Casebook Examiner No. 3 (August 2010)

[Rubyretro]

I really enjoyed Adam Went's piece. Nice to know more about events like that. Dave

yes..I really enjoyed that ,too..and the Mortuary Timelines piece.

It was my first 'Examiner', and I'll be very pleased to receive it in future. It was enjoyable and instructive.

(wasn't there an excursion boat that went down on the Thames like Princess Alice -'Bow Bells'?-in the '70. ).

[Zodiac]

The Marchioness Disaster.

yes..I really enjoyed that ,too..and the Mortuary Timelines piece.

It was my first 'Examiner', and I'll be very pleased to receive it in future. It was enjoyable and instructive.

(wasn't there an excursion boat that went down on the Thames like Princess Alice -'Bow Bells'?-in the '70. ).

It was the "Marchioness" disaster. She was run down by the dredger "Bowbelle" in the early hours of the 20th of August 1989. 51 people were drowned.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206626/Twenty-years-ago-week-51-people-died-Marchioness-pleasure-boat-disaster--survivor-tells-haunting-story.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marchioness_disaster

Best wishes,

Zodiac.

[Tom_Wescott]

So Tom, remind us - what was Le Grand's reasoning behind getting Packer to tell his suspicious customer story?

That's fully explored and explained in my article, which everyone is encouraged to read by obtaining issue #2 of Casebook Examiner.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Hi Tom,

I see that you need to wined and dined first before you give it up. Why buy a cow when you can get the milk for free? Smart. Very smart.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi CD. If Caz wants to wine and dine me, that's great, but then I doubt we'd be talking much. As for 'giving it up', I already did that when I published a massive essay in the ridiculously cheap (almost free) Casebook Examiner. Granted, Don paid me twice what he paid everyone else, but that's just because I'm more popular and because he's scared of me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Adam Went]

Yes, and I noticed that there's more to come from you in Casebook Examiner #4, Tom....shall have to rename the magazine "Casebook Examiner; Or, Wescott's Words Of Wisdom" soon.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Supe]

Tom,

Don paid me twice what he paid everyone else,

True, true, true . . . and next issue you'll get four times as much. But since that still comes out to zero you might put on hold those plans for a Maserati.

Don.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, and I noticed that there's more to come from you in Casebook Examiner #4, Tom....shall have to rename the magazine "Casebook Examiner; Or, Wescott's Words Of Wisdom" soon.

Considering Don has been cranking out issues well in excess of 100 pages, with numerous contributors, I am only one among many. And let me congratulate you on your awesome and detailed Princess Alice article. It's valuable to the field to have a source like these other writers, such as myself, can refer to and source.

Regarding John Malcolm's piece, what can I say that hasn't been said. He insulted just about every Ripperologist in the field and did it with glee. I cannot at all agree with his estimation of Stewart Evans, who I feel has long been the voice of reason when it comes to Anderson, but I do think Malcolm succeeded in proving his point that Sugden did a very poor job in offering a fair analysis of Kosminski. I think Malcolm would have been more successful in his agenda had he not chosen to come off so angry and personal.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Supe]

Tom,

Considering Don has been cranking out issues well in excess of 100 pages

Let me again make it clear that Casebook Examiner is very much a team effort and the success it has had would not have been possible without the extraordinary efforts of Jennifer Shelden, David Pegg, Caroline Morris, those who labor behind the scenes and all our regular columinists and contributors. Me? i'm just along for the ride.

And Adam, keep the contributions coming. Indeed, anyone out there who has a bright idea for an article is more than welcome to write us at Examiner@casebook.org.

Don Souden,
Executive editor.

[Tom_Wescott]

Don is like the Hugh Hefner of Ripperology.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stephen Thomas]

It was the "Marchioness" disaster. She was run down by the dredger "Bowbelle" in the early hours of the 20th of August 1989. 51 people were drowned.

Yes, this happened directly below my workplace back then and I was on duty at the time. Thanks to the wonder of double glazing I never heard a thing and my attention was only alerted when I noticed that the bridges all the way to Westminster were suddenly lit up. It was an astonishing response by the London emergency services who were in place 10 or 15 minutes after the event. They were shining lights into the Thames looking for bodies or survivors, but most of the dead had drowned immediately having been below deck drinking and dancing and socialising. The next day I witnessed the boat being winched out of the water from my workplace balcony.

[Adam Went]

"And let me congratulate you on your awesome and detailed Princess Alice article. It's valuable to the field to have a source like these other writers, such as myself, can refer to and source." - Tom



Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

It's valuable to the field to have a source like these other writers, such as myself, can refer to and source.

I don't know why it came out this way, what I meant to say is that It's valuable to the field to have a source like this that other writers, such as myself, can refer to and source.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm getting a chance to get caught up on my Examiner reading, and wanted to congratulate Rob Clack on another fantastic piece. I look his photo layouts with accompanying write-up. Another feature I can see becoming of much value as time goes on is 'Casebook Archive', where a particular topic is isolated (this issue is Frances Coles) and links and descriptions are provided of various resources throughout the labirynthian Casebook. This series should not be overlooked by writers (or readers!). Great stuff. Aside from Went and Malcolm, this is all I've read so far, but I'm catching up.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

Caz,
but you know that Le Grand planted a grapestalk/pretended he'd found a grapestalk close to the scene in his "capacity" as a member of the VC.

Hi Maria,

Apologies for the delay in responding to you!

Yes, I understood that was what Le Grand did and I can see why, if he merely saw an opportunity for a newspaper story that would make the police look incompetent and in need of the recently formed VC to do the job for them.

But it doesn’t address why he would have done so in the capacity of Stride’s killer, who would have been in the best position to know if the grapes - and therefore Packer’s customer - were mythical and, crucially, to know that the police must have known it too.

When I asked Tom - again - about Le Grand’s motivation, as the murderer, for provoking a story that the police would immediately recognise as false, he assured me:

That's fully explored and explained in my article, which everyone is encouraged to read by obtaining issue #2 of Casebook Examiner.

Hi Tom,

I had read your article most carefully so this came as a surprise. I have now had time to go back and see if I could find your full exploration and explanation of Le Grand’s reasoning, but all I came up with was this, from page 23:

With much to lose and nothing
apparent to gain, it appears that Le
Grand’s sole motive in orchestrating the
Berner Street conspiracy was to present
the world with a phantom suspect; one
who never existed, and therefore could
never be found, and one who, it must be
said, looked nothing like himself.

As I thought, this explains nothing. Presenting ‘the world’ with a phantom suspect is no earthly good to a killer who knows the police are not going to be similarly fooled.

On page 63 you describe Le Grand going on a ‘disinformation frenzy’ following publication of Schwartz’s story, which included ‘conjuring up the Packer suspect’, that ‘successfully put the police and public’ on false scents.

Once again, while this mischief maker may have hoped his disinformation would give the press more fuel against his enemies, the boys in blue, or gain brownie points for private detectives and the VC, it could not possibly have put the police on a false scent if they knew from the start that no grapes were found on Stride to lead them to any grape-buying suspect.

Only if Le Grand was not the killer could he have hoped to send the cops off on a wild grape chase, with no consequences to his own neck if they found out he was behind it. What possible advantage was there for the killer to risk getting Packer to tell a story like that, if it was going to be obvious to the police that it was based on a rumour they already knew was untrue?

Love,

Caz
X