Pub or Street?

[Wickerman]

Was the parcel 18" by about 7", which would make it the same size as an Arbeter Fraint edition,....

Would you mind providing the exact source where we have the physical size of the Arbeter Fraint?

[Wickerman]

Anyone for grapes?

I'm not a lover of grapes myself, the skins are bitter and if they have seeds I spit them out.
My wife is a lover of grapes, she buys the seedless type but still leaves out the skin (spit them out in a tissue).

So, the fact Drs Blackwell & Phillips found no grape skins or pips in Stride's stomach should not be surprising if Stride didnt like the skins or pips either.
The edible part of the grape - the flesh, would easily have been dissolved by stomach acid, after 38 hours before the autopsy was conducted.
The grape stalk being found in the yard is supporting evidence. I know Tom suggested it was planted, but then he had to come up with some reason. The justification for anyone planting a grape stalk is very weak, a bit of a stretch, and a long stretch at that.

So, I don't think the case against the existence of grapes is all that convincing.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Would you mind providing the exact source where we have the physical size of the Arbeter Fraint?

I will quote Tom Wescott from Ripper Confidential:

Philip Krantz edited the club's weekly newspaper, Der Arbeter Fraint (The Workers Friend), from a small printing press in the back of the club. New editions would be passed out at the club's weekly gatherings. The latest edition was printed earlier that day. Unlike traditional newspapers, Der Arbeter Fraint was not folded in the middle. A stack of such papers, if not properly bound by string or twine, would become rather unruly, so it's reasonable to expect such a stack would be loosely bound in some way. I personally measured a Der Arbeter Fraint edition and found it to be 18" in length and 6" in width.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Exactly right. A package wrapped in newspaper is not a parcel of newspapers.

What is the theory concerning this supposed parcel of newspapers?, that they were being delivered door to door after midnight?
How ironic that the Arbiter Fraint was an anti establishment paper which riled against the use of labour after-hours!!!!

The devil is in the details.

If the parcel is a stack of Arbeter Fraint papers, it must remain unclear as to why someone is holding this parcel on Berner St, after midnight, apparently alongside the soon to be victim.
As to the papers being delivered throughout the neighborhood, I haven't suggested anything like that.
Regarding the irony of the club supposedly being against the use of after-hours labour, what is ironic is members of a Socialist club, setting themselves up as profiteering Capitalists the following day, by charging members of the public an exorbitant fee, just to peek at the murder spot through the door in one of the gates.

On the other hand, if the parcel is actually newspaper wrapping, then we have to face up to the possibility that the newspaper wrapping contains grapes, that the grapes were purchased at Matthew Packer's shop window, and as a consequence, we have to deal with the following implications:

• Matthew Packer is a partially credible witness, who probably did see Stride with a man who bought grapes from him
• Stride was probably not soliciting at the time, unless she has come across a very unusual customer - but otherwise, we then have to wonder what she is doing in Berner St, next door to a club inhabited by political radicals
• Do the witnesses who see a suspicious character carrying a parcel, at the following 2 murders, actually see a man carrying a packet of grapes, or are these sightings of a parcel just coincidental?
• If the former (grapes), does this suggest the murderer lives somewhere near Packer's shop? Packer himself seems to think so:

The Echo, Oct 17:

An Echo reporter called this afternoon upon Mr. Packer, the Berner-street fruiterer, where the murderer bought the grapes for Elizabeth Stride. It now appears that the man was known by Mr. Packer, who positively asserted, "I had seen him in this district several times before, and if you ask me where he lives I can tell you within a little. He lodges not a great way from the house where Lipski, who was hanged for poisoning a woman, lived." "How many times have you seen him?" was asked Mr. Packer. "About twenty; and I have not seen him since the murder."

Israel Lipski lived in Batty Street.
Interesting that Packer has not so far seen this man in October.

[drstrange169]

>> If the parcel is a stack of Arbeter Fraint papers, it must remain unclear as to why someone is holding this parcel on Berner St, after midnight, apparently alongside the soon to be victim. <<

If the parcel is a stack of Arbeter Fraint papers, it must remain unclear as to why PC Smith called it a parcel instead of a stack of newspapers, after all the two would look very different.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I've lost this thread somewhat. Are we discussing whether Der Arbiter Freint was picked up in pubs or on the street? Or was it given away free with any purchase of a pound of grapes? Help me out.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Never say never, but I'm pretty sure Smith would have recognised a newspaper pile and would have commented on such.

As the quote in #123 says, Arbeter Fraint was not folded in the middle.
It was not a many-page, folded newspaper, so the newspaper parcel, as described by PC Smith, did not look like a pile of many-page, folded newspapers.

In the darkness of Berner St, a stack of papers covered in Yiddish print, could have easily been mistaken for a newspaper wrapping - part of the reason for this being that Smith would have been more interested in the physical features of the people he sees on the street, than the exact details of objects they may be carrying.
Smith observed enough of Stride to recognize her immediately at the mortuary, got a fairly good view and description of the man, noticed the size and shape of the object he was carrying, and what it appeared to be, and noted that the couple did not appear to be talking.
That's a pretty good effort, given the lighting condition.

On the other hand, I'm quite open to the idea that what Smith really saw was a newspaper parcel containing grapes, who's dimensions were similar to those of AF, by coincidence.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I'm not a lover of grapes myself, the skins are bitter and if they have seeds I spit them out.
My wife is a lover of grapes, she buys the seedless type but still leaves out the skin (spit them out in a tissue).

So, the fact Drs Blackwell & Phillips found no grape skins or pips in Stride's stomach should not be surprising if Stride didnt like the skins or pips either.
The edible part of the grape - the flesh, would easily have been dissolved by stomach acid, after 38 hours before the autopsy was conducted.
The grape stalk being found in the yard is supporting evidence. I know Tom suggested it was planted, but then he had to come up with some reason. The justification for anyone planting a grape stalk is very weak, a bit of a stretch, and a long stretch at that.

So, I don't think the case against the existence of grapes is all that convincing.

I agree. Three witnesses claim Stride had grapes in one of her hands, or at least they believe she had been found with such.
On the other hand, Blackwell and Phillips do not find grapes, and yet...

Phillips: The Coroner also desired me to examine the two handkerchiefs which were found on the deceased. I did not discover any blood on them, and I believe that the stains on the larger handkerchief are those of fruit. Neither on the hands nor about the body of the deceased did I find grapes, or connection with them. I am convinced that the deceased had not swallowed either the skin or seed of a grape within many hours of her death.

So at some point, Stride seems to have had some fruit - presumably grapes - within a handkerchief.
Did she eat them all (other than skin and seeds), on the night, and who paid for them?
Also, why do three witnesses apparently see grapes in Liz's hand, but not the police constables or the doctors?

[Fisherman]

Also, why do three witnesses apparently see grapes in Liz's hand, but not the police constables or the doctors?

Because the latter were able to make a close check aided by useful lighting, whereas the witnesses were not?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Because the latter were able to make a close check aided by useful lighting, whereas the witnesses were not?

Abraham Ashbrigh and Edward Spooner could see cachous only, under match light.
PC Lamb, apparently, could see nothing in either hand, when holding his lantern very close to the victim.
Diemschutz and Mortimer, claim to see both grapes and cachous, supposedly when a doctor unclenches the victim's hands - which would be under lantern light.
Blackwell and Phillips, do see cachous but not grapes, under lantern light.

It's very odd!

[Fisherman]

Abraham Ashbrigh and Edward Spooner could see cachous only, under match light.
PC Lamb, apparently, could see nothing in either hand, when holding his lantern very close to the victim.
Diemschutz and Mortimer, claim to see both grapes and cachous, supposedly when a doctor unclenches the victim's hands - which would be under lantern light.
Blackwell and Phillips, do see cachous but not grapes, under lantern light.

It's very odd!

The cachous were confirmed - they were there.

The grapes were not confirmed - they were never there.

"It is a mystery. There were small oblong clots on the back of the hand." This was Phillips´description of the blood on Stride´s right hand, the one supposedly holding the "grapes". My take on things is that the witnesses saw the oblong bloodclots in the bad lighting and mistook them for grapes.

[drstrange169]

>> In the darkness of Berner St, a stack of papers covered in Yiddish print, could have easily been mistaken for a newspaper wrapping<<

Sorry, but Smith's lack of mention of a third dimension to the parcel, all but rules out a stack small or large.






Plus if it were small it won't need to be tied with string.

[drstrange169]

>> I agree. Three witnesses claim Stride had grapes in one of her hands ... <<

If you like Tom's quote about newspapers, you might want to read his dismissal of the grapes.

[drstrange169]

>> My take on things is that the witnesses saw the oblong bloodclots in the bad lighting and mistook them for grapes.<<

Quite so.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The cachous were confirmed - they were there.

The grapes were not confirmed - they were never there.

"It is a mystery. There were small oblong clots on the back of the hand." This was Phillips´description of the blood on Stride´s right hand, the one supposedly holding the "grapes". My take on things is that the witnesses saw the oblong bloodclots in the bad lighting and mistook them for grapes.

The first reported witnessing of blood on the hand:

Blackwell: The right hand was open and on the chest, and was smeared with blood.

Fanny sees grapes, but note carefully what she says:

Mortimer: The woman appeared to me to be respectable, judging by her clothes, and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets.

That's 'hand' - singular, not 'hands' plural.

Did she both the cachous packet and the 'small oblong clots', in the same hand, at the same time?

Also, was the hand open or closed at the time?...

Diemschutz: Her hands were tightly clenched, and when they were opened by the doctor I saw immediately that one had been holding sweetmeats and the other grapes.

I wonder which hand held what?
Neither doctor reports that either hand was closed, let alone tightly clenched.
Diemschutz may be referring to a period prior to the arrivals of Johnston and Blackwell.
Possibly a period when someone from the club is interfering with the body - adding and removing things from hands, adjusting clothing, etc.

Regarding confirmations; you say the grapes were not confirmed, because they were never there.
This leaves us to wonder why Stride just happened to have in her possession, a handkerchief stained by fruit.
Squashed grapes would do a good job of staining a hanky.
Then there's the parcel held by the man seen by Smith, with Stride - what was in the parcel?

This is the problem with saying (in effect); I imagine those three witnesses really just imagined seeing grapes, which were in fact, not there.
Not only can subjective interpretations never by proved right or wrong, but they fail to provide any insight into questions that do need to answered.