|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 585
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 8:27 am: |       |
Martin,
Grapestalk was claimed to be spotted hours after Strides death.
Grant & Batchelor discovered this whilst interviewing those that spotted it (residents of 14 Berner st, 2 sisters whose names I cannot remember now)on 2/10/88
They then went to the murder scene and claimed to have found the stalk.
I assume they used all their powers of detection and came to the conclusion that a grocer of sorts sells grapes.
Then, again assuming, they would have concluded that they probably were purchased at the nearest grocer....guess who that was ?
So then they would have interviewed this grocer..which they did...again on 2/10/88.
Im not saying Packer is a liar. It may have jogged his memory when the 2 PI's came knocking. But it doesnt help his validity giving two different stories.
But in answer to your question, the grapestalk was believed to be spotted on the Sunday and Packer was interviewed about it 2 days later.
Monty
 |
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 13
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 7:59 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
Thanks for that vital piece of information Monty. After consulting the sourcebook I can confirm it is correct. I also found some other interesting points.
1. What actually happened was that the City Of London police conducted extensive enquiries along Berner Street. He lived at 44. He was quizzed by PC Stephen White accompanied by PC Dolden. Packer didn't make any statement on the night when questioned.
2. Packer is described as an elderly man in pg.139 of The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Soucebook - which could account for his bad memory.
3. He alleges that he served a man matching the description of the suspect which he saw published in 'The Times'. That was what prompted him to come forward. He went to the vigilance committee which he probably felt more in touch with and also the press. Obviously he didn't remember this information at the time because the man must not have struck him as suspicious.
4. When the grape stem is found in the drain of the yard, the police feel it is important enough to take Packer to identify the dead body of Stride. But it had been swept into the drain because the yard had been swept over by police searching for the murder instrument. They felt it was important evidence to back up Packer's statement.
Well what do we have here. A witness backing up a description given by PC Smith! Even if Packer is telling the truth, we all know that it isn't the same man that Schwarz later sees throwing down Elizabeth Stride. So it probably doesn't matter does it...
Oh and I wasted time today researching grapes and Sarah is right. They were imported (like herbs, spices) and so they would be considered as luxury goods.
The ideal climate for grapes is 30 - 50 N and S of the equator.
p.s. England has never really grown grapes until the German hybrid varieties came along in the 1980s. Since then the land used for growing grapes has peaked at about 800 hectares. Of course, this would be for wine!
Anyway who has ever heard of vineyards in England?
All the best
Martin Anderson
Analyst |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 104
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 8:38 pm: | |
Martin,
Inported or not, Packer stocked them and sold them. Indeed, he says he sold Liz and companion a half-pound for 3p. Now we get back to the question of Packer's veracity. The "strict constructionists" on the boards may be willing to throw out anything Matthew says (much as Mary McCarthy averred everything Lillian Hellman wrote, including the and and, was a lie), but I would tend to believe he did speak the truth about his price for grapes -- to whomever he may or may not have sold them.
Anyway, 3p a half-pound is not in the "luxury class" even for Whitechapel at the time. Not, perhaps an everyday item, but an affordable treat -- especially if you preferred your grapes on a stalk rather than in a bottle.
Don. |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 334
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 5:41 am: | |
Shannon
You missed one possible motivation behind Packer's ever changing statements. He wanted the reward offered by the City Police. In a later statement to the press he said that the artists impression drawing in the Telegraph based on Schwartz's description looked nothing like the man he saw and that he would not be able to identify such a man. This statement seemed designed to say "my description is the only valid one to go on, so I should get the reward." When he told Sergeant White he had seen nothing, this was before the City reward had been posted, he was old and a bit of an ornery bugger, he possibly just didn't want the hassle of making a proper statement.
The importance of Packer's testimony (and yes David I am supporting your position here before you roundly abuse me again!) is the very fact of the man buying the grapes. Packer stated that his grapes were 6d per pound for the black and 4d per pound for the white. A bed for the night was only 4d, a pint of beer only a penny. A trick with a cheap hooker cost a mere few pence. Spending 3d on grapes is hardly the kind of thing you would expect a client to do for a prostitute. If Packer was telling the truth about selling them the grapes then, it tends to suggest that there was some other relationship between Stride and her companion than the usual hooker/punter one. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 393
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 5:47 am: | |
I don't mean to sound dumb here but was 3p a lot back then? Because grapes were a luxury item and were generally considered expensive. If they were expensive surely this tells us that Liz's companion must have had a bit more money than most around that area that is why I thought the grapes were important.
If as Donald says that 3p wasn't much even in Whitechapel then I don't understand why.
Sorry to mumble on about grapes but if they were luxury items who in Whitechapel could afford it and also, if 3p a half pound wasn't much then that contradicts everything I know about grapes, which is actually quite surprising, even to me. Boy I should get out more!!
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 335
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 5:53 am: | |
Martin
Anyway who has ever heard of vineyards in England?
Interestingly, the very first thing I ever did in my working life at the tender age of 17 (many many moons ago) was take a series of photographs for an advertising feature at the Three Choirs Vineyard, which is on the road between Gloucester and Hereford.
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 247
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 9:04 am: | |
Don't forget we are dealing with human beings here, not computers. We had a murder across the street from us a few years ago. When my husband & I got home the whole neighborhood was draped in yellow tape. A few minutes after, a policewoman came to the door to ask if we'd noticed anything at all that would help. We said no. About 20 minutes later I was out in front talking to the detective. What happens is that when a policeman asks you something like that you may not think of anything right away, but your mind starts turning things over working on it, then voila, there was something after all. |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 1:12 pm: | |
Glen,
Didn’t think you’d favour anything I posted. Still trying to put it over that you do see some merit in some of Packers statements, I see, when in actual fact you are on record as saying that Packer was a hoaxer and that his statement should be put in the bin!
I by the way have not mentioned anything about grapes regarding Packer, so please get your facts right. All i said was that Packer saw the woman Stride with a man outside his shop at 12:30 a.m., I didn't even mention grapes. But Packer did say that the woman was playing with a flower ,a geranium, geraniums are red, as are roses. Stride was found to have a rose and maidenhair fern pinned to her coat when she was found, she didn’t have this when she left the doss, so presumably someone bought it for her sometime between then and her murder, I wonder, could the man who Packer saw her with have bought her the rose? She hadn’t pinned the flower on her coat at this point, Packer said that she was playing with it,(dare I say it ) this seems to me, again to have the ring of truth, he didn’t refer to the flower as being pinned to her coat. Packer failed to recognise the genus of Strides flower, describing it as a Geranium, at least he got the colour right, (dare I say it again), this rings true with me. Regarding the music , I used it to put Packer in his shop at that time, what’s wrong with that? P.C. Smith then goes on to corroborate Packer about the couple standing where Packer said they were.
So, Packers description of the man, Good? Bad? The age he gives is correct in regard to P.C. Smith, the clerkly look ,William Marshal said as much, he said the man was kind of quick talking (again dare I say it ) has a ring of truth . Broad shouldered, William Marshal said his man was stout, Schwartz’s man was broad shouldered. The fact is Warren and Abberline were very interested in Packers description. It just might be that Packer got a good look at JTR.
Sarah.
Warren wrote. Mathew Packer has grocers shop, sells grapes black and white four pence and six pence. Presumably he meant by the pound. I reckon the average man around there could afford a quarter pound of grapes at a penny. Re: whether judges can direct jury’s, help, I give up!
Note: to Mr Ryder. Please print this in it’s entirety,
|
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 10:25 pm: | |
"I haven't even read Begg's book."
It's not just in Begg's book, but in most serious writings about the case of the era.
B. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 959
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 9:27 pm: | |
Cludgy,
"Still trying to put it over that you do see some merit in some of Packers statements, I see, when in actual fact you are on record as saying that Packer was a hoaxer and that his statement should be put in the bin!"
I haven't said that I've seen any merits in his statements, just that I believe he did see something -- the problem is that we don't know what. That is why he must be questioned and probably disregarded. But I have never thought that his whole story was false, I just think he elaborated it for public reasons, and therefore we can't know what in it or how much corresponds with the truth.
I think the flower is a possible indication on that he really did see Stride that night. I can't say I disagree on that. Although not all of us have green fingers or are wiz kids on identifying flowers, one could of course think that he would recognize a rose when he saw one. But then again, it was dark and it was rainy, so we can't disregard the conditions in this context. It is indeed plausible that Stride met someone who bought her that rose, and I can't disregard the fact that Packer could have seen that individual. But since he changed his story (to such an extent that the police finally lost interest in him), that unfortunately doesen't help us much. That is why Packer is a waste of time, as far as I am concerned. And I don't care that much for Schwartz' testimony either.
Regarding Packer, Donald S. Swanson writes on October 19, 1888: "Packer, who is an elderly man, has unfortunately made different statements so that apart from the fact of the hour at which he saw the woman (and she was seen afterwards by the P.C. & Schwartz as stated) any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence."
I agree with Swanson completely, and from what I know about police work, there is nothing that suggests that Swanson didn't know what he was doing in that respect. After an initial evaluation of his stories and his credibility, he finally dismissed him, and he was right in doing so.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 960
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 9:33 pm: | |
"It's not just in Begg's book, but in most serious writings about the case of the era. "
I knew you were going to say that, David.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 173
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 3:29 pm: | |
Hi,
I've recently read at the website Crime Library (under the Lizzie Borden case) some information concerning blood clotting. Apparently, blood will usually clot 5-15 min after a murder, but sometimes in especially violent deaths, something happens and the blood never clots. There must be some quick release addrenalin response or something that interferes with the clotting of the blood, or something like that. Anyway, this is rare, but when it does occur the blood will stay liquid for hours.
Anyway, with Liz Stride we have a bit of a time line concerning the clotting of the blood.
Diemshutz says he passed the bakers shop on the corner of Berner street at 1 (by the clock at the shop). It's not entirely clear if he notes this as he gets to the club (before finding the body), or as he goes looking for the police after finding the body.
A man (Spooner) arrives on the scene when being told of the murder, and touches Strides chin (but says he did not move the position of the head) and notices the blood is still flowing from the wound (so not clot yet). We don't know how much time has passed since the discovery of the body, but it doesn't appear to be much, a few minutes.
Const. Lamb states he arrives shortly before 1, presumably his time is based upon a different clock than that of Deimshutz) and states there is some slightly congealed blood near the body, the rest is still liquid.
Dr. Blackwell is the first doctor to arrive, and he checks his watch upon his arrival and notes the time is 1:16 am. Const. Lamb estimated Blackwells arrival as to be about 12 or so minutes after he arrived, which would put Const. Lamb's arrival at 1:04 ish, or shortly after 1, fitting better with the testimony of Deimshutz (but the different clocks makes this hard to figure out).
Anyway, what we seem to have is the blood has reached the "clotting" stage with Dr. Blackwell, possibly starting around Const. Lamb's arrival. The normal range of time is between 5-15 minutes. Blackwell seems to have arrived 16 minutes after the body was found, and Const. Lamb arrived 12 or so minutes earlier.
Notice that these times (Const. Lamb's arrival and Dr. Blackwell's arrival) roughly correspond to the earliest and latestest window for normal clotting (1:04 and 1:16 am are close to 5 and 15 min after 1 am, which is Deimshutz's testified discovery time).
These both estimate the murder to have occured just about the time Deimshutz discovered the body. In other words, the most common interruption theory is that the killer flees when the pony cart arrives, and the blood clotting evidence does seem to fit that theory.
Remember, however, the blood clotting evidence does not in any way indicate that whoever killed Stride intended to mutilate her! All the blood clotting evidence suggests is that she was probably killed some 5-15 minutes prior to the formation of the clot.
Now, a further caveat should be noted. I'm no expert in blood clotting. It could be that the 5-15 minutes is based upon first signs of clot, which means the murder would be estimated as 5-15 minutes prior to Const. Lamb's arrival (so roughly between 12:50 and 1:00). Second, these times are the range for the usual case, not all individual cases will fall within this time window. It's also possible that Stride was a "slow clotter", and we don't know what percentage of cases fall outside this range.
Regardless, what's important is that from what little evidence we do have, the notion that Stride was murdered just as Deimshutz arrived is not in conflict with the time course of the testimony concerning the blood clot formation.
- Jeff
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 176
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 10:53 pm: | |
One other thing. The time of Schwartz's sighting is often quoted as 12:45. However, under the dissertations section (Elizabeth Stride: Her Killer and Time of Death
Dave Yost) the editors note includes the police summary report of his testimony. This report seems to indicate that 12:45 corresponds to when Schwartz turned onto Berner Street from Commercial road, or more probable, that he noted the time on commercial road, turned onto Berner Street, walked down this towards home and then witnessed the attack on Stride.
The distance from commercial street is not great, so it's not like we can make up a full 15 mins, but some time must have passed. In other words, Schwartz's sighting may have occured between 12:45 and 1 am; with the time based upon some clock in Commercial street.
Regardless even with a full 15 minutes before the body is found, the different estimates in times is already within a window that could reflect nothing more than "different clocks, and the expected errors of time estimation".
Still, notice how this still puts things close to the earliest time window based upon blod clotting times, suggested in the "further caveat" section, but still not out of an "acceptable margin of error" for even the latest time of 1 am.
Strides case is so full of this kind of "works all ways" evidence.
- Jeff
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 9:10 am: | |
Glen,
Yes Packer was an old man, but just how old? I think this is a job for Mr Scott, come on Chris take up the challenge, how old was Mathew packer in 1888? |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 9:37 am: | |
Martin you wrote.
"3. He alleges that he served a man matching the description of the suspect which he saw published in 'The Times'. That was what prompted him to come forward. He went to the vigilance committee which he probably felt more in touch with and also the press. Obviously he didn't remember this information at the time because the man must not have struck him as suspicious.
The 64 thousand dollar question is, did the Times furnish a description of what stride was wearing that night? In particular could Packer have gleaned the fact, that Stride was in the possesion of a flower from the descriptionin in the Times? Could he have gleaned that particular piece of information from any other source? If not, then Packer must have encountered Stride that night, because how then would he have known that she had a flower? Did they show him Strides dress, with flower attached, at the mortuary? When did he make his statement, before or after his visit to the mortuary? If he saw Strides dress at the Mortuary then surely, he would have recognized the flower as being a rose, and yet he described the flower as a Geranium in his statement. What can one make of all this, because unlike you Martin I beleive that Packers and Shwartz man, are one and the same.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1012
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 3:50 pm: | |
Cludgy,
That Packer was an old man, was not my point. I don't think I have ever focused on his age; credibility doesne't necessarily must have something to do with age, that was just a quote from Swanson. I was trying to point that the police didn't regard him as credible. The age thing was irrelevant.
But I agree, this is a task for "Wiz Kid" Scott.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 192
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 6:53 pm: | |
Hi Glenn, Cludgy
The A-Z lists Packer as being born in 1830, which would make him 58. In the 1891 Census the age is difficult to read but looks like 60 which seems fine, but the 1901 census lists him as 74 which would make him 60 in 1888.
Both the 1891 and 1901 census have him still living at 44 Berner Street.
All the best
Rob |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1015
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 8:03 pm: | |
Thanks, Rob.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 16
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 8:13 pm: | |
Hello Cludgy,
To answer your valid question, it does state in page 136 of the sourcebook that PC Smith saw a man with a woman wearing a red rose. This was a published fact and Packer only said the flower was "geranium-like" - he obviously wasn't paying that much attention to it.
Since Packer later identified this man from 'The Times' description, then he did indeed glean this fact from PC Smith.
Like you I initially believed Packer to be a valuable witness, but however if you look at the facts it does appear that he is simply seconding Smith's description. In the first statement Packer makes, he describes a man that matches that of PC Smith's description perfectly, the only missing fact is that Smith says he wears a white collar and tie. Packer says his coat is buttoned up! The police eventually render Packer's evidence as valueless.
To add further confusion, the description that Schwarz gives is totally different. In my opinion, the man Schwarz sees throwing Liz to the ground is the more likely of the two to be the killer. Schwarz is the man that Abberline interviews intensely.
For the record, here's the facts (from 'The Ultimate Jack The Ripper Sourcebook'):-
"...A Mr Packer a fruiterer, of Berner Street, stated that at 11pm 29th Sept a young man age 25 - 30 about 5ft 7in, dress long black coat, buttoned up, soft felt hat (kind of Yankee hat) rather broad shoulders, rough voice, rather quick speaking, with a woman wearing a geranium like flower, white outside, red inside, & he sold him 1/2 lb of grapes." (pg. 139)
"12:35am 30th: PC 452H Smith saw a man and a woman the latter with a red rose talking on Berner Street...he thus describes the man as about age 28. ht 5ft 7in: comp. dark, small dark moustache, dress black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, white collar and tie" (pg. 136)
"12:45am 30th: Israel Schwarz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane...saw a man stop and speak to a woman...The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her onto the footway & the woman screamed three times but not very loudly...he thus describes the first man who threw the woman down:- age about 30 ht 5ft 5in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket and trousers black cap with a peak, nothing in his hands." (pg.137)
"Mr Packer when asked by the police stated that he did not see any suspicious person about, and it was not until the publication of the murder in the newspapers of the description of man seen by the P.C. that Mr Packer gave the foregoing particulars to two private enquiry men acting conjointly with the Vigilance Comtee. and the press, who upon searching a drain in the yard found a grape stem amongst the other matter swept from the yard which after its examination by the police and then calling upon Mr Packer whom they took to the mortuary where he identified the body of Elizabeth Stride as that of the woman. Packer who is an elderly man...has unfortunatly made different statements"etc (Pg.139)
Kind regards,
Martin Anderson
Analyst |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 353
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 8:46 am: | |
Martin
In my opinion, the man Schwarz sees throwing Liz to the ground is the more likely of the two to be the killer.
In my opinion, due to the timing aspect of the attack, neither one of these men was the killer. However there is a potential third man, the one seen by James Brown talking to Liz by the board school. This sighting was timed exactly the same as the Schwartz incident. Obviously this is not possible, she could not be in two places at the same time. Most people tend to assume it took place before the attack, but it is just as likely that it took place after.
Imagine the scenario. The man attacks Liz. He storms off up towards Commercial Road. She flees the scene but she isn't going to go the same way as him, so she heads off round the corner in the other direction. Runs into a man (Jack?) out looking for a cheap trick. He propositions her, but she is still shaken from the attack and says "No, not tonight, some other night." He calms her down, persuades her to cut her losses (her attacker may have stolen her money leaving her without a bed for the night), gets her back round the corner and into the convenient darkness of the yard.... |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1018
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 10:25 am: | |
Martin,
It pleases me to see that you are open to the possibility that Packer may not be that reliable after all.
Regarding the man seen by Schwartz, I have never believed him to be the killer, though. His behaviour is too noisy and out of place in order for that to be plausible in my head. And Schwartz' testimony is equally uncertain (although there is no indication on that he should be a bogey man like Packard); it is completely unverified and therefore should be embraced with caution.
Like Alan points out, I think the third man seen by james Brown is more interesting. I agree that it is possible that Liz' interaction with him could have occurred after the Schwartz incident (I believe also Martin Fido has lay forward a similar course of events).
I think Alan's suggestion of a scenario is a very plausible one indeed.
Too may people are laying too much weight on the Schwartz man and is treating Schwartz' testimony with not enough critical eyes. Since noone can corroborate his story, why should we automatically assume that his account is a correct one and that the man he saw was the killer?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 11:54 am: | |
"Too may people are laying too much weight on the Schwartz man and is treating Schwartz' testimony with not enough critical eyes. Since noone can corroborate his story, why should we automatically assume that his account is a correct one and that the man he saw was the killer?"
>>Massive misstatements here.
1. I personally don't "automatically assume" anything concerning the evidence. The idea that people are making automatic assumptions is an overstatement, not necessarily true.
2. There are various reasonable corroborative factors concerning Schwartz. Abberline interviewed him thoroughly and was satisfied with what he said. Nothing Schwartz said contradicts the physical and other evidence from any source. Nothing about it is intrinsically unbelievable. Schwartz gave his information voluntarily and directly when contacted by the police.
3. You have a non sequitor in what you say yourself. How are we going to "treat what Schwartz said with critical eyes" if we don't have an independent witness of the action? What would be the basis of this criticism? What you say, whether you are aware of it or not, puts Ripperology into an impossible place, where it can't even get started on its own evidence and grounds. Please answer directly: If we don't have an independent witness on Berner Street testifying to what Schwartz may have seen, how can we truthfully say what Schwartz said was wrong? Please don't do any dithering, misdirected answering to this, please answer substantially and directly. Don't give us the sort of thing concerning Packer, where you said, despite some of his testimony being true, all of it has to be discarded. Try to make sense out of the case evidence. Thank you.
Bullwinkle
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 185
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 2:34 pm: | |
David (Bullwinkle),
The first thing about any investigation (scientific, historic, police, etc) is that you should not accept any evidence without examining it from multiple view points. And what, exactly, is fitting between Schwartz's statement and the physical evidence? Well, he saw Stride attacked in the location she was found. How do we know, for instance, that he didn't just make the whole thing up after hearing of the murder in the first place? We don't, and you don't either.
What we all do is offer "interpretations" of the data we have. Events that could fit with the known facts. And, by looking at the "known facts" critically, we sometimes are forced to ignor the content of the known fact because the fact is it's wrong; i.e. it's a fact Joe Bloggs gave this testimony, but we've determined that Joe Bloggs testimony is bogus so we ignor it.
SO, the way you treat an eye witness with critical eyes when there is no one to back them up is to be vary cautious about accepting what they say. This one witness may very well be testifying with the best intentions, but at the same time, may very well be misremembering the event, in whole or in part. If you think Schwartz has a memory like a video camera, then you had better put forth some evidence to show his memory is unlike 99% of the human race.
- Jeff |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 359
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 5:43 am: | |
David
In fact you are wrong, we do have an independent witness, or at least an independent non-witness. Her name is Mrs Fanny Mortimer.
I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past 12 and 1 o'clock on Sunday morning, and did not notice anything unusual. - The Times, 1st October 1888
Now in general I am circumspect about accepting newspaper reports, but as you in the past have clearly based your own positioning of Schwartz's second man on the Star report, I feel confident that in this instance we are accepting newspaper reports as evidence. Just as you cannot randomly choose which evidence to accept and which to ignore, you cannot say that one newspaper report is acceptable and another is not without providing your reasoning for doing so.
So Mrs Mortimer was standing outside her door, at No 36, just a few doors from where this incident was taking place, at the time it was taking place, and she did not notice anything unusual. Meanwhile Schwartz must have walked right past her but does not mention a woman standing outside her door. Of course this does not mean he did not see her, he may have seen her and not thought it important enough to mention, but that seems highly unlikely.
Either way, Mrs Mortimer's story clearly contradicts Schwartz's story, therefore you have no choice but to dismiss one of them. Clearly you dismiss Mrs Mortimer. Please explain why, without any dithering or misdirected answers, please answer substantially and directly. |
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 17
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 7:55 am: | |
Alan,
I can't argue with your "third man" scenario, it certainly is a distinct possibility. Like Glenn says, it would be totally out of character for our man to attack Liz on an open road with witnesses present in full view of anyone! Maybe she was attacked yet again minutes later...
On the other hand, the facts state that Liz was being physically abused by this man probably minutes before her murder. And Abberline was obviously very interested in what Israel had to say, despite the language barrier. I have however read a different report to the witness statement made by Schwarz which was printed in a newspaper. It alleges that Schwarz was pursued by a second man with a knife immediately after the incident. But of course, this teaches us the dangers of reading too much into newspaper reports. I think police statements are far more reliable but they do tend to hold back information some of the time.
Maybe AP is right as Liz's wounds are so different to all the other victims so perhaps she was a victim of a totally separate crime.
Whatever the series of events, I agree that James Brown needs to be taken more seriously. Here is his description:-
"12:45am: 5'7", stout, long black diagonal coat which reached almost to his heels."
And yes, this description tallies in well with that of PC Smith - surely the most reliable witness of all? Anyway, this means that the man seen with Liz by PC Smith at 12:35pm was also seen by Brown in what must have been a matter of minutes before her murder.
Martin Anderson
Analyst |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
