slitting their throat, was an exceptionally rare crime, at least for the Whitechapel area!

The fact that the knife was used to slit a throat means that Liz was one of three women on that same night who suffered the same fate. The fact that only 2 murders within the Canonical Group were on public property is indicative that the idea these were "public" murders is incorrect.

[Abby Normal]

Fixed

Hi DJA
please don't do that. you could give people the wrong idea about what I said who don't see my original post.

[John G]

The fact that the knife was used to slit a throat means that Liz was one of three women on that same night who suffered the same fate. The fact that only 2 murders within the Canonical Group were on public property is indicative that the idea these were "public" murders is incorrect.

The third murder that you refer to was that of Sarah Brown. However, this much more common domestic murder had little in common with the Whitechapel crimes: the victim was killed in her own home, which was not in Whitechapel, or even the East End, but in Westminster. Moreover, it wasn't an unsolved crime, either: the victim's husband walked straight into a police station and told the officer on duty, "I have stabbed my wife." He was subsequently found guilty but insane.