Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

The timeline that I did is shown in Post #2455 here:
https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...164#post760653

Thanks George. Direct link to your timeline ...

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/751019-if-schwartz-lied?p=774388#post774388

At what point would you place Goldstein in this?
Should that question be two questions - one for Mrs Mortimer and one for Mrs Artisan?

[Wickerman]

Yes, of course PC Smith was guessing at both the time and the parcel size. It's not like he kept copious notes of every person he saw and at what minute he saw them.

Yes, exactly.

And why do you keep bringing up Packer? You might be the only one left who believes a word he said about the rain-defying, grape-eating Stride.

That sounds like an old argument, Packer's statement agrees with Diemschutz who said her clothes were wet with rain, which they should be.
There is no argument about Packer selling grapes, the issue always was whether there were any grapes in Stride's hand or not.
I don't care about anyone seeing grapes, the important issue is the man with Stride walked away from Packer carrying a parcel/pkg of some kind - Packer said he wrapped the grapes - so there is your parcel-man.
Parcel-man was there at the same place, same time, same woman, as PC Smith testified to.
Obviously they are the same person, it makes no sense to argue otherwise.


By the way, what brings you back to the forum?, you've been gone quite a while.
Are you working on a new book, or taking a well deserved rest?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes, I used the term loosely, most people assume she was soliciting.
I think she prepared herself that evening as if she was going on a date.

It is assumed she was soliciting, to make sense of Schwartz's story. It is a motivated belief.

The date idea makes more sense, in that it explains her efforts with her appearance and the kissing that was witnessed. Why though, has her date taken her to Berner St? What's the attraction?

I do remember reading one prostitute's comment to a newspaper man was to the effect that, if their client provides food and drink all evening and they end up with their 4d at the end, they consider it a good night.
Today, we don't truly know what the procedure was, did they have several clients in an evening, or meet up with one and be more like an escort for that whole evening.
It seems to me Stride was more like an escort, she was with the same man all evening.

Did William Marshall see them, or another couple?

[Wickerman]

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I understood you to mean that when Schwartz was walking behind BS Man, that inside the gate of Dutfield's Yard stood Stride with yet another man who Schwartz did not see. Is that it, or did you mean something else?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

You got it right, that's the suggestion.

I don't place a lot of faith in the press version of Schwartz's story, in fact the opening lines tell the reader that the story "was retold just as it was given to police".
Sadly, we don't have the police version, but when we read Swanson's summary of it we find very little detail. The press version has far more detail than we read in Swanson's summary, like the name of the yard, the pub on the corner, the Board School, etc.
Who added all this detail?

As I said before, in the police version Schwartz claims BS-man turned Stride around, which indicates she was facing the yard, which she would be if she was talking with someone. That is a detail that has not been picked up on before - she was not by herself, she was with someone.
Which makes far more sense than having her standing there alone in a gateway.
I'm only guessing it was parcel-man, it could be anyone else.

[Tom_Wescott]

So, Fanny Mortimer can be trusted to have supplied the correct time that Smith passed by (give or take a minute or two) but having spoken to a couple later in the morning, she got both their times and location wrong.

A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about 20 yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

You claimed that Mortimer was a reliable witness because her sighting of Goldstein was confirmed. So why not in this case? What is the issue with there being another couple, that are not the couple in the Echo report?

Mortimer can be trusted as far as her honesty goes. That's all. I did not say she could be trusted as to her timings. Few can be. That's my point. That's why it remains fluid. Mortimer is aided to an extent by Goldstein and the timing he gives, assuming it too is accurate. There is no reason to suspect that Mortimer lied about anything, though her info about the sweetheart is second hand (which is why I lean away from Mortimer on this point and lean toward the interview with the young woman that appeared in the press but was for some reason ignored by Ripper books until I published it in RC). By clearing away the red herrings such as the young couple and Packer, we can get a clearer image of what went down. I have some misgivings about Schwartz, because I suspect he was associated with the club and the club was certain on damage control after the murder. He also appears to have completely disappeared from police memory by the next month. But because his information is not contradicting by Brown and may, in fact, be corroborated to some extent by Brown, and because Abberline and his superiors took Schwartz so seriously in October, I feel we have no choice but to accept his evidence at face value.

As for your question about the young couple, what is our reason for conflating one couple to two? Mortimer is clearly talking to the same young woman the reporter spoke to. They are talking about the same couple because the reporter was outside the gates of Dutfield's Yard talking to neighbors. Those neighbors including Mortimer's young woman and Mortimer herself. I don't see where a separate, different young couple even enters the equation here. There is no indication of one.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

By the way, what brings you back to the forum?, you've been gone quite a while.
Are you working on a new book, or taking a well deserved rest?

I recorded a Rippercast the other day and we got to reminiscing about Casebook, so I thought I'd pop in. It's good to be reminded that some things never change. Although I notice Perry Mason doesn't seem to be around anymore. As for a new book, I would LOVE to be working on another one, but I'm distracted by other passion projects at the moment and sadly there's only one of me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

It is assumed she was soliciting, to make sense of Schwartz's story. It is a motivated belief.

The date idea makes more sense, in that it explains her efforts with her appearance and the kissing that was witnessed. Why though, has her date taken her to Berner St? What's the attraction?

Schwartz has nothing to do with it. It was assumed she was soliciting because friends and acquaintances of Stride indicated to the police that this is what Stride did. It's naive to assume a man doesn't kiss a prostitute or treat her to dinner. To my mind it's more remarkable to believe, as you and Wick appear to be suggesting, that Stride's killer wined and dined her in the most public way possible before cutting her throat in the yard of the one busy house in the area. Out of all possibilities, how is that one the most appealing to you?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Did William Marshall see them, or another couple?

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.

[Wickerman]

I recorded a Rippercast the other day and we got to reminiscing about Casebook, so I thought I'd pop in. It's good to be reminded that some things never change.

for good or bad, yes, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Although I notice Perry Mason doesn't seem to be around anymore.

He's here, under Michael Richards now.

As for a new book, I would LOVE to be working on another one, but I'm distracted by other passion projects at the moment and sadly there's only one of me.

Sadly

[Wickerman]

.... It's naive to assume a man doesn't kiss a prostitute or treat her to dinner. To my mind it's more remarkable to believe, as you and Wick appear to be suggesting, that Stride's killer wined and dined her in the most public way possible before cutting her throat in the yard of the one busy house in the area. Out of all possibilities, how is that one the most appealing to you?

That doesn't quite fly, if you agree he wined & dined them, then how did he not spend some time with them?

Nichols and Chapman were missing for quite some time before their murders, Kelly seemed to be a different case, only Eddowes was a sudden attack less than 30 minutes after they met.
Here we have a bit more of the story with several people seeing Stride from 11:00 pm onwards, until 1:00 am.

It just may be that here with Stride we actually have his M.O., that he dated his victims first, we can't rule it out with either Nichols or Chapman, and Kelly's murder doesn't contradict it either.

Perhaps we've been wrong all these years believing Jack was a blitz killer. The only example we truly have of what might be described as a blitz kill is Eddowes, and the reason for that could easily be that he was all 'dated' out with Stride, he was interrupted and needed to release his anxiety on the next women he met.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Schwartz has nothing to do with it. It was assumed she was soliciting because friends and acquaintances of Stride indicated to the police that this is what Stride did. It's naive to assume a man doesn't kiss a prostitute or treat her to dinner. To my mind it's more remarkable to believe, as you and Wick appear to be suggesting, that Stride's killer wined and dined her in the most public way possible before cutting her throat in the yard of the one busy house in the area. Out of all possibilities, how is that one the most appealing to you?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

In what post do I appear to be suggesting that?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?