Pub or Street?

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi All,

How in the first instance did Le Grand know to look for evidence of Stride having eaten grapes?

Regards,

Simon

Maybe he read the papers?

[Wickerman]

Point being, the grapes, whether they existed or not, most probably cannot help solve this murder anyway.

Hi Michael.

Yes, some have resigned themselves long ago to the reality that this mystery will never be solved. In some cases there is more to be learned, realized or accepted in debating the 'detail'.

[Wickerman]

I suppose the whole grapes thing is about Packer. Prove the grapes, Packers correct and his description of the man stands. No grapes, no Packer, no man.......

I don't think anyone attempted to 'prove' the grape story.
Confirmation of Packers story was provided by PC Smith, - a man with Stride carrying a newspaper parcel about 12:30am is consistent with Packer selling grapes (in a bag or wrapped?) to the man accompanying Stride and him last seeing them opposite the club about 12:30am.
So long as the woman is the same person, the man must be the same.

While it is true Packer gave two times for his encounter with Stride and the grape buyer; 11:00-11:30 and 12:00-12:30am, approximately. The police would have known what we know today, that Stride was outside the Bricklayers Arms about 11:00pm, so the earlier time provided by Packer (11:00-11:30) had to be in error.
Unfortunately, for any future criminal case Packer had to figure this out himself, which he couldn't. Which is why Swanson had to take him off the potential witness list.

We do not read anywhere that the police did not believe in the existence of the grapes. Witnesses claiming to see grapes had supporting evidence, whereas witnesses not claiming to see any grapes finds no evidence.
Not seeing something is deemed negative evidence which, in the view of police, is not evidence at all.
The police know very well that people can miss seeing what others do see. What the police do put faith in is if a claim has supporting evidence, which the existence of the grapes most certainly does.

Some have claimed that Packer invented this man after reading the papers & learning of the man seen by PC Smith. The description of which was published on Oct 1st:
The following description has been circulated by the police of a man said to have been seen with the deceased during Saturday evening: -'' Age 28. Slight. Height 5ft. 8in. Complexion dark. No whiskers. Black diagonal coat. Hard felt hat. Collar and tie. Carried newspaper parcel. Respectable appearance.''

Yet Packer's offering was not entirely the same:
"...a young man from 25-30, about 5.7. with long black coat buttoned up, soft felt hat, kind of Yankee hat, rather broad shoulders, rather quick in speaking, rough voice...."

If Packer was attempting to purloin someone else's description, one would think he would use some of the same details more accurately.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Let's see if we can narrow down when Diemschitz and Kozebrodsky saw the grapes - whether real or illusory.

I will work backwards in time.

The Times, Oct 3:

Blackwell: The neck and chest were quite warm; also the legs and face were slightly warm. The hands were cold. The right hand was lying on the chest, and was smeared inside and out with blood. It was quite open. The left hand was lying on the ground and was partially closed, and contained a small packet of cachous wrapped in tissue paper.

So the right hand is across the chest, open, and smeared with blood.
The left hand is on the ground, partially closed, and holding the cachous packet.

Now back to Johnston, Oct 4 papers:

[Morning Advertiser] Was it you who undid the dress? - Yes, I undid the dress to see whether the chest was warm. I did not move the head at all. I left it exactly as I found it. The body itself was not moved while I was there.

[The Times] The dress was not undone, and I undid it to see if the chest was warm. I did not move the head at all, and left it exactly as I found it. The body was not moved while I was there.

So Johnston undid the dress to check for chest warmth, but at no stage does he move the body.
So the right hand must be in the position and state that Blackwell finds it in - open and against the chest.

Now back to Diemschitz.
Oct 2 papers:

[Daily News] She was lying on her side with her face towards the wall of the club; at least I am sure she was lying with her face to the wall. As soon as the police came I ceased to take any interest in the affair, and went on with my duties at the club. I did not notice in what position the hands of the deceased were. I only noticed that the doctor, when he came, unbuttoned the dress of the deceased, and, patting his hand on her on her bosom, told a constable standing by that she was quite warm.

[Morning Advertiser] As soon as the police came I ceased to take any interest in the matter. I did not notice in what position her hands were. I only noticed when the doctor came up he undid the first buttons of her dress next the neck, and put his hand in. He then told the constable that she was quite warm yet. He told the constable to put his hand in and feel the body, and he did so.

So Diemschitz is clearly referring to Johnston, and his examination of the body.
After this, Diemschitz explicitly states that he ceases to takes any interest, and therefore he cannot be observing the victim when either Blackwell or Phillips is present.
Therefore, it must have been when Johnston was examining the body, that Diemschitz (and presumably Kozebrodsky) saw the grapes (or the appearance of).
That would mean Johnston must have opened up the right hand, at which point both Diemschitz and Kozebrodsky (as the theory goes), got confused as to what side of the hand they were looking at, and also confused the smeared blood on the hand, for grapes.
So, did Johnston indeed open the right (or left) hand?

The Times, Oct 4:

Baxter: Did you look at the hands?
Johnston: No. 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.

Johnston only felt the right hand for warmth.
So when did Diemschitz and Kozebrodsky see the grapes?
It could not have been when Johnston was examining the body, and it could not have been after that point.
Most likely someone removed the grapes prior to Johnston's arrival, and that person surely was not PC Lamb.
So were the grapes planted on the body?
Was the unbranded cachous also planted?

[Simon Wood]

Don't forget the Irish Times, 1st October 1888—

“A reporter who has seen the corpse states that . . . in her right hand were tightly clasped some grapes . . .

“. . . A young Russian Pole, named M. Kozebrodski, born in Warsaw, and who spoke the English language imperfectly, gave the following information: - ‘The officers did not touch the body, but sent for a doctor. A doctor came, and an inspector arrived just afterwards. While the doctor was examining the body I noticed that she had some grapes in her right hand . . .’”

[NotBlamedForNothing]

As my previous post suggests, Diemschitz must have seen the grapes before PC Lamb arrived (if at all).
Slight problem; Diemschitz said he went out looking for police, to no avail, and returned to the yard as PC Lamb was arriving.
After Johnston checks over the deceased, Diemschitz goes back into the club, and stays there (oddly keeping his distance).
At what point is the illusory sighting of grapes supposed to occur?
I reckon the grapes - real grapes - were sighted by Kozebrodski, well before Lamb arrived, but they had 'walked' before Lamb did get there.
Either that, or Kozebrodski saw Ashbrigh viewing the contents of the cachous packet, which to IK might have been unfamiliar objects, though looking to him like some sort of berry, for which the closest English word he had, was 'grapes'.
Mistaking the cachous for berries, and referring to those things as grapes, in a language not fully familiar to the observer, is a much better bet than supposing that blood smears were mistaken for grapes, by 2 people.
Remember that Phillips uses the phrase 'small oblong clots', at the mortuary, not in the darkness of the yard.
At the crime scene, he didn't see what became much more visible in a much better lighting condition - he saw the same smears that Blackwell and others could see.
The issue then becomes, if Kozebrodski was in the yard when Ashbrigh was near the body, then when was Kozebrodski out on the streets, looking for police?
Arbeter Fraint complained about how long it took to find police, and this period must have been before 1 am.

[Fisherman]

I don't think anyone attempted to 'prove' the grape story.
Confirmation of Packers story was provided by PC Smith, - a man with Stride carrying a newspaper parcel about 12:30am is consistent with Packer selling grapes (in a bag or wrapped?) to the man accompanying Stride and him last seeing them opposite the club about 12:30am.
So long as the woman is the same person, the man must be the same.

While it is true Packer gave two times for his encounter with Stride and the grape buyer; 11:00-11:30 and 12:00-12:30am, approximately. The police would have known what we know today, that Stride was outside the Bricklayers Arms about 11:00pm, so the earlier time provided by Packer (11:00-11:30) had to be in error.
Unfortunately, for any future criminal case Packer had to figure this out himself, which he couldn't. Which is why Swanson had to take him off the potential witness list.

We do not read anywhere that the police did not believe in the existence of the grapes. Witnesses claiming to see grapes had supporting evidence, whereas witnesses not claiming to see any grapes finds no evidence.
Not seeing something is deemed negative evidence which, in the view of police, is not evidence at all.
The police know very well that people can miss seeing what others do see. What the police do put faith in is if a claim has supporting evidence, which the existence of the grapes most certainly does.

Some have claimed that Packer invented this man after reading the papers & learning of the man seen by PC Smith. The description of which was published on Oct 1st:
The following description has been circulated by the police of a man said to have been seen with the deceased during Saturday evening: -'' Age 28. Slight. Height 5ft. 8in. Complexion dark. No whiskers. Black diagonal coat. Hard felt hat. Collar and tie. Carried newspaper parcel. Respectable appearance.''

Yet Packer's offering was not entirely the same:
"...a young man from 25-30, about 5.7. with long black coat buttoned up, soft felt hat, kind of Yankee hat, rather broad shoulders, rather quick in speaking, rough voice...."

If Packer was attempting to purloin someone else's description, one would think he would use some of the same details more accurately.

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.

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? 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?
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. In the end, even if there seems to potentially be a rationale for supporting evidence, what rules the day is what we can see or touch.
We hear stories - and we check them. And then we decide.

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

- 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? Well, because Stride was never likely to chat up two men. Or ... wait a second - wasnīt she? If she was engaging in prostitution? Furthermore, newspaper bags only contained grapes. Errr... come again? How about fish and chips? Or strawberries?
There is half an hour telling these matters apart. Would the grapes not have been consumed in a shorter time than that? And how likely is it that PC Smith was looking at a grape bag, made out of newspaper? He spoke of something that was six by eighteen inches, wrapped in newspaper. Does that sound like a parcel aimed for 227 grammes of grapes?That is not very many grapes, is it? They would fit into a much smaller container, would they not? That packet was nigh on half a meter, Jon.

So, points for an imaginative post, but less so for factuality and evidence worth! I am intrigued by why you would make these kinds of points. You normally donīt.

[Fisherman]

Let's see if we can narrow down when Diemschitz and Kozebrodsky saw the grapes - whether real or illusory.

I will work backwards in time.

"[Daily News] She was lying on her side with her face towards the wall of the club; at least I am sure she was lying with her face to the wall. As soon as the police came I ceased to take any interest in the affair, and went on with my duties at the club. I did not notice in what position the hands of the deceased were. I only noticed that the doctor, when he came, unbuttoned the dress of the deceased, and, patting his hand on her on her bosom, told a constable standing by that she was quite warm.

[Morning Advertiser] As soon as the police came I ceased to take any interest in the matter. I did not notice in what position her hands were. I only noticed when the doctor came up he undid the first buttons of her dress next the neck, and put his hand in. He then told the constable that she was quite warm yet. He told the constable to put his hand in and feel the body, and he did so."


So Diemschitz is clearly referring to Johnston, and his examination of the body.
After this, Diemschitz explicitly states that he ceases to takes any interest, and therefore he cannot be observing the victim when either Blackwell or Phillips is present.
Therefore, it must have been when Johnston was examining the body, that Diemschitz (and presumably Kozebrodsky) saw the grapes (or the appearance of).
That would mean Johnston must have opened up the right hand, at which point both Diemschitz and Kozebrodsky (as the theory goes), got confused as to what side of the hand they were looking at, and also confused the smeared blood on the hand, for grapes.

Hereīs the next inventive writer! You make out that Diemschitz took interest in the proceedings as long as Johnston made his examination, only thereafter loosing interest in the matter. In fact, what Diemschitz says is that he ceased to take any interest in the affair when the police got on stage! And that was BEFORE Johnston arrived!
Of course, the man Diemschitz describes in the first quotation must be Johnston, but that does not mean that the doctor Diemschitz refers to as having lifted and opened the hand of Stride is also Johnston. Just as you write yourself, Johnston did not do any such thing - but Blackwell did! So if Diemschitz saw an examination of a lifted hand, then it was Blackwell he saw. And if he had lost interest when the police arrived, but nevertheless saw Johnston unbutton Strides dress, he may just as well have seen Blackwell examine the hand. Furthermore, if he had lost interest at that stage, and only casually watched, then perhaps so much the likelier that he would make that mistake about the grapes.

You finish off with two questions:

So were the grapes planted on the body?

Which grapes? There WERE no grapes.

Was the unbranded cachous also planted?

Not very likely, no. What possible purpose would it serve? Any ideas? (I canīt believe I just asked that... )

[Fisherman]

As my previous post suggests, Diemschitz must have seen the grapes before PC Lamb arrived (if at all).
Slight problem; Diemschitz said he went out looking for police, to no avail, and returned to the yard as PC Lamb was arriving.
After Johnston checks over the deceased, Diemschitz goes back into the club, and stays there (oddly keeping his distance).
At what point is the illusory sighting of grapes supposed to occur?
I reckon the grapes - real grapes - were sighted by Kozebrodski, well before Lamb arrived, but they had 'walked' before Lamb did get there.
Either that, or Kozebrodski saw Ashbrigh viewing the contents of the cachous packet, which to IK might have been unfamiliar objects, though looking to him like some sort of berry, for which the closest English word he had, was 'grapes'.
Mistaking the cachous for berries, and referring to those things as grapes, in a language not fully familiar to the observer, is a much better bet than supposing that blood smears were mistaken for grapes, by 2 people.

So Kozebrodski meant "cachous" when he said "grapes"? And he mistook the right hand for the left?

Remember that Phillips uses the phrase 'small oblong clots', at the mortuary, not in the darkness of the yard.

Remember that whatever wording he used, the apparition of the hand will have been the exact same in the yard.

At the crime scene, he didn't see what became much more visible in a much better lighting condition - he saw the same smears that Blackwell and others could see.

He could not see anything but what there was to see. You can say that a hand is smeared with blood without describing the apparition of the smears. Once you DO describe the apparition of the smears, it must be kept in mind that it is the wording that changes, not the smears.
It is effectively not a case of how the smears did not look like grapes in the darkness of the yard, only to start looking like grapes in the mortuary the day after the murder...!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So what are you trying to say? That Lamb took the cachous from her right hand, spilled some of them, and then put them in her left hand instead?

Any idea why?

And any idea why Blackwell siad that HE was the guy who spilled them?

In #201 I said: It was the 'spilling' of the cachous packet that resulted in the right hand getting bloodied.

This is very different to Blackwell splitting the cachous (as he put it), when he removed the packet from her left hand.
Lamb felt the right wrist for a pulse - it was in those moments that the packet inadvertently fell from her hand.

Why is it that you think the position of the left arm has changed? It is not as if the reports say that all of it was under her - the upper arm was, nothing more.

Because the stated position of the arm is going to be given relative to the fact that she is lying on her left side.
If the left arm were cocked-out at the elbow, one would not say that the arm was lying under her, even though the upper arm may in fact be under her.
There is a clear change in position of the left arm, from Lamb to Johnston. This gives us a clue as to the cause of the bloodied right hand, and ultimately to the movement of the cachous packet.

What are you getting at with all of this?

As I also said in #201 re Lamb: Lantern was in left hand - trying to feel pulse with right hand - crowd moving in - too much pressure - cachous packet drops - tries to 'catch' it by pushing Stride's hand down - hands smears with blood against neck - places packet under thumb of left hand (almost hides it) - more congealing blood leaks onto hand - places hand against chest, in open position - doesn't mention it to anyone - Johnston doesn't even notice the blood.

In condescended form, this is what I think occurred when Lamb was by the body, trying to feel for a pulse, searching for other injuries, checking the condition of the blood, feeling for body temperature, holding the lantern in his left hand, and doing his best to keep the crowd at a safe distance.
MA, Oct 3:

As I was examining to see whether there were any other injuries beyond that on the throat, the crowd pressed close in. I begged of them to keep back as they might get blood on their clothes and get themselves into trouble. I put my hand on the face and on the arm. The face was slightly warm. I felt the wrist, but could not feel the pulse. I put my hand on the wrist, but the pulse had ceased to beat. The body was lying on the left side, and her arm was lying under. I did not examine to see if there was anything in the hand.

This all adds up to the 'ideal' time for an accident to occur.
Contrast this with Johnston, who knows to do the bare minimum, not move the body, and leave the rest to Blackwell.

Note that Lamb says; I felt the wrist, but could not feel the pulse - then immediately adds; I put my hand on the wrist, but the pulse had ceased to beat.
He is trying to play down the impact of him lifting the wrist away from the chest, to feel for a pulse.
It is at that moment that the cachous packet began to fall out of the right hand, toward the ground close to the neck.

This quote gives us another reason to suppose the cachous packet changes hands; ...her arm was lying under. I did not examine to see if there was anything in the hand.
He has his lamp in his left hand - he has better visibility than anyone (the proximity of the lamp is closer than for the doctors) - yet he does not notice (or so he says) anything in the left hand.
So how could Ashbrigh and Spooner have seen the cachous (which they did), if the left hand were so shrouded, and with only the benefit of match light?
Simple; the cachous, at the time, was in the right hand.

#234: So Kozebrodski meant "cachous" when he said "grapes"? And he mistook the right hand for the left?

In effect, he may have meant that, yes.
It is a much less wackier idea than 'blood, mostly on the back of the hand, that looked liked grapes when the hand was unclenched', and would be further evidence that the cachous was originally in the right hand.

[Fisherman]

In #201 I said: It was the 'spilling' of the cachous packet that resulted in the right hand getting bloodied.

This is very different to Blackwell splitting the cachous (as he put it), when he removed the packet from her left hand.

"Dr. Blackwell, recalled, said - I removed the cachous from the deceased's left hand, which was partly open. The packet was between the thumb and forefinger. I spilt some of them while removing them from the hand." (Daily News, Oct 6)

"Spilt". Not "split".

Lamb felt the right wrist for a pulse - it was in those moments that the packet inadvertently fell from her hand.

Why would we invent such a story? There is nothing to support it. Why would we go on to invent that Lamb then lodged the cachous in the left hand? Why?

Because the stated position of the arm is going to be given relative to the fact that she is lying on her left side.
If the left arm were cocked-out at the elbow, one would not say that the arm was lying under her, even though the upper arm may in fact be under her.

Yes, one would. And one did. The body was effectively resting on her upper left arm, ergo the arm was under her.

There is a clear change in position of the left arm, from Lamb to Johnston. This gives us a clue as to the cause of the bloodied right hand, and ultimately to the movement of the cachous packet.

No, there is no such change. It is an invention of yours. You cannot assert things that were never true, it is the poorest of grounds to speculate from.

As I also said in #201 re Lamb: Lantern was in left hand - trying to feel pulse with right hand - crowd moving in - too much pressure - cachous packet drops - tries to 'catch' it by pushing Stride's hand down - hands smears with blood against neck - places packet under thumb of left hand (almost hides it) - more congealing blood leaks onto hand - places hand against chest, in open position - doesn't mention it to anyone - Johnston doesn't even notice the blood.

Wants to solve the case - invents a few things - has no support in the facts - does not give a damn - uses semantics to try and alter the evidence - accuses PC Lamb of tampering with the evidence on no grounds - sadly posts all of this.

In condescended form, this is what I think occurred when Lamb was by the body, trying to feel for a pulse, searching for other injuries, checking the condition of the blood, feeling for body temperature, holding the lantern in his left hand, and doing his best to keep the crowd at a safe distance.
MA, Oct 3:

This all adds up to the 'ideal' time for an accident to occur.
Contrast this with Johnston, who knows to do the bare minimum, not move the body, and leave the rest to Blackwell.

It is idle speculation, Iīm afraid. And anyone is entitled to engage in it - and to question it on factual grounds.

Note that Lamb says; I felt the wrist, but could not feel the pulse - then immediately adds; I put my hand on the wrist, but the pulse had ceased to beat.
He is trying to play down the impact of him lifting the wrist away from the chest, to feel for a pulse.
It is at that moment that the cachous packet began to fall out of the right hand, toward the ground close to the neck.

This is the sequence from the Morning Advertiser:
"I put my hand on the face and on the arm. The face was slightly warm. I felt the wrist, but could not feel the pulse. I put my hand on the wrist, but the pulse had ceased to beat."

This, in contrast, is from the Daily News:
"When I put my hand on the face it was slightly warm. The pulse was not beating. Deceased was lying on her left side."

Can you see how your point vanishes? Which paper is correct? To my mind, I belive that we are lacking a passage from the coroner. I beleive he stepped in and asked Lamb to further clarify himself on the matter. It really can be that easy, you know.

This quote gives us another reason to suppose the cachous packet changes hands; ...her arm was lying under. I did not examine to see if there was anything in the hand.
He has his lamp in his left hand - he has better visibility than anyone (the proximity of the lamp is closer than for the doctors) - yet he does not notice (or so he says) anything in the left hand.
So how could Ashbrigh and Spooner have seen the cachous (which they did), if the left hand were so shrouded, and with only the benefit of match light?
Simple; the cachous, at the time, was in the right hand.

Spooner was very close to Stride, and even handled her: "When the man struck the match I bent down and lifted up the chin of the deceased. The chin was just warm. The blood was still flowing from the throat, which was cut."
So Spooner was in extremely close contact, and he had a light to help him see. But he did nevertheless not see the cachous: "I noticed a bit of paper doubled up in her right hand, and a flower on her breast."
He only saw the paper in which the pills were contained, and he would only have seen part of it, of course. It would stand out in the flickering light, being white.
As for Hoshberg, he said: "In her hand there was a little piece of paper containing five or six cachous." But as we know, the cachous were lodged between the thumb and the forefinger and hidden from sight to a large degree, as per Blackwell. But the doctor opened the hand and some cachous were spilled on the ground, and so at that stage, the onlookers could satisfy themselves as to what was in the paper. I have little doubt that Spooner knew about the cachous as he testified on the 2:nd, but he nevertheless chose to say that he saw only a piece of doubled up paper, becasue that was what was visible to a man very, very close to the body and with a light to aid. Hoshberg would have fared no better and probably worse trying to make out what it was, but both he and Spooner got to know it as Blackwell arrived.

In effect, he may have meant that, yes.
It is a much less wackier idea than 'blood, mostly on the back of the hand, that looked liked grapes when the hand was unclenched', and would be further evidence that the cachous was originally in the right hand.

Much less wacky? You need to do something about your sense of proportions. If you can prove what language Kozebrodski spoke and if you can prove that "grapes" and "cachous" or "tablets" are very closely related linguistically, you would have some little wiggling room, but before that happens, you simply donīt.

[Wickerman]

......
The issue then becomes, if Kozebrodski was in the yard when Ashbrigh was near the body, then when was Kozebrodski out on the streets, looking for police?
Arbeter Fraint complained about how long it took to find police, and this period must have been before 1 am.

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

[Wickerman]

.....

Johnston only felt the right hand for warmth.
So when did Diemschitz and Kozebrodsky see the grapes?
It could not have been when Johnston was examining the body, and it could not have been after that point.
Most likely someone removed the grapes prior to Johnston's arrival, and that person surely was not PC Lamb.
So were the grapes planted on the body?
Was the unbranded cachous also planted?

Hi, I agree with your post #229, both Kozebrodski & Deimschutz saw the body before PC Lamb arrived, they both left to look for a constable.
Only after their return to the yard did PC Lamb arrive, but he was not asked at the inquest if he saw any grapes, neither was Johnson asked about any grapes, as he arrived after PC Lamb.
It is this brief interval of time when the grapes must have slipped to the ground (supposing they were not dislodged by either Lamb or Johnson when they felt for a pulse).
Either scenario explains the mystery.

[Wickerman]

Don't forget the Irish Times, 1st October 1888—

“A reporter who has seen the corpse states that . . . in her right hand were tightly clasped some grapes . . .

No reporters were present at the time of the discovery, he must be relating what people had told him.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi, I agree with your post #229, both Kozebrodski & Deimschutz saw the body before PC Lamb arrived, they both left to look for a constable.
Only after their return to the yard did PC Lamb arrive, but he was not asked at the inquest if he saw any grapes, neither was Johnson asked about any grapes, as he arrived after PC Lamb.
It is this brief interval of time when the grapes must have slipped to the ground (supposing they were not dislodged by either Lamb or Johnson when they felt for a pulse).
Either scenario explains the mystery.

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

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

Baxter: Did you look at the hands?
Johnston: No. 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.

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.
That would leave Lamb, or the very brief interval in between Lamb and Johnston, as a possibility.
There are 3 problems with this, though:

1. Abraham Ashbrigh does not have visibility of the left hand, but sees the cachous - necessarily in the right hand
2. Edward Spooner is explicit about seeing a piece of doubled over paper in her right hand - probably the cachous, rather than grapes
3. Isaac Kozebrodski claims to see grapes, but implicitly after Johnston hands over to Blackwell

Let's look at the full Kozebrodski quote from the Irish Times, Oct 1:

I was in the club last night. I came in about 6.30 in the evening and I have not been away from it since. About 20 minutes to 1 this morning Mr Diemshitz called me out into the yard. He told me there was something in the yard, and told me to come and see what it was. When we had got outside he struck a match, and when we looked down on the ground we could see a large pool of blood. It was running down the gutter, and in the direction of the gate, and reached about to the door of the club. I should think there was blood in the gutter for a distance of five or six yards. I went to look for a policeman at the direction of Diemshitz or some members of the club. I went in the direction of Grove street, and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial road, and there along with Eagle I found two officers. The officers did not touch the body, but sent for a doctor. A doctor came, and an inspector arrived just afterwards. While the doctor was examining the body I noticed that she had some grapes in her right hand and some sweets in her left. I think she wore a dark jacket and a black dress. I saw a little bunch of flowers stuck above her right bosom.

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.
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. Both the jacket and the bodice were open towards the top, but in other respects the clothes were not disarranged. The linen was clean and in tolerably good repair.

Interesting that Louis supposedly mistakes blood smears for grapes, but can somehow accurately determine the condition of the linen, including its cleanliness!

Mortimer also sees grapes:

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

So much for the idea - pushed by people like Tom Wescott in Ripper Confidential - that Fanny was locked out.
On the contrary; she was locked in!

Now here is where things get even more interesting, especially if your initials are MWR...

Spooner - does not see grapes; is called to the inquest
Diemschitz - does see grapes; is called to the inquest, and claims to not have even seen the position of the hands, let alone any contents
Kozebrodsky - does see grapes; not called to the inquest
Mortimer - does see grapes; not called to the inquest

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