Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Tentatively yes, until some other explanation becomes evident.
It doesn't look like she met the man at the Bricklayers, they didn't go inside. That means she arrived with him, and where did she get the flower from?

I wonder if they both crossed Whitechapel High Street to go to the St. George area, there would be flower stalls on the high Street, or girls selling flowers on street corners.
There had to be lots of people who saw this couple Saturday night in Whitechapel; at the spot they met, at any pubs they visited, crossing the High St., along Commercial Rd.?

If he bought Liz the flower, was he trying to butter her up?

Fair enough, but lets be sure speculation doesn't turn into truth without supporting evidence.

Why did Stride have two handkerchiefs? Baxter was curious and asked both Elizabeth Tanner and Charles Preston about them.

Dr Phillips: The Coroner also desired me to examine the two handkerchiefs which were found on the deceased. I did not discover any blood on them, and I believe that the stains on the larger handkerchief are those of fruit. Neither on the hands nor about the body of the deceased did I find grapes, or connection with them. I am convinced that the deceased had not swallowed either the skin or seed of a grape within many hours of her death.

Had Stride attempted to steal (or previously succeeded in stealing) grapes she was carrying in one of the handkerchiefs? Regardless of Packer selling grapes to a man she was with (or not), what explains the fruit stains on the larger handkerchief? Diemschitz told the press he saw grapes (as did Kozebrodski). At the inquest, he does not mention this. Perhaps Diemschitz was reluctant to concede that Stride could have been in the backyard. Who could blame him?

Another piece of evidence could be the cachous. Would a woman in Liz Stride's situation really be buying packets of sweetmeats? Are we expected to believe she was consuming these at the moment she was murdered?

What about the murder itself? If not a calculated killing, what was the impetuous? How does theft of goods compare to angry BS Man who doesn't approve of Stride's supposed soliciting?

[Lewis C]

The hats are different; however, can you point me to two independent eyewitness descriptions of the same person, that are more similar than these?

I'd say that Marshall's description is closer to Schwartz' description of BS man than it is to Packer's description.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I mean this with all due respect...you claim to be interested in the truth but don't seem to be willing to accept that the simplest answers are usually the right ones.

You're right, I don't.

You prefer more complicated solutions, or no solution at all, to simple explanations. I must admit I approach the case differently and perhaps that's why we're at loggerheads over some of these matters. Mind you, I'm more or less the architect of the whole Schwartz as liar and Schwartz as Ripper canards, because I tried to explore every single possibility. What I learned was EVERYTHING is possible, so I worked to narrow each element down to its essence and that's when the pieces started clicking into place. It's frustrating because it seems we either have too many witnesses to consider or not enough.

Two witnesses turned right into Berner St, and headed south, went by the board school, along Fairclough St and right into Christian St, going as about as far as the railway arch down there. 22 Christian St, to be exact. Actually, it was one witness with two names.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Packer never saw Stride that night. The police knew that then and most of us know that now. I have no idea what parcel Smith's man was holding, but he appears to have been the only man seen with Stride holding it. The Arbeter Fraint thing was just a neat idea I had because the club would hand out free copies of their paper. I am not married to the idea at all. It's perfectly reasonable for men to mistake hats, although less likely in 1888 when hats were status symbols the way cars are today. All of these things are reasonable. It's even reasonable to suggest that Stride was on a date that night and that her date murdered her. But on a balance of probabilities, Stride was soliciting and met her killer only minutes before her death, the same as the other victims. Because that's what the Ripper was after. He didn't see the women as human and so was not interested in humanizing them. Quite the opposite, really.

I don't think her date murdered her, and I don't necessarily think she was on a date, at least not in the conventional sense. As for soliciting, club members at the inquest indicated that seeing strangers at the gate was either rare or hadn't been witnessed at all. So, the probability of any woman soliciting there that night, seems very low.

As for Mortimer, I'd have to refer you to what I wrote in RC, because frankly, I can't remember what I wrote.

You refer to your preferred timeline as suggesting that the Schwartz stuff never happened but note that Schwartz would have been in and out of Berner St in less than two minutes. However, there is the before and after Schwartz, to consider. In RC you say;

Fanny believed she had gone to her door ‘almost immediately’ after the passing of what she took to be the constable, but enough time must have passed to allow Stride and Parcel Man to walk out of view, so here we find what might be a kink in Mortimer’s armor. Of course, this presupposes that her assumption is correct that the plodding footsteps belonged to a constable and not one of the other known players, or a player as yet unknown.
Although Schwartz’s part in the story was brief, we must assume that action was still taking place on Berner Street after his departure, with Stride on the pavement and an angry BS Man towering over her. When we further consider that somewhere in these few minutes we must also find time for Stride to be around the corner on Fairclough Street for Brown to witness her, we begin to find ourselves almost impossibly cramped for time. Something has got to give, and for many writers that ‘something’ is James Brown.

The situation seems to be that Fanny must 'wait' for Stride and Parcelman to move from her sight, but she must also wait for the Schwartz stuff to begin and end, before going to her doorstep. Also, she must not hear anything unusual when inside, but she must hear the plod of Smith's boots. So, when does the Schwartz stuff begin and end? Presumably it begins when Stride departs from Parcelman, and goes to the gateway, hoping to find a customer from the club. It ends when BS Man leaves the scene, and (for yourself at least) Stride goes to the board school corner (presumably meeting another man, almost immediately). Not only are we now rather cramped for time, but Mortimer can't be observing the street until nearly the time you have Brown returning from the chandler's shop - about 12:50. That would mean, having spent about 10 minutes at her door, she would be locking up at time almost coincident with the arrival of Diemschitz.

[Wickerman]

Packer never saw Stride that night. The police knew that then and most of us know that now.

Perhaps this is one of those examples you referred to earlier when you wrote:

"Almost 100% of what I write is speculation, whether my own or my source's."

At least we don't need to ask you for proof, that's a relief.

[Tom_Wescott]

Stripping away the context doesn't help. Following the comments of Best and Gardner, she may have been in the Berner St area for some time before being seen by Smith. What is she doing there, or what are they doing there? Am I right to suggest you suppose she is on Berner St with the man she was with at the pub? If so, she hasn't stopped to talk to anyone. So, what's their story?

If the two of them were loitering with intent, what could that intent be? I'd suggest ...

prostitution - no
begging - no
public drunkenness - no (Snith said the appeared to be sober)
dealing in stolen goods - possibly
drug dealing - no
scams - no (nothing comes to mind)
organized crime - no
robbery - possibly
harassment/mobbing - no

She was found dead with a cachous packet in one hand, possibly an empty piece of paper in the other, and there were possible sightings of grapes. There were costermonger barrows in the yard, more or less unattended, and costermongers sold all sorts of goods, including sweetmeats and fruit. It might seem unfair to suggest that Stride was up to no good when she was killed, but I'm more interested in the truth than anything else.

I mean this with all due respect...you claim to be interested in the truth but don't seem to be willing to accept that the simplest answers are usually the right ones. You prefer more complicated solutions, or no solution at all, to simple explanations. I must admit I approach the case differently and perhaps that's why we're at loggerheads over some of these matters. Mind you, I'm more or less the architect of the whole Schwartz as liar and Schwartz as Ripper canards, because I tried to explore every single possibility. What I learned was EVERYTHING is possible, so I worked to narrow each element down to its essence and that's when the pieces started clicking into place. It's frustrating because it seems we either have too many witnesses to consider or not enough.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

So, it is reasonable to suggest that Smith didn't see a parcel done up in newspaper at all - it was actually a stack of Arbeter Fraint's - but neither Packer nor Marshall could possibly have forgotten what type of hat a man was wearing, when witnessed on a dark street a few nights ago?

On the subject of witnesses, you still haven't told us how Mortimer could have come to her doorstep immediately after Smith passes her place (according to the press report that suggests this) and not seen any of what Schwartz described. How is that possible?

Packer never saw Stride that night. The police knew that then and most of us know that now. I have no idea what parcel Smith's man was holding, but he appears to have been the only man seen with Stride holding it. The Arbeter Fraint thing was just a neat idea I had because the club would hand out free copies of their paper. I am not married to the idea at all. It's perfectly reasonable for men to mistake hats, although less likely in 1888 when hats were status symbols the way cars are today. All of these things are reasonable. It's even reasonable to suggest that Stride was on a date that night and that her date murdered her. But on a balance of probabilities, Stride was soliciting and met her killer only minutes before her death, the same as the other victims. Because that's what the Ripper was after. He didn't see the women as human and so was not interested in humanizing them. Quite the opposite, really.

As for Mortimer, I'd have to refer you to what I wrote in RC, because frankly, I can't remember what I wrote.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Stripping away the context doesn't help. Following the comments of Best and Gardner, she may have been in the Berner St area for some time before being seen by Smith. What is she doing there, or what are they doing there? Am I right to suggest you suppose she is on Berner St with the man she was with at the pub? If so, she hasn't stopped to talk to anyone. So, what's their story?

Tentatively yes, until some other explanation becomes evident.
It doesn't look like she met the man at the Bricklayers, they didn't go inside. That means she arrived with him, and where did she get the flower from?

I wonder if they both crossed Whitechapel High Street to go to the St. George area, there would be flower stalls on the high Street, or girls selling flowers on street corners.
There had to be lots of people who saw this couple Saturday night in Whitechapel; at the spot they met, at any pubs they visited, crossing the High St., along Commercial Rd.?

...

She was found dead with a cachous packet in one hand, possibly an empty piece of paper in the other, and there were possible sightings of grapes. There were costermonger barrows in the yard, more or less unattended, and costermongers sold all sorts of goods, including sweetmeats and fruit. It might seem unfair to suggest that Stride was up to no good when she was killed, but I'm more interested in the truth than anything else.

Fair enough, but lets be sure speculation doesn't turn into truth without supporting evidence.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No doubt he kept a change of hats in his parcel.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

So, it is reasonable to suggest that Smith didn't see a parcel done up in newspaper at all - it was actually a stack of Arbeter Fraint's - but neither Packer nor Marshall could possibly have forgotten what type of hat a man was wearing, when witnessed on a dark street a few nights ago?

On the subject of witnesses, you still haven't told us how Mortimer could have come to her doorstep immediately after Smith passes her place (according to the press report that suggests this) and not seen any of what Schwartz described. How is that possible?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I would have to ask why should anyone who stops walking, to talk on the street be described as loitering?
Is there anyone present who has not stopped on a street to talk to someone?

Stripping away the context doesn't help. Following the comments of Best and Gardner, she may have been in the Berner St area for some time before being seen by Smith. What is she doing there, or what are they doing there? Am I right to suggest you suppose she is on Berner St with the man she was with at the pub? If so, she hasn't stopped to talk to anyone. So, what's their story?

If the two of them were loitering with intent, what could that intent be? I'd suggest ...

prostitution - no
begging - no
public drunkenness - no (Snith said the appeared to be sober)
dealing in stolen goods - possibly
drug dealing - no
scams - no (nothing comes to mind)
organized crime - no
robbery - possibly
harassment/mobbing - no

She was found dead with a cachous packet in one hand, possibly an empty piece of paper in the other, and there were possible sightings of grapes. There were costermonger barrows in the yard, more or less unattended, and costermongers sold all sorts of goods, including sweetmeats and fruit. It might seem unfair to suggest that Stride was up to no good when she was killed, but I'm more interested in the truth than anything else.

[Tom_Wescott]

Aren't they wearing different hats?

No doubt he kept a change of hats in his parcel.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Assume, for the sake of argument, that it was Stride. She is with a man so not soliciting. Would it be fair to say that she and her companion are loitering in public? To what end? Wikipedia says of loitering:

While not being a crime by itself, loitering has historically been treated as an inherent preceding offense to other forms of public crime and disorder, such as prostitution, begging, public drunkenness, dealing in stolen goods, drug dealing, scams, organized crime, robbery, harassment/mobbing, etc.

Which of those could conceivably apply to Stride and companion?

I would have to ask why should anyone who stops walking, to talk on the street be described as loitering?
Is there anyone present who has not stopped on a street to talk to someone?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Aren't they wearing different hats?

The hats are different; however, can you point me to two independent eyewitness descriptions of the same person, that are more similar than these?

[Lewis C]

George, if it's not too much to ask, could you give a brief timeline of events, based on your acceptance of police timings? Either that or point me to an old post.



In the Evening News story about Packer, this is the description of the man who buys the grapes ...

The man was middle aged, perhaps 35 years; about five feet seven inches in height; was stout, square built; wore a wideawake hat and dark clothes; had the appearance of a clerk; had a rough voice and a quick, sharp way of talking.

This is William Marshall, at the inquest ...

He was dressed in a black small coat, and dark trousers. He seemed to me to be a middle aged man. He had a round cap with a small peak to it, somewhat like one of those worn by sailors. He was about 5ft 6in high and rather stoutish.
...
He did not look as if he was engaged in hard work. He had more the appearance of a clerk than anything I can suggest. I do not think he had any whiskers.

Those descriptions are too close to be ignored, but perhaps Marshall was influenced by the Evening News report.

Aren't they wearing different hats?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Whoever Marshall saw, they were walking south down Berner st. opposite from the direction of the club about 12:00 am, and the woman had no flower.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that it was Stride. She is with a man so not soliciting. Would it be fair to say that she and her companion are loitering in public? To what end? Wikipedia says of loitering:

While not being a crime by itself, loitering has historically been treated as an inherent preceding offense to other forms of public crime and disorder, such as prostitution, begging, public drunkenness, dealing in stolen goods, drug dealing, scams, organized crime, robbery, harassment/mobbing, etc.

Which of those could conceivably apply to Stride and companion?