Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What Is more likely...

A man carrying multiple hats and coats

Or different men each wearing their own hat and coat?

We should be able to separate the individual men from the hat and coat they each wore at the time they are seen with Stride.

When you list EVERY description of ALL the men seen talking to Stride, then it would appear that there are at least 3 different men seen over the course of the hours leading up to her murder.

Your question presupposes that none of the differences in hats and coats could be owing to the vagaries of eyewitness accounts. However, let's suppose you're right that witnesses have near to photographic memories. So, what do you suppose Stride is doing kissing different men? I believe your opinion is that she was not soliciting that night, so what is she doing?

Let's also not forget that the rain played a part that night.

The reason why Stride ran off with the man after they left the Bricklayers Arms...it was raining.

And perhaps the reason why Goldstein was seen walking hurriedly down Berner Street...it was raining.

The Ripper seemed to enjoy killing in unsettled weather.

If Goldstein was walking fast due to rain, at about what time was this rain?

[The Rookie Detective]

What Is more likely...

A man carrying multiple hats and coats

Or different men each wearing their own hat and coat?

We should be able to separate the individual men from the hat and coat they each wore at the time they are seen with Stride.

When you list EVERY description of ALL the men seen talking to Stride, then it would appear that there are at least 3 different men seen over the course of the hours leading up to her murder.

Let's also not forget that the rain played a part that night.

The reason why Stride ran off with the man after they left the Bricklayers Arms...it was raining.

And perhaps the reason why Goldstein was seen walking hurriedly down Berner Street...it was raining.

The Ripper seemed to enjoy killing in unsettled weather.


RD

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I agree with you. It would have been unusual and unlikely for a man to have walked around carrying multiple hats at the same time, but a flower can be placed and removed and replaced much easier than a game of swapping hats.

Unless that's what was in the parcel

A.parcel full of hats?


RD

According to Best and Gardner at the Bricklayers' Arms, "He wore a black billycock hat, rather tall, and had on a collar. I don't know the colour of his tie." So, presumably that wasn't Stride? These men were able to get an extended look at the woman, inside the pub, so presumably under better lighting conditions than street witnesses had. The man was hugging and kissing the woman, who was wearing a flower. There is no reference to a newspaper parcel. If Marshall witnessed another man kissing Stride, what is the situation? If it was the same man, why has the hat changed to "A round cap with a sort of peak to it; something like what a sailor would wear"? Is the billycock hat in the parcel?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes, he attributes the story to Packer, but it actually comes from, through, or via, Grand & Batchelor.
I meant it was the two private detectives who interviewed Packer, not the police, ie; not Abberline.
Swanson, as with the police in general, are assuming it is legitimate. We have to remember Swanson is working from file notes, he was not actually involved.
My question - where is the police statement?, is still a mystery.
What Swanson does in his 19 Oct. report is include the details we find in the summary by A.C. Bruce, not from Packer's actual police statement. No-one seems to have asked - why?

Yes, it does seem strange. However, the police seem to have accepted the Grand & Batchelor story. Perhaps they were wrong to do so, but for what reason might the detectives have changed the time of the sale?

"He told them", or they wrote the wrong times down?
Tom has always taken the involvement of Grand & Batchelor as subversive. In his view they were trying to throw the police off the track, for whatever reason.

Do you mean that Grand & Batchelor got the story right, except for the time? That would be ironic, given Swanson's comments about the time of the sale being the only thing that would stand up in court.

Packer's first involvement was on 30 Sept., where Sgt. White was involved in a house-to-house inquiry in Berner st. He spoke to Packer who told White that he shut up shop at 12:30, in consequence of the rain. (There is a margin note that reads "11:30").
We don't know who revised the time, or when it was revised, but Packer has originally said 12:30, that is what matters.
Packer also told White that he had identified the body of Stride, that this was the woman who came to his shop about 12:00 Saturday night. (A second margin note here reads "11:00").
These changes have been assumed to have been by Packer, but they seem to trace back to Grand & Batchelor, or their interview of Packer - according to Swanson.

Then, on 4 Oct. the police read Packer's story in the Evening News. This press clipping was referenced in Sgt. White's report. He was told by Insp. Moore to follow this story up, Moore writes he was acting on behalf of Insp. Abberline - "...that as soon as above came under my notice I at once directed P.S. White, "H" to see Mr. Packer...."

At no point have we read of Packer giving a statement to police, or anyone from police taking his statement, or interviewing him.
Grand & Batchelor appear to have told Packer they will take him to see Commissioner Warren, yet the summary that remains in the police files is signed by A.C. Bruce.
It is this note by A.C. Bruce that has confounded Packer's story.

When he was left alone to speak to the press, and signed a statement after "two or three interviews", he once again says she came about 12:00 & he shut up his shop about 12:30.

The club event concluded between 11:30 and 12:00. Most of the attendees then left, but I can't image dozens of them rushing out the door immediately. Now, according to Packer's Evening News timing, the grape sale is followed by the two standing across from his shop for at least half an hour. It's difficult to imagine no one from the club seeing Stride and friend, as they stood on the street eating grapes.

[The Rookie Detective]

yes i follow the cap. but you make a good point and i see the reason in it, i just think it would be easier to miss or forget the flower than the hat.

also, i think marshalls man saying.. yould say anything but your prayers.. sounds like something that the ripper would say. and also the bgb.

I agree with you. It would have been unusual and unlikely for a man to have walked around carrying multiple hats at the same time, but a flower can be placed and removed and replaced much easier than a game of swapping hats.

Unless that's what was in the parcel

A.parcel full of hats?


RD

[Abby Normal]

But, Smith saw the flower (it must have been Stride), Marshall saw no flower (was not Stride), and we know Stride had the flower at 11:00 at the Bricklayers Arms.
You're following the peaked cap, not the flower.

yes i follow the cap. but you make a good point and i see the reason in it, i just think it would be easier to miss or forget the flower than the hat.

also, i think marshalls man saying.. yould say anything but your prayers.. sounds like something that the ripper would say. and also the bgb.

[Wickerman]

The Evening News report said "It will be remembered that the night was very wet, and Packer naturally noticed the peculiarity of the couple's standing so long in the rain." Who, other than Packer, remembered there being consistent rain between 11:45 and 12:30?

Yes, I recall that line, which reads to me like an interjection by the journalist. He is adding a point for the benefit of the reader - "It will be remembered that the night was very wet...."

Swanson says "... that apart from the fact of the hour at which he saw the woman ... any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence." That sounds official to me.

Yes, he attributes the story to Packer, but it actually comes from, through, or via, Grand & Batchelor.
I meant it was the two private detectives who interviewed Packer, not the police, ie; not Abberline.
Swanson, as with the police in general, are assuming it is legitimate. We have to remember Swanson is working from file notes, he was not actually involved.
My question - where is the police statement?, is still a mystery.
What Swanson does in his 19 Oct. report is include the details we find in the summary by A.C. Bruce, not from Packer's actual police statement. No-one seems to have asked - why?

He appears to have told the private detectives, something else. Whatever the case, it is a matter of faith that Packer was recalling the correct night, let alone the correct time.

"He told them", or they wrote the wrong times down?
Tom has always taken the involvement of Grand & Batchelor as subversive. In his view they were trying to throw the police off the track, for whatever reason.

Packer's first involvement was on 30 Sept., where Sgt. White was involved in a house-to-house inquiry in Berner st. He spoke to Packer who told White that he shut up shop at 12:30, in consequence of the rain. (There is a margin note that reads "11:30").
We don't know who revised the time, or when it was revised, but Packer has originally said 12:30, that is what matters.
Packer also told White that he had identified the body of Stride, that this was the woman who came to his shop about 12:00 Saturday night. (A second margin note here reads "11:00").
These changes have been assumed to have been by Packer, but they seem to trace back to Grand & Batchelor, or their interview of Packer - according to Swanson.

Then, on 4 Oct. the police read Packer's story in the Evening News. This press clipping was referenced in Sgt. White's report. He was told by Insp. Moore to follow this story up, Moore writes he was acting on behalf of Insp. Abberline - "...that as soon as above came under my notice I at once directed P.S. White, "H" to see Mr. Packer...."

At no point have we read of Packer giving a statement to police, or anyone from police taking his statement, or interviewing him.
Grand & Batchelor appear to have told Packer they will take him to see Commissioner Warren, yet the summary that remains in the police files is signed by A.C. Bruce.
It is this note by A.C. Bruce that has confounded Packer's story.

When he was left alone to speak to the press, and signed a statement after "two or three interviews", he once again says she came about 12:00 & he shut up his shop about 12:30.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes, I agree he wasn't, I misread your post.
I meant he looked 'theatrical', like Schwartz & like Astrachan, the Hutchinson suspect. I was pointing out the descriptions as similar.
I missed the fact you meant Schwartz suspect, not Schwartz himself.

Now I understand.

I did think it strange that you would make a mistake like that.

But surely you are not implying that Abberline may have suspected Schwartz?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And why would Stride have gone with the man seen by Schwartz into the darkness of the yard after being roughed up by him?

And why would the assailant have stayed in Berner Street when he knew he had been seen by Schwartz assaulting the woman and that Schwartz might report what he had seen to a policeman?

Perhaps all that was witnessed was a quarrel, just as the press report suggests ...

Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter ...

Which might explain how Fanny Mortimer managed to see a man walking fast down Berner St, but not all the theatrics described to the police.

... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the board school.

Hi Rob

Bearing in mind the total lack of reference to him, in what is after all the most contemporary and relevant work, and in the following issue too, did Schwartz even exist?

Dave

In a sense, no.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But, Smith saw the flower (it must have been Stride), Marshall saw no flower (was not Stride), and we know Stride had the flower at 11:00 at the Bricklayers Arms.
You're following the peaked cap, not the flower.

Was not Stride?

How do you know this was the same woman? - I recognise her both by her face and dress. She did not then have a flower in her breast.
...
What first attracted your attention to the couple? - By their standing there for some time, and he was kissing her.

Marshall got a long look. The kissing is just as Best and Gardner had witnessed.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

i think stride was out looking for a new man. recently broken up, trying to look nice, not jumping into the first alley with the first man she met, etc. i think she met the ripper, and he was trying to finagle her into a dark alley but she wasnt going easy. i think they were seen by marshal, then probably smith and finally schwartz, who saw the beginning of the fatal attack.either schwartz missed seeing the package or perhaps smith saw anotjer couple, but imho marshall and schwartz def saw stride and the ripper. you know, peaked cap man.

While I'm highly dubious of Schwartz's story, I wonder if one of its troubling problems can be explained as follows.

... on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

What is she doing, standing in that gateway?

Consider the report that mentions a woman, probably Fanny, hearing the plod of a policeman's boots.

It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so.

Okay, why doesn't Fanny see Stride standing in the gateway? Presumably Parcelman has departed, which would explain why he is not witnessed, but Fanny should only have to look to her right to see Liz, but apparently, she did not. So, where is Liz?

I wonder if what Schwartz witnessed was something of an illusion. That is, what looked like a woman standing in the gateway, wasn't quite as it appeared. Here's a rough analogy to explain what I mean by that. Someone begins backing a car out of a driveway but stops to give way to a pedestrian on the footway. As you make your way down that street, you notice a car parked across a gateway, and the driver is talking to someone outside the car. In reality, the car isn't parked across the gateway at all. The driver has simply paused to allow the pedestrian to pass, but instead the driver and pedestrian start talking.

So, what if it were the case that Stride wasn't standing in the gateway prior to the arrival of BS Man, but was actually making her way out of Dutfield's Yard when she spots the man approaching, and stops? The question then becomes, what business did Liz have in the yard?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes, at 12:30, due to the rain.

The Evening News report said "It will be remembered that the night was very wet, and Packer naturally noticed the peculiarity of the couple's standing so long in the rain." Who, other than Packer, remembered there being consistent rain between 11:45 and 12:30?

But, Swanson is saying it was not official because it came to police via two private detectives - Grand & Batchelor.
Swanson has not quoted from an official police statement from Packer.

Swanson says "... that apart from the fact of the hour at which he saw the woman ... any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence." That sounds official to me.

Every time Packer gave his statement he says 12:00 not 11:00, and 12:30 not 11:30.

He appears to have told the private detectives, something else. Whatever the case, it is a matter of faith that Packer was recalling the correct night, let alone the correct time.

It's only a problem for anyone who follows the times given by Grand & Batchelor. Stride cannot be buying grapes about 10:45-11:00 from Packer and be seen at the Bricklayers Arms about 11:00pm.
But we have no problem if we stay with what Packer told the press, them buying grapes about 11:45, after coming from Settles Street at 11:00 pm. That's 45 minutes to get from the Bricklayers Arms to the south end of Berner St.

45 minutes is, of course, a lot more than required. Do you suppose the extra time was spent in a pub, or on the street?

[Wickerman]

Two hours ago, I challenged an allegation made by a poster on another thread that the anarchists who committed the Houndsditch Murders were a Jewish gang.

You are not the first poster to describe Seweryn Antonowicz Kłosowski, alias George Chapman, as a Jew.

Yes, I agree he wasn't, I misread your post.
I meant he looked 'theatrical', like Schwartz & like Astrachan, the Hutchinson suspect. I was pointing out the descriptions as similar.
I missed the fact you meant Schwartz suspect, not Schwartz himself.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Probably none, but when he retired he favored Klosowski, another well-dressed Jew, as the killer. He also believed Hutchinson who told him Kelly walked off with a well-dressed Jew.
All three men may have been somewhat similar.

Two hours ago, I challenged an allegation made by a poster on another thread that the anarchists who committed the Houndsditch Murders were a Jewish gang.

You are not the first poster to describe Seweryn Antonowicz Kłosowski, alias George Chapman, as a Jew.

He was not.

He was a Polish Gentile.

As you may recall, I have stated several times that there is no record of a Jewish serial killer in British criminal history, nor of a Polish Jewish serial murderer anywhere in the world.

I do not know what makes you think that Schwartz's suspect, Hutchinson's, and Kłosowski may have been somewhat similar.

Neither Schwartz nor Hutchinson mentioned a foreign accent nor gave any reason to suspect that the men they saw were foreign.

[Wickerman]

What reason is there to think that Abberline suspected that the man seen by Schwartz was the murderer?

Probably none, but when he retired he favored Klosowski, another well-dressed Jew, as the killer. He also believed Hutchinson who told him Kelly walked off with a well-dressed Jew.
All three men may have been somewhat similar.

Please elaborate.

I think the problem lies in sentence structure. What Swanson wrote has been interpreted as the police believed Schwartz. I don't think that is correct, he simply employed one "if" were we might expect him to have used two "if's".

Swanson wrote down Schwartz's story, and his description of the suspect.
Beneath this, Swanson wrote:
"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it".

Whereas, I think he meant:
"If Schwartz is to be believed, and if the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it".

The first example suggests the police believe Schwartz, the second example suggests the police are waiting for the police report, they must be investigating his story. So, if the subsequent police report confirms his story then....... "it follows, if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw & described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer..."

Even the marginal note begins with, "This is rather confused....." which it is.

I just don't think Schwartz's story checked out, so the police did not proceed with him as a witness.