Pub or Street?

[Joshua Rogan]

Johnson's inqurst testimony, from the Times;

"The CORONER. - Did you look at the hands? Witness. - No"

[NotBlamedForNothing]

On the contrary, if the parcel was rounded, as opposed to flat, then that third dimension is somewhat debatable, like a hand wrapped parcel would be.
It's easy to see two dimensions of this parcel, but what about a third?



In my view PC Smith saw a parcel something like the above.

Smith appears to have got a good look at Stride's face, and noticed the flower in her jacket.
In contrast, he wasn't quite as sure about the appearance of the man.
That might indicate he didn't view them exactly side-on, so he may have had some sense of the depth of the parcel.

A thick parcel around 18" width by 7" height, is going to be a bit difficult to carry in one hand without a strap (the parcel in your photo looks about half that size).
A thin 18 x 7" parcel is not likely to contain grapes.
A thick parcel of the same W x H, is likely to have a strap, and therefore not likely to be a packet of grapes.

Mrs Lindsay and 2 other witnesses saw a suspicious character in Duke St that night, carry a parcel (and an umbrella).
Hutchinson saw a suspicious character on Commercial St, carrying a parcel.
What are we to make of these parcel sightings?

[Wickerman]

Johnson's inqurst testimony, from the Times;

"The CORONER. - Did you look at the hands? Witness. - No"

According to the Telegraph Mr Johnson explains...... "I felt the body and found all warm except the hands, which were quite cold."

Though he also added....." I did not notice at the time that one of the hands was smeared with blood."

[Wickerman]

A thick parcel around 18" width by 7" height, is going to be a bit difficult to carry in one hand without a strap (the parcel in your photo looks about half that size).
A thin 18 x 7" parcel is not likely to contain grapes.

Smith didn't measure the parcel, he saw it at a distance. It's not like he was looking for a man carrying a parcel.
Estimating the size of an article you only saw once in passing is always a precarious thing to do.

Regardless, I doubt such a parcel would be carried in the hand, more likely under the arm....



Either way, we only see two dimensions.

This is also the same PC who described the suspects hat as "hard felt" in his police statement, but for some reason at the inquest changed it to a (soft) Deerstalker.
A Deerstalker folds up to put in the pocket, a hard felt hat does not.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Smith didn't measure the parcel, he saw it at a distance. It's not like he was looking for a man carrying a parcel.
Estimating the size of an article you only saw once in passing is always a precarious thing to do.

Regardless, I doubt such a parcel would be carried in the hand, more likely under the arm....

PC Smith at inquest:

[Daily News] He had a parcel done up in newspaper in his hand, about 18 inches long and 6 to 8 inches broad.

[Daily Telegraph] He had a parcel wrapped in a newspaper in his hand. The parcel was about 18in. long and 6in. to 8in. broad.

[Morning Advertiser] He had a parcel wrapped in a newspaper in his hand.

[The Times] I noticed he had a newspaper parcel in his hand. It was about 18in. in length and 6in. or 8in. in width.

Either way, we only see two dimensions.

I'm not sure I agree with that.

This is also the same PC who described the suspects hat as "hard felt" in his police statement, but for some reason at the inquest changed it to a (soft) Deerstalker.
A Deerstalker folds up to put in the pocket, a hard felt hat does not.

PC Smith at inquest:

[Daily News] He had a hard felt hat on, and was wearing dark clothes and a cutaway coat.

[Daily Telegraph] He wore a dark felt deerstalker's hat.

[Morning Advertiser] He wore a hard felt dark hat and dark clothes.

[The Times] He had on a hard felt deerstalker hat of dark colour and dark clothes.

He also mentions being able to see, from Commercial Rd, a crowd gathered outside the gates of 40 Berner St, at one o'clock.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Note to site admins and moderators: I think the quote box color is a little too dark. Maybe make it a lighter shade of grey, for better contrast with the text?

[DJA]

As Jack did not look like turning up, perhaps BS Man purchased some fish and chips from the chandlers opposite Pipeman's beer shop to take home for supper.

After leaving Liz in Dutfield's yard to await his eventual arrival, BSM returned to pull her out of the yard.

Pipeman,seeing this,yelled out "Lipski".

Tom Waits - Closing Time - YouTube

[DJA]

I think we have got somewhere. We can be reasonably sure that the handbill had nothing to do with the beadle’s son and we know he took up the career he claimed upon leaving the army.

Thanks for your time and effort in clearing this matter up for once and all.

Looked up the trades listings,etc.

Consider myself most fortunate to have the help of a fan of John,Frank,Harry and Ringo .....



The Beadles!

[Fisherman]

Johnson's inqurst testimony, from the Times;

"The CORONER. - Did you look at the hands? Witness. - No"

Yup, very true. Johnson also states that he did not handle the body: "I left the body precisely as I found it". So Johnston was not the medico who "opened up" the right hand of Stride, as witnessed by Diemschitz and Kozebrodsky; it was Blackwell. Johnston also states that "I did not notice at the time that one of the hands was smeared with blood", further telling us that he could not possibly have tampered with the hand, in which case he could not have missed the blood.

Johnston was there in the capacity of Blackwells assistant, and he would have settled for checking for signs of life, nothing else. Once he knew that death had occurred, he waited for Blackwell to take over and do the investigation - all of it, the right hand included. Johnston would have done exactly what he said, felt the body for warmth. One would have assumed that he also felt the body for a pulse, but he may have done so at the neck, since he did not even look at the hands, as Joshua points out.

When it comes to the left hand, Blackwell says "The left hand, lying on the ground, was partially closed, and contained a small packet of cachous wrapped in tissue paper." So here we have confirmation of a partially clenched hand, and we can see that Blackwell tells the inquest that there was a packet of cachous in it.

But what does he say about the right hand? Well, he says that "The right hand was open and on the chest, and was smeared with blood."

It was OPEN. So Kozebrodskys and Diemschitz´ suggestion that the doctor opened up the right hand was never true. Blackwell never did that, for the sinple reason that it was always open.

Now, Blackwell very clearly stated that there were cachous in the left hand, the way any discerning medico would do. So why would he leave out that there were grapes in the right hand if if there really WERE grapes in it? To who, exactly, would that make sense? The long and the short of things is that he would not do that, and that we may therefore conclude that the grapes were never there.

Jon suggests that they could have fallen out of the hand as the doctor opened it and ended up in darkness on the ground. But A/ the doctor did not open the hand to begin with, B/ the suggestion that he himself would not notice the grapes whereas two witnesses would leaks pretty badly and C/ the grapes would have been found as the body was lifted anyway.

Once again, dark oblong clots may well look like grapes from a distance. To my mind, the only possible explanations for Diemschitz´ and Kozebrodzkys observations is that they either mistook the blood clots for grapes, alternatively that they made the story up ( a much less credible solution to my mind ).

The salient point of the matter should be quite obvious, though: Liz Stride did not hold any grapes in her hand as she was found dead.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I wonder if Diemschitz and Kozebrodsky wondered why the grapes - or what they took to be grapes - were not being removed from the hand they could see them in?

[DJA]

Starting to suspect Blackwell or Johnston had the munchies and ate the grapes.

Dunno why they'd put salt on them though.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Is it just a coincidence that the 3 people who mention seeing grapes, also see what they refer to as sweetmeats, whereas everyone else calls the same thing, cachous?

No one see grapes and cachous, or only sweetmeats - they either see only cachous, or both grapes and sweetmeats.

[Wickerman]

Yup, very true. Johnson also states that he did not handle the body: "I left the body precisely as I found it". So Johnston was not the medico who "opened up" the right hand of Stride, as witnessed by Diemschitz and Kozebrodsky; it was Blackwell. Johnston also states that "I did not notice at the time that one of the hands was smeared with blood", further telling us that he could not possibly have tampered with the hand, in which case he could not have missed the blood.

Then how could he know the hands were cold?
Yes, he took hold of the hand, which is to be expected by a doctor to feel for a pulse.

Johnston was there in the capacity of Blackwells assistant, and he would have settled for checking for signs of life, nothing else....

Precisely, (feel for the pulse) thankyou.

Once he knew that death had occurred, he waited for Blackwell to take over and do the investigation - all of it, the right hand included. Johnston would have done exactly what he said, felt the body for warmth. One would have assumed that he also felt the body for a pulse, but he may have done so at the neck,....

No, because the neck was the point of the wound. He will know not to disturb the injury to the body, especially when the hand is easily accessible.

But what does he say about the right hand? Well, he says that "The right hand was open and on the chest, and was smeared with blood."

Which means the fingers were not clenched as in the other cases - not consistent with strangulation?
Not that the fingers were not folded.

Remember, things get missed in the dark. PC Lamb did not notice anything in her left hand, yet it is commonly accepted she was holding those cachous.
People, including police & doctors can miss details in the dark. They are only looking for certain things, not taking note of everything.

Once again, dark oblong clots may well look like grapes from a distance. To my mind, the only possible explanations for Diemschitz´ and Kozebrodzkys observations is that they either mistook the blood clots for grapes, alternatively that they made the story up ( a much less credible solution to my mind ).

Not cherries, blackberries, strawberries, blueberries? - why grapes?
Blueberries are more the size of clotted blood, not grapes.

Was Mary Kelly covered in grapes?, Annie Chapman, Kate Eddowes?

Christer, blood will clot AT an open wound, it is the body's defense in an attempt to halt blood loss.
If there is blood clotted ON the hand there MUST be a wound ON the hand - there was no wound on the hand!
Blood takes time to clot, it is not instantaneous.
Stride cannot get blood clots on her own hand by touching her throat, in that case there would be smears of blood.
(even if she had grabbed her throat, that blood would be in the palm of her hand, not on the back & wrist, and it wouldn't be clotted)
Smears or stains of blood do not look like grapes! (neither do real blood clots actually)

I remember this same debate years ago. I pointed out then that the most likely cause (in my opinion) of the blood on the back of the right hand was when PC Lamb felt for a pulse. He stated, when he began to examine the body the blood was clotting, to know that in the dark he must have put his fingers in the blood. The blood is either wet or sticky - clearly it was sticky (clotting) and he felt for the pulse with the same hand causing the transfer of blood.

Whether the grapes really existed or not has no great impact on the Ripper murders, it's one of those little details of no real consequence.
There is no theory behind it that I can think of, yet in order to try dismiss the grapes some have had to invent a conspiracy theory out of nothing. It's all rather bizarre.

[Fisherman]

I wonder if Diemschitz and Kozebrodsky wondered why the grapes - or what they took to be grapes - were not being removed from the hand they could see them in?

They could not see any grapes because there were no grapes.

Can you provide us with a reason - any reason - that the medicos would lie about or withhold information about the grapes? I certainly cannot.

[Fisherman]

Is it just a coincidence that the 3 people who mention seeing grapes, also see what they refer to as sweetmeats, whereas everyone else calls the same thing, cachous?

No one see grapes and cachous, or only sweetmeats - they either see only cachous, or both grapes and sweetmeats.

You should look up the old material about the cachous. There were two sorts of cachous around at the time, mild, sweet ones and brethfresheners. The cachous lajaunie, the most well-known variant, had not yet been invented.

There is nothing odd about it at all, therefore.