Archive through May 2, 2000

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through May 2, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth ' Long Liz ' Stride: Archive through May 2, 2000

Author: Simon Owen Monday, 03 April 2000 - 09:57 am
It is my assertion that Matthew Packer was correct in his identification of Elizabeth Stride and that she was with a man who bought some grapes. The first piece of evidence is Packer's own statement that Liz and a man came to his shop to buy grapes. There is some discrepancy about what time this was , but the marginal notes on Packer's written statement to the police imply that the C.I.D. wanted Packer to change his times by an hour , presumably to fit in with the statements of other witnesses. It should be noted however that the police were suspicious of Packer and actually took him to view the Mitre Square victim claiming she was Stride , but Packer could not identify her. He did however identify Stride positively when shown her body. Packer stated then that Stride and the man entered the shop at 12 midnight and that he closed his shop at 12.30am ; Packer altered these times to 11pm and 11.30pm respectively for the C.I.D. The second piece of evidence is this : at 12.30am PC William Smith walked down Berner Street on his beat and saw Liz chatting to a man holding a newspaper parcel 18" by 6". It is my assertion that this parcel contained the grapes ; although this parcel might seem too large , the fruit would have been wrapped up in a whole piece of newspaper , thus this would account for the size of the parcel. The third piece of evidence is that , according to Stephen Knight , Inspector Swanson left a note that a grape stem had been found swept into the drain in Dutfield's Yard. Fairclough also notes Walter Dew's recollection that grape seeds were found on the floor of the yard when the police searched it. The fourth piece of evidence is Liz's handkerchief which was stained with fruit juice. We know Stride had not eaten fruit in the hours before her death but this does not preclude the possibility that her companion had eaten the grapes instead. Thus the stains on Liz's handkerchief had come from wiping her companion's mouth for him. Packer's description of the man with Stride is not far off other descriptions of the man from other witnesses either. Philip Sugden dismisses Matthew Packer as an unreliable witness largely from the elaborations which Packer made to his story after the event : I believe we should reinstate Packer as a witness based on what he said at the time however. It seems then that Matthew Packer may have got the best possible look at the man who was Jack the Ripper.
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 03 April 2000 - 10:11 am
Matthew Packer's description of the man seen with Liz Stride was as follows : " ...a young man from 25-30-about 5'7" with long black coat buttoned up-soft felt hat , kind of (?) hat (variously transcribed as yankee , quaker or hunter )-rather broadshoulders-rather quick in speaking , rough voice. I sold him 1/2 pound black grapes 3d...I put the man down as a young clerk. He had a frock coat on-no gloves. He was about 1 and 1/2 inch or 2 or 3 inch - a little bit higher than she was. "
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 03 April 2000 - 10:41 am
If the hat worn by the man was a sort of quaker hat then it would be easy to misunderstand as a sort of peaked cap( Schwartz , Marshall ) or a hard felt deerstalker ( PC Smith ). The coat that the man was wearing is more difficult to describe : Schwartz says a dark jacket , Marshall a cutaway coat , James Brown and PC Smith and Matthew Packer say a long dark overcoat. I think that a cutaway coat was long at the back , a sort of footman's jacket. If the man had pushed his coat behind his back it is possible that Marshall mistook the man's long overcoat for a coat of this type : with Schwarz the word ' jacket ' might merely have been a mistranslation of the word 'coat' from Hungarian or Yiddish. Packer and PC Smith saw the man close up , I would give greater credence to their testimony over the coat. Schwartz fills in the facial features : fair complexion , dark hair , small brown moustache , full face. As you might expect there are small variations between the descriptions given by the witnesses , but there are also common features as well : the broad shoulders and big build , the appearance which resembled a clerk. The voice may well have been educated , when the man spoke to Packer he might have been trying to disguise the way he spoke. I think all these witnesses are describing the same man. What is clear as well is that this man had not engaged Liz as a prostitute , the couple were seen kissing and listening to the singing in the rain , Liz may have wiped grape juice from the mouth of her companion. Its possible that Stride saw this man in a romantic way , perhaps they had met before and the man had been trying to seduce Liz over some time. She may have even rebutted his sexual advances : ' Not tonight , some other night '. Which might suggest she saw this man as a possible partner to take her away from Michael Kidney for good , and she did not want to rush things.
Author: Jeffrey Tuesday, 04 April 2000 - 07:14 am
Hi Simon ! Have you worked out a motive for this killing ? (The evil green monster is usually a good place to start) Do you believe this man was the Ripper, and what do you make of the second man, stood on the opposite side of the street, lighting his pipe. Was he involved ? If not, why do you think he never came forward as a witness ? I have always wondered why this man went ahead and killed poor Lizzy Stride, even when he knew he had been seen by Schwartz, and at least 1-other person. Packer changed his story a number of times, apparently to suite whoever was asking the questons. He was in the vicinity though and he appears to have been a bit of a busy-body who might have seen something. You make a few good points, however I would still tread carefully. The general consensus has been wrong in the past, though there are strong indications he could have just wanted his 15 minutes of fame. I would be interested in your further comments. Jeff D
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 04 April 2000 - 09:54 am
There are several possible options for this murder which I will list below : (i) That Liz was a victim of the man I described above ; this man was Jack and Liz was despatched because she had seen the killer's face and heard him speak. She could not be allowed to live , she knew too much. Pipeman was probably an accomplice then , meant to keep the coast clear and scare anyone who came too close off. (ii) Liz was being robbed by a gang , similar to the High-Rips gang who may have attacked Emma Smith. The two men seen were members of this gang. When Liz was found to have nothing valuable on her she was killed and the men departed. (iii) The man described above was Michael Kidney or a jealous boyfriend of Liz , Pipeman was his accomplice or a friend who had come with him. When Liz wouldn't return with Kidney he got into a drunken rage and killed her. (iv)Pipeman was the Ripper , acting alone. He saw Liz being beaten up by a boyfriend or robber , this man called out ' Lipski ' when Schwartz turned up. Pipeman chased off Schwartz. When he returned the other man had gone , or he scared him off. He dragged Liz from out of the street into the yard and killed her. But his lust for blood and mutilation had only been further aroused , he had to kill again... It is my personal opinion that the man seen was the Ripper (option i) and he killed Liz , Pipeman was his accomplice. That there were no mutilations would explained by the fact that the killer had been disturbed and had to dispatch her quickly , he no longer felt secure in that area. Thus Pipeman scared off Schwartz and Jack killed Liz. It is the cutting of the throat that is striking , in (ii) and (iii) it would have been easier and less ugly to stab the victim to death : it would need a good edge to cut the throat while only a sharp point to stab. Cutting the throat would also be trickier to perform especially if the victim was trying to defend herself. Option (iv) is a possibility , but it is far more likely that the first man would have told Pipeman to clear off too , rather than calling to him for help in clearing off Schwartz.
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 04 April 2000 - 10:31 am
Philip Sugden raises several good points about the evidence of Matthew Packer , but I feel they can be dealt with in turn. Firstly , Packer made a positive identification of Liz Stride in the mortuary ; this suggests he really had seen her. Secondly , the offer of a reward for information about the Ripper may have induced Packer to change his story but it is just as likely that it convinced him to tell the truth as well. It wouldn't be suprising if Packer wanted no contact with the police , but if there was a financial reward for telling his story...Also , the story that Grand and Batchelor had found the grapestalk apeared in the newspapers on October 1st. Packer , just like George Hutchinson later on , perhaps felt it was best to come forward with his story lest he be incriminated in some way. The changes to the times in his statements can be attributed to pressure by the C.I.D. to make his account fit with P.C. Smith's account. It is important too to notice that Schwartz's account was also modified in the papers , yet Schwartz is still afforded credibility : the only main change in the statement of Packer is the age of the man from just over 30 to just under 30 , but this could be due to better recollection of the events however. I believe that Matthew Packer felt he should have got some sort of reward for telling his story , but he did not. This explains his further tales to the police , posibly to make sure he was not forgotten about if any monies were forthcoming. I feel that Sugden has unfairly predjudiced the issue in his book , putting Packer's statement in a chapter entitled ' False Leads ' and deriding those authors who might actually believe Packer was telling the truth ; he writes : "Certainly , to judge by the number of latter-day Ripperologists who trawl up the grocer's story to sustain their own theories , his evidence is still very widely believed " (p224) The sneering tone is obvious. There are inconsistencies in Packer's testimony , but these can be explained if one bothers to think about the issue. You can look at a bag of grapes and say it is either half-full or half-empty ; similarly we can give Matthew Packer the benefit of the doubt. The evidence for doing so I have already sited.
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Wednesday, 05 April 2000 - 04:20 pm
Simon, Stewart Evans has proved that the intelligible word used in describing the hat was �Yankee'. This in no way can be confused with either a deer stalker or a peaked cap. The fact that Packer was interviewed by Sergeant White on 30th of September and that Packer stated that he had neither seen nor heard anything suspicious nor had he seen anyone standing in the street when he had closed up at 12:30 that night, lays grave doubts as to his trustworthiness as a witness, in my opinion, it is not wise to use either Knight or Fairclough as references either. Somehow you have become convinced that �pipeman' was an accomplice of the man that assaulted Elisabeth Stride. There is absolutely no evidence that this was the case. All in all it is likely that Stride was not a Ripper victim. The shorter, blunter, rounded knife used, the shallow wound to the neck combined with the fact that she was not strangled, Berner Street being South of The Whitechapel Road, the fact that the body was not placed on her back as she fell, all point to someone other than the Ripper. Wolf.
Author: Guy Hatton Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 05:55 am
On re-reading Sugden's account of the Packer episode, I noticed that Packer claimed to have pointed out the couple to whom he had allegedly sold the grapes to his wife, commenting to the effect that they were foolish to stand out in the rain when they could easily find shelter. And yet his wife was also interviewed by White, and she too claimed not to have seen anyone loitering in Berner Street. Furthermore, could somebody please remind me of the source of the story which has Packer being taken to identify Eddowes' body, and failing to be fooled. Sugden reports that Grand and Batchelor took Packer to view "the woman" (no name mentioned) in the mortuary, and that Packer had given a positive identification of her as the woman customer. All the Best Guy
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 06:15 am
Can I take it then that we are assuming Packer's testimony is invented because he said he saw nothing when he was first interviewed ? Does this make a man's testimony a fabrication ? I think its far more likely that Packer just didn't want to talk to the police at first but he changed his mind because (i) the grapes evidence turned up which he felt might incriminate him in some way , or which forced his hand, or (ii) the offer of a reward proved too tempting. In any case Packer went first to Grand and Batchelor , evidence of his suspicion of the coppers. We might also take into account that Packer was an old man and he had seen and talked to the Ripper face to face. His reluctance to testify might have been partly from a fear that the Ripper might come back and knife him too : after all he knew where the Packers lived.
Author: Guy Hatton Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 08:55 am
Without claiming unequivocably that Packer's story was a fabrication, I would say that the evidence seems to stack up against him. Not only did he suddenly find a story to tell after first claiming that he had seen and heard nothing (with support from the other occupants of his premises, one of whom he later tried to incorporate into his story), but, as Sugden remarks, he seems to have been keen to include details (some of them erroneous) from press reports in some of the later variants. He enthusiastically responds to leading questions (vide the American accent), and would appear to have blatantly lied to reporters in saying that the police had not questioned him. Did Packer "go to" Grand and Batchelor, or did they "happen across" him? I'm not sure we know the answer to this. If the latter, might he not have seized the opportunity to inflate his role at this point, rather than having evidence which he felt he had to divulge to someone? And of course we simply cannot "take into account that Packer...had seen and talked to the Ripper face to face". That surely is the main point of dispute here. All the Best Guy
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 10:59 am
Hello Guy ! James Tully ,' The Secret of Prisoner 1167 ' , p.183 : " On October 3rd he ( Packer ) was asked if he would go to the mortuary to see if the body was that of the woman whom he served. Packer agreed , but , to test his reliability , he was taken to view the victim of the Mitre Square murder and asked if she was the woman. To everybody's relief , he said that she was not and arrangements were then made to take him to the correct , St Georges in the East , mortuary on the following afternoon. " I thought that Packer went to see Grand and Batchelor himself ( is this in Sugden ? ) but Tully has it that , after they found the grapestalk , Grand and Batchelor went to see Packer and it was then he told them about selling the grapes. Thus you are right , it seems to be the other way around. But then it could be a case of being confronted with the evidence , and of course Packer then had to tell the truth. I don't deny Packer made a few changes to his statement in the Press afterwards , but the ability of the Press to change the facts in pursuit of a good story has already been noticed : look what The Star did to Israel Schwartz's story ! Yet Schwartz is still accepted as a credible witness ; why not Packer ? There is evidence backing Packer's statement - the grapestalk in the drain , the skins and pips on the ground as recalled by Walter Dew ( see A-Z under Long Liz entry ) , the fruit stain on Liz's handkerchief , the newspaper parcel seen by P.C. Smith and the identification of Liz not Eddowes by Packer. Okay , we can't assert that Packer had actually talked to the Ripper , but that is what he may have felt and that may have been why he said nothing at first.
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 11:05 am
Can anyone answer the question : what is a Yankee hat then ? If by this Packer meant a wide-awake hat , that could have been mistaken for a peaked cap or a felt deerstalker - a wideawake hat is sort of like a felt boater , but the crown of the hat is slightly lower. If the hat was a bit out of shape it could have been mistaken for anything !
Author: Guy Hatton Friday, 07 April 2000 - 04:35 am
Simon - thanks for the reminder re. Tully. I knew I'd seen that story somewhere. I'll have a look at Tully to see if he gives a source for his version of events. By and large, his account of the case strikes me as well-researched and responsible, though there are a few points which I think give cause for question. This is one; his defence of Phillips' Chapman T.O.D. estimate is (for me - as you will obviously realise!) another. I don't know the answer to my own question about Grand & Batchelor, and I'm not sure the information is available to give one (Sugden makes no specific claim, merely that: ...just two days later, the greengrocer was telling a quite different story to Messrs Grand and Batchelor of 283 Strand, two private detectives in the employ of the Mile End Vigilance Committee So I might be right in suspecting that they found him by chance, or I might not. The difference as I see it between Packer and Schwartz is this; that whereas Packer is demonstrably responsible himself for at least some of the discrepancies between versions of his story (although, as you say, press distortions may also come into play), Schwartz's story as it appeared in the press may be the result of distortion/embellishment alone, or of poor translation. At least Schwartz did not change his mind about whether or not he had seen anything. In this context, I feel that the police's preference for Schwartz over Packer is justifiable. Unfortunately, those items of evidence which most closely corroborate Packer's story (the grapestalk and Dew's skins and pips) have no status higher than hearsay - so we should not rely too much upon them. I agree that if Packer genuinely thought that he had seen and spoken to the killer, he may have been reluctant to speak to the police out of fear. However, if that were the case, I contend that the publicity he subsequently courted would endanger him far more than a discrete statement to the police would have done. All the Best Guy
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 07 April 2000 - 05:51 am
Having read Tully through again too , it seems that it was the Whitechapel Vigilante Commitee that took Tully to see the bodies , and not the police. Sorry for the small error. The ( bloodcaked ) grapestalk and some white petals were also seen by a Mrs Rosenfield and her sister as being in the yard before the police washed it down ; it was this that led the detectives to Packer. The grapestalk is also mentioned by Inspector Swanson in a report dated 19th October 1888 in Home Office File HO/144/221/A49301c8a as follows , quote : " Two private enquiry men acting cojointly with the Vigilante Committee and the Press , upon searching a drain in the yard , found a grape stem which was amongst the matter swept from the yard after its examination by the police..." Thus we have two independent witnesses for the grape stem and even Swanson acknowledged that a stalk had been found. Also , the story that Liz was clutching grapes in her right hand appeared in The Times on October 1st ,3 days before Packer's story appeared in the Evening News. Thus this was printed before it was even known that Packer had sold grapes to Long Liz and her man. There does seem to be a lot of corroborative evidence to support Packer's testament on the grapes therefore.
Author: Julian Rosenthal Tuesday, 11 April 2000 - 11:32 pm
G'day everyone. I reckon they should have asked Schwartz's donkey to testify. He might have made an ass of himself but he would've given them something to mule over. Sorry. Jules
Author: Diana Tuesday, 11 April 2000 - 11:53 pm
With regard to the cry of "Lipski" it has been suggested that this would definitely make Jack a gentile because "Lipski" was an antisemitic pejorative. Here in America it is not unheard of for African Americans to sometimes use the "n" word with reference to each other. I really think that only someone from the Jewish Community could answer this. Would it be likely that a Jewish person would call another Jewish person "Lipski"? Perhaps Rabbi Leen or some other Jewish contributor to these boards would like to comment?
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 09:21 am
It could be a contemptuous-yet-friendly nickname for the 'Pipeman' , used in a similar way to the word you describe above Diana. In this case the Pipeman would be Jack's accomplice and subordinate. It could have been because Pipeman was Jewish , or merely that he looked Jewish that he got this nickname , either case could be appropriate. However since Schwartz's description of Pipeman does not immediately suggest a Jew , I think the cry probably refered to Israel Schwartz himself.
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 09:23 am
In which case there is no evidence that Stride's killer was a Jew.
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Tuesday, 02 May 2000 - 01:02 pm
Over the weekend I spoke to Lars Thomas, who's a Danish zoologist and writer about many things including JtR. He told me that every so often in Scandinavia, someone comes up with a "diary" of Elizabeth Stride sent back to her relatives and usually "found" in an old trunk. He says that there are two problems with this: Stride was illiterate and she had no relatives! Peter
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Tuesday, 02 May 2000 - 03:02 pm
This is interesting, Peter. Where did he learn that Stride was illiterate? As well, does the "she had no relatives" indicate that her parents were dead by 1888 at the latest and she had no other kin?