Pub or Street?

[Fisherman]

Kozebrodski is talking about what he sees when Blackwell is examining the body.

Bravo! You are perfectly correct.

By that stage, Diemshitz is hiding away from the activity in the yard, inside the club, yet claims prior to the inquest to see grapes:

In her right hand were tightly clasped some grapes, and in her left she held a number of sweetmeats.

If he was inside the club - and he said he lost interest in the matter after the police had arrived and tended to club business instead - then he cannot possibly have made the observation Kozebrodski did. Could it be that he simply related what Kozebrodski had told him, only realizing at the inquest that he needed to tell the truth: that he did not see either grapes or cachous? We may note that the right hand, that was completely open as per Blackwell, is described as tightly clasping some grapes.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Bravo! You are perfectly correct.

Maybe, but it depends on these assumptions:

• Kozebrodski's recall is correct; he sees the 'grapes' when Blackwell is with the body, and realizes that Pinhorn is in fact, an inspector - why would he?
• He very likely experiences a visual illusion - the 'blood as grapes illusion' being almost completely implausible to me

Furthermore, this still leaves us to ponder the stained handkerchief, and the contents of the mysterious parcel.

Assuming Kozebrodski's recall is correct, and there is some sort of illusion at work, let me offer another possibility.
It is vaguely based on this sort of illusion:



Consider where Isaacs may have to stand when Blackwell is by the body, Johnston is alongside Blackwell, and (perhaps) PC Collins is there too, pointing the light of his lamp at the victim's upper half.
Collins is probably standing just past Liz's head, and therefore Isaac's would have to be down near her feet and the gate.

From descriptions of the flower in the breast of the jacket, it sounds like it was a Dahlia.



When Blackwell turns the palm of the right hand upwards, someone at the feet end of the body is hardly going to get more then a fleeting glimpse of the back of the hand, and besides, the back of the hand will be in almost total darkness.
On the other hand (so to speak!), from that angle the flower might just, for a few moments, look a bit like grapes in the hand, owing to the effect of the lantern light behind it, and the hand which appears to be holding it/them.
At least we are now dealing with the right (palm) side of the hand.

If he was inside the club - and he said he lost interest in the matter after the police had arrived and tended to club business instead - then he cannot possibly have made the observation Kozebrodski did. Could it be that he simply related what Kozebrodski had told him, only realizing at the inquest that he needed to tell the truth: that he did not see either grapes or cachous? We may note that the right hand, that was completely open as per Blackwell, is described as tightly clasping some grapes.

As the steward of the club, is Diemschitz in a position to lose interest in a murder which has occurred on the club property, less than half an hour ago?

Saying one thing to the press, and something completely different to the coroner, just a day later, does not bode well for his trustworthiness.

The reference to the tightly clenched hands, seems to be a concoction of Louis' - it does not have an equivalent in the quotes we have from Isaacs.

[Michael W Richards]

Kozebrodski accompanied Diemschitz running east along Fairclough street looking for a constable.

Ahh...that's where you have made the error Jon, because Issac K says something quite different himself. He says he was called to the passageway about 10 minutes after he arrived at the club at half past 12, and that he was sent out alone by someone, he doesn't mention Louis sends him specifically, but he does say Louis was there at that time. In terms of the Inquest and the statements by some who were witnesses at it, 3 of 4 witnesses who backed that 12:40-12:45 timing of Issac K weren't there, the one that was was told he must have been incorrect, …. nor was Israel, nor was Fanny. Key witnesses.

What that Kozebrodsky interview tells us, at least me, is that the story Louis gave is constructed, not just recalled as it happened. It tells me that Louis deliberately left out that third search party, Issac by himself,....that the Issac[s] wasn't Kozebrodski... which means an Issac[s] should be among the members interviewed, it opens the possibility that Spooner was roughly correct with his estimates and that its unlikely the 2 Jews he saw included Louis, it tells me that Louis wanted to establish his arrival at 1am, despite the 4 witnesses that say it was 12:45ish and the one witness to the street from 12:50 until 1am that saw nothing after Goldstein at 12:55ish.

It also tells me one very significant and important thing.....what Israel Schwartz later describes happened at 12:45 in the street outside the gates could not have happened at that time. The activities just inside the passageway at that time, the members going out for help,...why would any of that be happening if Liz Stride is in the street outside the gates arguing with a gentile ruffian? Kozebrodski, Gillen, Heschberg, Spooner, ...all state they were by the body, with others, at between 12:40 and 12:45, Fannys statement about the state of the street in front of the gates from 12:50 until 1 adds up to this series of events....Louis arrived at sometime between 12:40 and 12:45, people were immediately sent out but not later mentioned by the club steward, Louis left after 1 with someone named *Issac[s]...*which by the way is a surname that pops up in the Kelly investigation,... and that Israel Schwartz's event could not have occurred as described, at that time.

[Wickerman]

Michael.

Please read Diemschutz's inquest testimony - where he says he ran as far as Grove street shouting "police", but could not find one. A man returned with him from Grove street.

https://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_stride.html

Now, Kozebrodsky told the press that he ran as far as Grove street but could not find a constable.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/london_evening_news/881001.html

Clearly, both Diemschutz & Kozebrodsky ran east along Fairclough street, as far as Grove street.

Edward Spooner was in Grove street, he says two Jews came running shouting "police" and "murder", he met them and they all returned to the yard.

https://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_stride.html

Finally, Diemschutz told the press that both he & Kozebrodsky, "ran off to find a policeman".

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18881001.html

Looks like a slam-dunk to me Michael.

[Wickerman]

Here Michael, Diemschutz is talking about what "we" did.

One of the members named Isaacs came out with me.
We struck a match, and then a horrible sight came before our eyes;
we saw a stream of blood flowing right down to the door of the club.
We sent for the police without delay, but it was some time before an officer arrived;
in fact we had some difficulty in finding one. A man called Eagle, also a member of the club, went out to find a policeman, and going in a different direction to what we did, found a couple in Commercial-road.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/london_evening_news/881001.html

Michael, please tell me who the "we" refers to.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Here Michael, Diemschutz is talking about what "we" did.

One of the members named Isaacs came out with me.
We struck a match, and then a horrible sight came before our eyes;
we saw a stream of blood flowing right down to the door of the club.
We sent for the police without delay, but it was some time before an officer arrived;
in fact we had some difficulty in finding one. A man called Eagle, also a member of the club, went out to find a policeman, and going in a different direction to what we did, found a couple in Commercial-road.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/london_evening_news/881001.html

Michael, please tell me who the "we" refers to.

Jon,

Maybe you just solved the mystery of Louis missing donkey?

[Wickerman]

So what explains why the grapes weren't subsequently found, where they had supposedly fallen?

If you can picture the position of the body; her head, left hand & feet were close to the wall. No-one stood between the body and the wall, there was no room. Everyone had to be standing behind her body. If there were any grapes in her right hand, and they slipped to the ground they would be out of sight in the darkness under the left side of her body.

It is true that Lamb and Johnston were not explicitly asked about grapes, but we do have the following.
The Times, Oct 4:

So Johnston was lying, or was so unaware when feeling for a pulse, he did not notice grapes falling from her hand, or he is not responsible for the grapes falling.

No, Johnson wasn't lying. I try to avoid "the lying witness" interpretation at all costs. Evidence being so incomplete as it is, edited, and often in paraphrase, we can often draw the wrong impression if we're not careful.
As I mentioned to Christer, we read Johnson felt the hands:
"I felt the body and found all warm except the hands, which were quite cold." So clearly he looked at the hands, and Baxter knew this, so Baxter's "looked" should perhaps be taken to mean "examine". Did Johnson "examine" the hands?, apparently not as Johnson claimed not to see the stains of blood on the hand.

The inspector is Charles Pinhorn, who arrives directly after Blackwell, not Johnston (and Johnston of course, is an assistant, not a doctor).
Kozebrodski is talking about what he sees when Blackwell is examining the body.

First point, an assistant is the role you play, not a reflection of your professional status. In order to assist a doctor you must be suitably qualified, you must be a doctor yourself. Often one just out of college, not much experience, but certainly a fully qualified doctor.

According to Johnson, there was only three minutes between his arrival & Blackwell coming on scene, followed by Insp. Pinhorn. So Pinhorn arrived after both Johnson & Blackwell.

Here is what Diemschutz says:
"....I did not notice what position her hands were in, but when the police came I observed that her bodice was unbuttoned near the neck. The doctor said the body was quite warm."
The doctor who untied her bodice & said the body was warm, was Johnson, not Blackwell. The bodice was already open when Blackwell arrived.

I'm not accusing the doctors of anything nefarious at all - however....something smells.

Have you expanded on what this 'smell' is?

[Wickerman]

First of all: Stride may have spent the evening transporting tons of grapes through the East end streets, Jon - but that does not mean that she had grapes in her hand when found. And at the end of the day, that is what the discussion is about.

Thats speculation Christer, another suggestion void of evidence. :-)

Second: there are some pretty nifty tactics going on in your post. For example:

- "We do not read anywhere that the police did not believe in the existence of the grapes."
Do we read that they DID believe in the existence of grapes?

What I was getting at is, unless we have some report or more likely an account in the press of the police dismissing the story, then we are left with the conclusion the police accepted the grapes existed.

Would the fact that the coroner asked Blackwell if he saw any signs at all of grapes at the site - and that the doctor denied having done so, asserting the coroner that there was not a grape to be seen - perhaps have affected what the police accepted to be the truth? And could this mean that they did not per se find any need to go to the press and tell them that they did not believe in those grapes either?

The coroner is not trying the case in a criminal court. A coroner's inquiry is merely to identify the Who, the Where, When & by What means the victim met their death. The coroner does not represent the police, the police are there to monitor, provide evidence, and await the conclusion; was it murder, suicide or accidental death, etc.

Regardless of this, you go on to say "What the police do put faith in is if a claim has supporting evidence, which the existence of the grapes most certainly does." That brings us back to point one, meaning that even if the police DID believe that Strideīs punter bought her grapes that night, this does not mean that the police also believed that she had grapes in her hand in Dutfields Yard! And to be frank, the combination of Blackwells testimony and Phillips assertion that he found not a sign of grapes in Strides belly will have been much more likely to make the police think that the grape story was bogus from the outset than it would be likely to make them think that Stride spat out pips and skins (which most people donīt), and that they had missed out on them grapes in Dutfields yard.

Most people crunch on the pips? interesting.
The yard was swilled down about 5:00am, the police had missed the grape stalk, and no-one mention the white petals scattered about.
Why would you expect (squashed?) black grapes to be noticeable in the mud & blood of a dark yard?
By the way, you are aware that the autopsy was only conducted some 38 hours after the body was found? Plenty of time for stomach acid to dissolve the grape 'flesh' so as to be unnoticeable.

- Packer gives a description that is not the same as the one Smith gave - and that tells us that he likely told the truth...?

The theory was posed years ago that Packer might have invented his grape buyer, but then why give the police a different set of details if he intended to convince the police he saw the same man?
In my view the differences are sufficient to indicate Packer was not trying to dupe the police.

- You write "So long as the woman is the same person, the man must be the same." But that is not true, is it? So long as the woman is the same - and we are not sure she is - the man is likely to be the same. And why?

Why?, because the time is 12:30, not 12:15 to 12:45.
The same woman being seen at the same time with two men both carrying a package of some description strongly suggests the two men were one and the same.
Even today police complain how witnesses often see the same person yet offer differing descriptions. However, those who are intentionally lying provide a description that is suspiciously too exact.

[DJA]

However, those who are intentionally lying provide a description that is suspiciously too exact.

Yet police fall for it because their work is then so much easier.

Have seen that happen in Melbourne with front page coverage.

Reporters just as lazy.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If you can picture the position of the body; her head, left hand & feet were close to the wall. No-one stood between the body and the wall, there was no room. Everyone had to be standing behind her body.

Yes, I know all that.
I started a thread which stepped through all the relevant dimensions of passageway, body, pony, cart & driver. Do you remember it?

If there were any grapes in her right hand, and they slipped to the ground they would be out of sight in the darkness under the left side of her body.

That is what my question was in reference to.

No, Johnson wasn't lying. I try to avoid "the lying witness" interpretation at all costs. Evidence being so incomplete as it is, edited, and often in paraphrase, we can often draw the wrong impression if we're not careful.

Did you carefully read what I said?

#240: So Johnston was lying, or was so unaware when feeling for a pulse, he did not notice grapes falling from her hand, or he is not responsible for the grapes falling.
Probably the later.

As I mentioned to Christer, we read Johnson felt the hands:
"I felt the body and found all warm except the hands, which were quite cold." So clearly he looked at the hands, and Baxter knew this, so Baxter's "looked" should perhaps be taken to mean "examine". Did Johnson "examine" the hands?, apparently not as Johnson claimed not to see the stains of blood on the hand.

Right. So Johnston was not responsible for anything falling from her right hand.
The possibilities would appear to be:

• Someone prior to Johnston's time with the body caused the grapes to fall from the right hand
• The grapes were stolen from a hand prior to Lamb examining the body
• Kozebrodski, and possibly Diemschitz, and possibly Mortimer, 'observed' grapes that were not really there

The first option pretty much discounts the possibility that the cachous packet was originally in the right hand, as stated by Spooner at the inquest.
Now why would anyone want to dismiss Spooner's testimony, out of hand?
He was called to the inquest - therefore we can surmise that Spooner was taken seriously, as a witness.
Ripperology, on the other hand, appears not to take Spooner seriously.
What explains this anomaly? Is it that Spooner's testimony is too inconvenient, and is therefore conveniently dismissed as irrelevant?

At least as importantly, if neither of the first two options are true, then the probability of the parcel being a stack of Arbeter Fraint papers, increases substantially.

First point, an assistant is the role you play, not a reflection of your professional status. In order to assist a doctor you must be suitably qualified, you must be a doctor yourself. Often one just out of college, not much experience, but certainly a fully qualified doctor.

According to Johnson, there was only three minutes between his arrival & Blackwell coming on scene, followed by Insp. Pinhorn. So Pinhorn arrived after both Johnson & Blackwell.

Three or four minutes, to be exact.

What counts, in this context, is what is perceived to be the case, by Kozebrodsky.
If he perceives Johnston as being a doctor, then he certainly perceives Blackwell as such, and consequently he would have said words to the effect of 'another doctor arrived, and then an inspector', but he didn't, and so both this and the meaning of 'directly after', would indicate he is referring to Blackwell.

Here is what Diemschutz says:
"....I did not notice what position her hands were in, but when the police came I observed that her bodice was unbuttoned near the neck. The doctor said the body was quite warm."
The doctor who untied her bodice & said the body was warm, was Johnson, not Blackwell. The bodice was already open when Blackwell arrived.

I will pull together some quotes that will hopefully determine when Diemschitz re-enters the club (for the last time, that night), and therefore what he logically could or could not have seen.

Have you expanded on what this 'smell' is?

What causes Diemschitz, at the inquest, to claim he does not see the position of the hands, when the day before he told the press he could see cachous and grapes, in those same hands?

Why are no grape observers called to the inquest?

Who witnessed the most, and the most relevant detail - Mortimer or Spooner?
Ditto, William Marshall and Kozebrodsky?

There appears to be little rhyme or reason, for who appears and does not appear at the inquest.

Oh, and I nearly forgot - 'star witness' Israel Schwartz.
Not having Israel called, was the equivalent of not having Lawende called to the Eddowes inquest.

It's all very odd, and even stranger given that no Scotland Yard figure ever appears to explain any of this, in later life.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

....Louis arrived at sometime between 12:40 and 12:45, people were immediately sent out but not later mentioned by the club steward, Louis left after 1 with someone named *Issac[s]...*which by the way is a surname that pops up in the Kelly investigation

Louis left after 1 am?
In an earlier post, you said you believed the police, and their stated arrival times.
Instead of going over and over the same ground, how about telling us the answers to these questions:

• What time did Collins and Lamb arrive?
• What time did Smith arrive?
• What time did Johnston arrive?

... and that Israel Schwartz's event could not have occurred as described, at that time.

What time did it occur?

[Wickerman]

What counts, in this context, is what is perceived to be the case, by Kozebrodsky.
If he perceives Johnston as being a doctor, then he certainly perceives Blackwell as such, and consequently he would have said words to the effect of 'another doctor arrived, and then an inspector', but he didn't, and so both this and the meaning of 'directly after', would indicate he is referring to Blackwell.

Ok, then look at what PC Lamb said about the arrival of Insp. Pinhorn:

The CORONER. - Did any one say whether the body had been touched?
PC Lamb - No. Dr. Blackwell examined the body, and afterwards the surrounding ground. Dr. Phillips arrived about 20 minutes afterwards; but at that time I was at another part of the ground. Inspector Pinhorn arrived directly after the doctor arrived. When I got there I had the gates shut.

After which doctor?

[Fisherman]

Consider where Isaacs may have to stand when Blackwell is by the body, Johnston is alongside Blackwell, and (perhaps) PC Collins is there too, pointing the light of his lamp at the victim's upper half.
Collins is probably standing just past Liz's head, and therefore Isaac's would have to be down near her feet and the gate.

There is no "have to" here - there is only the fact that we donīt know where he stood, becasue he never says.

When Blackwell turns the palm of the right hand upwards, someone at the feet end of the body is hardly going to get more then a fleeting glimpse of the back of the hand, and besides, the back of the hand will be in almost total darkness.

A hand and arm can be rotated very extensively.

On the other hand (so to speak!), from that angle the flower might just, for a few moments, look a bit like grapes in the hand, owing to the effect of the lantern light behind it, and the hand which appears to be holding it/them.
At least we are now dealing with the right (palm) side of the hand.

Sigh. Why would anybody mistake a dahlia for some grapes...? Oblong blood clots will look like dark, oblong shapes in the flickering light that was there, but a dahlia...? Itīs all good and well that you try to exhaust all possibilities, but to me, you are not competing very suddessfully with the simple and logical explanation of the oblong blood clots being mistaken for grapes. Sorry.

As the steward of the club, is Diemschitz in a position to lose interest in a murder which has occurred on the club property, less than half an hour ago?

Saying one thing to the press, and something completely different to the coroner, just a day later, does not bode well for his trustworthiness.

The reference to the tightly clenched hands, seems to be a concoction of Louis' - it does not have an equivalent in the quotes we have from Isaacs.

I agree that Diemschitz is not trustworthy about the hands and what where in them, on the whole. On the concoction matter, it is not unusual that people who reiterate something theve hear also add inclusions of their own. And it is selfevident that IF there were graps in one of her hands, the. she MUST have clenched the hand around them. They would not otherwise remain there during a fall to the ground, would they?

[Fisherman]

Thats speculation Christer, another suggestion void of evidence. :-)

Itīs not as if I think Stride DID transport tons of grapes, Jon. I ammerely asking you too keep focused on the grapes you claim were in the yard. The ones never found, that is. The ones you believe were there anyway.

What I was getting at is, unless we have some report or more likely an account in the press of the police dismissing the story, then we are left with the conclusion the police accepted the grapes existed.

Not in the yard! They may have accepted that Stride MAY have gotten grapes from Packer, but if they thought those grapes were ever in the backyard, then that would have been reflected in the inquest material, and it is not. Not is it reflected in any reports or memoirs. Very clearly, they never thouyght that there were grapes in the yard, as far as Iīm concerned.

The coroner is not trying the case in a criminal court. A coroner's inquiry is merely to identify the Who, the Where, When & by What means the victim met their death. The coroner does not represent the police, the police are there to monitor, provide evidence, and await the conclusion; was it murder, suicide or accidental death, etc.

It matters not. The coroner nevertheless asked Blackwell about the grapes and was asserted that no grapes were to be seen. The coroner effectively puts an end to what he knew was idle gossip. Yes, the police have other tasks - and one of them will be to extensively search every millimeter of the ground on which a murder victim has lain, so as to ensure that no important clues are overlooked.

Most people crunch on the pips? interesting.

No, but most people eat the skins, Jon.

The yard was swilled down about 5:00am, the police had missed the grape stalk, and no-one mention the white petals scattered about.

Donīt turn it into a fact that there was a grape stalk in there at that stage, please! It was found or planted there two days after the murder, and it was found by a man. with a very unsavory reputation and his colleague. So please?

Why would you expect (squashed?) black grapes to be noticeable in the mud & blood of a dark yard?

You say yourself that the grapes must have fallen into the area between Stride and the wall, and that noone would have trod there as she lay there. Then she was lifted onto a stretcher and taken away, and she would have been lifted from the ehad and feet end respectively. Therefore, reasonably, the grapes would likely NOT have been trodden on. And even if they WERE, they would look like grapes trodden on, not like mud. They WOULD have been found. Letīs be realistic.

By the way, you are aware that the autopsy was only conducted some 38 hours after the body was found? Plenty of time for stomach acid to dissolve the grape 'flesh' so as to be unnoticeable.

Yes, I am aware of that. I read up on the case every now and then. What Phillips says is that she had definitely not swallowed skins or pips before getting killed. And since most people eat the skins, your case is to a large degree damaged, Jon.

The theory was posed years ago that Packer might have invented his grape buyer, but then why give the police a different set of details if he intended to convince the police he saw the same man?
In my view the differences are sufficient to indicate Packer was not trying to dupe the police.

Thatīs fine! I have another view, and I am not reading as much innocence into the matter as you do. But I am not saying that you must be wrong.

Why?, because the time is 12:30, not 12:15 to 12:45.
The same woman being seen at the same time with two men both carrying a package of some description strongly suggests the two men were one and the same.
Even today police complain how witnesses often see the same person yet offer differing descriptions. However, those who are intentionally lying provide a description that is suspiciously too exact.

Ah! Good! You now speak of a strong suggestion, which is better than saying that it MUST be the same man. As for the package, the more alike the descriptions are, the better your case becomes. But keep in mind that carrying newspaper packages would have been very common. We know that people bought supper in the area, and that may have been carried in newspaper parcels, I guess, depending of the type of supper.
But would 227 grams of grapes be carried in an almighty 18x6 inches package, Jon..?

[Michael W Richards]

Here Michael, Diemschutz is talking about what "we" did.

One of the members named Isaacs came out with me.
We struck a match, and then a horrible sight came before our eyes;
we saw a stream of blood flowing right down to the door of the club.
We sent for the police without delay, but it was some time before an officer arrived;
in fact we had some difficulty in finding one. A man called Eagle, also a member of the club, went out to find a policeman, and going in a different direction to what we did, found a couple in Commercial-road.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/london_evening_news/881001.html

Michael, please tell me who the "we" refers to.

It refers to Issac[s] Jon, who is not Issac Kozebrodsky. In Issac K's own words he was sent out alone by a member around 12:45, and that as he returned he saw Eagle and the police and joined them.

What you did by posting the links is show that it could not have been Issac K that went with him, just that somone named Issac[s] was, and that he went the same way as Issac had done earlier. Louis claims this happened shortly after he arrived at "precisely" 1, something which is directly contradicted by 4 witnesses, (who all match each other almost exactly), and 1 witness to the street at 1. So, his dash out with Issac[s] takes place some 20 minutes after Issac K said he went out alone. And in contrast with 4 people who say they were by the body with others at 12:45.

Simple matter here Jon, do you buy the singular account of Louis, or Eagle, Or Israel, Or Lave... despite all the corroborated testimony that clearly shows they lied... or were incorrect, being the most generous I can be? Or does 4 witnesses and another that can account for 1am in front of the gates simply trump those stories. ONLY the men most closely associated with the club have ZERO corroboration

In virtually every investigation situation, unverifiable accounts, non corroborated stories and events, and directly contradictable timelines would not be the ones that you build a case with. 4 people were by Stride around 12:45, they all saw iother people. 1 was Issac K. He left alone soon thereafter. That is not recorded in the story given by Louis, why isn't it also possible that others were sent out too? Since his trip isn't mentioned, why would theirs be? Another 2 person group could have been Spooners 2 Jews. Spooner never, ever said it was Louis he saw.