Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Visual Media: The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary - by Chris 9 minutes ago.
Visual Media: The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary - by Trevor Marriott 10 minutes ago.
Visual Media: The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary - by Chris 21 minutes ago.
Visual Media: The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary - by Lechmere 23 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Jack the Ripper was Whitechapel meat cart driver, claims criminologist - by GUT 30 minutes ago.
Visual Media: The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary - by Chris 30 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Visual Media: The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary - (100 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Lets get Lechmere off the hook! - (49 posts)
Non-Fiction: Best suspect books? - (14 posts)
A6 Murders: The attack on Swedish housewife Mrs Meike Dalal on Thursday, September 7th 1961 - (10 posts)
General Victim Discussion: Who was Jack's first murder poll! - (10 posts)
General Discussion: The Truth; part 1 - (10 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 19, 2014, 12:02 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm
Donald Swanson
Edit: Chris
Dec 9, 2012, 3:40 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.
Mike Covell: A Study in Red – The Secret Journal of Jack the Ripper
March 3, 2014, 3:42 am.
Mike Covell: Almost there….
January 24, 2014, 4:05 am.
Mike Covell: Jack the Ripper - Year in Review 2013
December 28, 2013, 7:31 am.
Mike Covell: Jack the Ripper At Last? - Review
December 9, 2013, 2:08 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Elizabeth Stride

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #481  
Old 04-07-2012, 01:43 AM
mariab mariab is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Paris/Berlin/Chicago
Posts: 2,981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
And Diemschitz, in court, was never asked if he saw any grapes...
The only ones who claimed not to have seen grapes, arrived after her right hand had been touched, moved, disturbed (pulse taken).
Could it be that Wickerman has changed his mind? This is really big of you (no irony intended).
__________________
Best regards,
Maria
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #482  
Old 04-07-2012, 02:22 AM
Tom_Wescott Tom_Wescott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,014
Default

Dave,

You're backing the wrong horse in Dave. Wickerman is Mr. Ed, always talking, always looking for his Wilbur. Are you to be his Wilbur?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman
The only ones who claimed not to have seen grapes, arrived after her right hand had been touched, moved, disturbed (pulse taken).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogidubnus
Quite!

Dave
Quite what? Quite a load of horse (Mr. Ed) crap? I agree, since Abraham Heshburg was VERY early on the scene and got so close as to describe the paper the cachous were wrapped in (tissue) and estimate the number of cachous (6 or 7) but saw no grapes. Edward Spooner likewise saw the cachous paper in her hand, but no grapes. Then Edward Johnston showed up, felt for a pulse, transferring blood to her hand (which was empty of grapes, by the way) and suddenly Isaac Kozebrodski (and possibly Diemshitz) believed they saw grapes. So, quite in contrast to what Wick says, which is that everyone who saw her BEFORE her hand was moved saw grapes, we have a host of witnesses, which include clubmen, passersby, Blackwell's own assistant, and the man who spent the most amount of time in direct proximity with the body (Spooner), all completely ignorant of grapes in her hand.

There's something we occasionally do here called 'evaluating evidence' in which we look at the evidence pro and the evidence con and see which stacks higher. In the case of 'Were there grapes?' you have a mountain of evidence proving beyond a doubt that there were not, and you have what for evidence proving their was? A newspaper interview taken with a teenager who could barely speak English and the thoroughly disproven word of Packer. Which side of a fence like this a researcher chooses to stand on tells the world an awful lot about his personality, motivation, ego, and ability to comprehend. Then, of course, there's those annoying buggers who simply sit on the various fences, making life tough for the rest of us.

Yours truly,

Secretariat
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 04-07-2012, 04:37 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariab View Post
Could it be that Wickerman has changed his mind? This is really big of you (no irony intended).
In what way Maria?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
If nonsense were solid, the nonsense that is written against Hutchinson would sink a Dreadnought
Inspired by, Robert Anderson.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #484  
Old 04-07-2012, 05:56 AM
Hunter Hunter is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,521
Default

This is Diemshitz's statement to the press as reported in the Daily News, Oct. 1:

'It seemed to me that her clothes were in perfect order. I could see that her throat was fearfully cut. She had dark clothes on, and wore a black crape bonnet. Her hands were clenched, and when the doctor opened them I saw that she had been holding grapes in one hand and sweetmeats in the other.'

Whichever 'doctor' opened her hands - as Diemshitz described upon seeing the grapes - never testified that there were grapes in either hand, which he would have seen just as well as the club stewart could.

Diemshitz's testimony at the inquest as reported by the London Times on Oct. 2:

'The CORONER. - Did you notice her hands?
Witness. - I did not notice what position her hands were in. I only noticed that the dress buttons of her dress were undone. I saw the doctor put his hand inside and tell the police that the body was quite warm. The doctor also told one of the constables to feel the body, and he did so.
'

He saw grapes in her hand but did not notice what position either of them were in?

No, Mr. Diemshitz was not specifically asked if he saw grapes, nor did he mention grapes in his response, but it is obvious why he was asked the question and the answer - under oath - discounts his statement to the press.
__________________
Best Wishes,
Hunter
____________________________________________

When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 04-07-2012, 06:32 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter View Post

Diemshitz's testimony at the inquest as reported by the London Times on Oct. 2:

'The CORONER. - Did you notice her hands?
Witness. - I did not notice what position her hands were in.
'

He saw grapes in her hand but did not notice what position either of them were in?
And yet, you have no trouble accepting Mr Johnson's testimony, when he offers much the same scenario.

Mr Johnson felt the hands, ....."which were quite cold."
I saw the left hand was lying away from the body, and the arm was bent. The right arm was also bent. The left hand might have been on the ground.

Yet Baxter specifically asked, "Did you look at the hands?"

Witness. - No.

Mr Johnson was well able to see & do much while not looking at the hands, and you have no problem with his statement.

Cris, it should be quite apparent that Johnson also meant he was not looking at the specific posture of her hands, whether clenched or relaxed, not that he did not look at them at all. The same is how we should be interpreting what Diemschitz said.

Diemschitz is not noticing whether her fingers were clenched, relaxed or opened out. That is not noticing the position of her hands.
He was not asked if there was anything in her hands.

Regards, Jon S.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
If nonsense were solid, the nonsense that is written against Hutchinson would sink a Dreadnought
Inspired by, Robert Anderson.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #486  
Old 04-07-2012, 07:09 PM
Hunter Hunter is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,521
Default

Hi Jon,

The first person to acknowledge examining Stride's hands was Dr. Blackwell; where he found that she was holding the paper wrapped cachous in the left hand and the blood on the right. Johnston, who was called to testify after Blackwell stated that he didn't notice the cachous or the blood. In other words, he did not open the hands. He obviously noticed the position of the hands because he stated as such.

In Diemshitz's press statement, he says he watched 'the doctor' open her clenched hands and noticed that she had been holding sweetmeats in one and grapes in the other. Blackwell was the first person to testify doing what Diemshitz described and mentioned no grapes, but did mention the right hand being open.

Now, either Diemshitz was referring to Blackwell and mistook the blood smears for grapes, or Johnston was lying under oath and had, indeed examined the victim's hands and dislodged the grapes. If Diemshitz had seen grapes in Stride's hands, he would have had to notice their position because he would have been looking at them.

And, if Diemshitz had seen grapes in Stride's right hand, why didn't he mention it at the inquest when asked if he noticed the victim's hands? "Yes, just like I told the reporter, I saw she had been holding sweetmeats in one hand and grapes in the other." Instead, he gave an evasive answer for some reason; probably so he would no perjure himself under oath.
__________________
Best Wishes,
Hunter
____________________________________________

When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #487  
Old 04-07-2012, 07:53 PM
mariab mariab is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Paris/Berlin/Chicago
Posts: 2,981
Default

As usual, good post #486 from Hunter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hunter View Post
Now, either Diemshitz was referring to Blackwell and mistook the blood smears for grapes, or Johnston was lying under oath and had, indeed examined the victim's hands and dislodged the grapes.
Or Johnston was lying under oath and had compromised the scene, smearing blood from her throat on Stride's hands, as clearly someone had unbuttoned her dress before Dr. Blackwell arrived. Maybe Blackwell was even covering up for Johnston's inexperience? Now call me a conspiracist.

Quote originally posted by Wickerman:
The only ones who claimed not to have seen grapes, arrived after her right hand had been touched, moved, disturbed (pulse taken).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mariab View Post
Could it be that Wickerman has changed his mind? This is really big of you (no irony intended).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
In what way Maria?
Apologies, was too quick in reading this thread yesterday and not payed real attention. Thought Wick said “The only ones who claimed to have seen grapes arrived after her right hand had been touched, moved, disturbed (pulse taken).“ Missed the negative in Wick's sentence, a proof that it's not just the double negative in the GSG that keeps confusing people, sometimes a simple negative is trouble enough! In reality I was very much surprised in my misconception that Wickerman had changed his mind and had started interpreting the facts according to evidence, though his willing to consider the “before and after“ occurence of facts is already a step in the right direction in my opinion.
Sorry for the hasty response and the lack of attention, but I gotta run. (Gotta work out, as I'm trying to shake this cold and get done de-bloating, on my way to becoming the incredible hulk so that I can train with the Pros here. Modest wants, I know.)
__________________
Best regards,
Maria
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #488  
Old 04-24-2012, 01:07 PM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3,846
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
Numerous people saw her body in situ, saw the cachous, but did not see any grapes...

...And exactly HOW would the presence of grapes get in the way of my Le Grand theory, when it was Le Grand himself who pulled a grapestalk from the club house gutter?
Hi Tom,

You appear to be confusing me with someone who cares as passionately as you do about the whole grapes mess. I don't. I just look at other people's arguments and comment if they appear contrived or are unsupported.

If Le Grand was there when Stride died, because he was the one who overpowered her, cut her throat and left her dying, would he not have been one of your 'numerous' people, and in an ideal position to know if both her hands were clutching something at the time? No grapes means that he saw no grapes, and one of her hands must have been free when he attacked her. Why wind up Packer into telling a pointless and easily disproven lie involving grapes that Le Grand had no reason to believe she was clutching when he killed her?

I thought your theory was that Le Grand planted the grapestalk himself to bolster the lie he got Packer to tell for him. Are you now saying he could have found it naturally but still felt the need for this elaborate charade?

Look, Tom, I'm more than happy to conclude that someone was mistaken about grapes ever being in Stride's hand, although I doubt her killer would have been similarly mistaken. I'm slightly less happy with it being stated as fact that Packer did not sell grapes to anyone in Stride's company, simply because he changed his story and was therefore considered unreliable. No evidence for something can't prove a negative.

Discarding the whole grape story for lack of positive evidence or reliable witness testimony is fine; but you have to apply it Le Grand too, since there is no evidence at all for his presence in the yard when Stride was killed, and Schwartz's story would need to be 100% reliable, with his description of Pipeman demonstrably matching Le Grand beyond reasonable doubt. (The fact that the pipe turned into a knife does more harm than good in this regard. No grapes, no knife.) And there is still no evidence that the killer was Pipeman, waiting for the chance to kill Stride for unknown reasons. It's all speculation, based on precious little.

If the grapes have to go from that yard, so does Le Grand, for almost identical reasons.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 04-24-2012 at 01:32 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #489  
Old 04-24-2012, 05:14 PM
mariab mariab is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Paris/Berlin/Chicago
Posts: 2,981
Default reductionist Ripperology

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Discarding the whole grape story for lack of positive evidence or reliable witness testimony is fine; but you have to apply it Le Grand too, since there is no evidence at all for his presence in the yard when Stride was killed, and Schwartz's story would need to be 100% reliable, with his description of Pipeman demonstrably matching Le Grand beyond reasonable doubt. (The fact that the pipe turned into a knife does more harm than good in this regard. No grapes, no knife.) And there is still no evidence that the killer was Pipeman, waiting for the chance to kill Stride for unknown reasons. It's all speculation, based on precious little.
If the grapes have to go from that yard, so does Le Grand, for almost identical reasons.
I really hope you're joking, Caz? You're comparing grapes to a suspect, as in an object to a person?!? For the grapes we have reliable evidence from both the police and the medics that they didn't exist. For the suspect in question, we have both his physical description at the murder scene just minutes prior to the murder and his suspicious behavior after the murder.
Incidentally, I have an explanation on why his physical description was mentioned in Schwartz' testimony even if Schwartz' testimony was a complete fabrication. This will be presented in my article.


And by the by, I've been thinking of your use of the term "minimalist" Ripperology in the meaning of "selective", and I think that the term "reductionist" Ripperology would be most fitted to describe what you meant.
__________________
Best regards,
Maria
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #490  
Old 05-03-2012, 03:17 PM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3,846
Default

Hi Maria,

Not joking at all. Just as no grapes were found at the scene (and the murderer presumably saw none either), Le Grand can't be placed at the scene. Nor reliably in the vicinity of Berner St.

But I certainly look forward to learning how Schwartz can place him in Berner St for you, especially if Pipeman could have been 'a complete fabrication' along with the rest of his tale.

What was it about Schwartz's (translated and possibly fabricated) description that would mark out the man with the pipe as Le Grand and nobody else? Pipeman's knife certainly appears to have been a fabrication, either by Schwartz or the press for added oomph, or due to poor translating, and that's the one thing that has to be there, in the killer's hand, when Stride's throat is cut. A pity that.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 05-03-2012 at 03:19 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.