Pub or Street?

[Curious Cat]

Pure speculation on my part. At the moment this is only in connection with Catherine Eddowes. I wasn't actually aware of Dr Sequiera until after I had inexplicably been drawn to where his house once stood in Jewry Street last year. Since then it's been a case of joining the dots, whether I'm joining them in the right order, though, is another thing. Not sure how it would be possible to track back over his movements in regard to the other victims, though I would say that as a suspect for Catherine this, for me, rules him out for Elizabeth Stride. The observance of the patrol patterns would've taken priority, only leaving the house when sure of the police positions. He was, by his own evidence, very familiar with the locality.

There was also a post (which naturally I can't find right now) about the package containing the kidney sent to Lusk. The post office it was deposited at was just round the corner from Fenchurch Street Station, which in turn was a short walk from Jewry Street where Dr Sequiera lived.

Again, pure speculation.

^^^
Going through this over my mind a few times I have concluded that while it's possible for Dr Sequiera to have carried out the killing undetected it just about seems unlikely. I'll leave him hovering at a distance rather than dismiss him completely, but for now I'm closing this line of thought. Not that anyone would be too bothered by that, I'm sure.

[Wickerman]

Hi JOn,

Diemschutz says:
"One of the members, who is known as Isaacs, went out with me." Issacs is obviously a surname, not a given name.

A Reporter, again:
"A member of the club named Kozobrodski, but familiarly known as Isaacs, returned with Diemshitz into the court,...." Did this reporter assume that Diemshitz erred when he said Issac, and where did he get information that the 17 year old Apprentice with a name of Issac Kozebrodki was "commonly" known as Issacs? And why would he be, its his given name, why would anyone pluralize a given name? Would you be Jons to these men?

Hi Michael.
You're obviously not European, I don't think you would be so sure if you had been raised in Europe.

There was a British actress in the 50's-60's called Megs Jenkins, but Megs was not her given name, she was born Muguette Mary Jenkins.
Why pluralize a christian name?, you might want to look that up, but it happens.

Did you know that Meghan Markle was commonly known as "Megs" by her closest friend?

In the case we are debating it is perhaps more preferable among his friends because his surname Kozebrodsky is such a mouthful, besides he was not fluent in English - "Kozebrodsky was born in Warsaw, and can only speak English very imperfectly."
Just call me Isaacs?

I don't understand how you can hope to separate "Isaacs", the associate of Diemschutz, from Isaac Kozebrodsky, the friend of Diemschutz.

Ok, hows this.....Issac K said he was sent alone and later returned meeting Eagle on the way back.....

Thats a weak argument Michael, many witnesses talk about what they did in the singular, so does Diemschutz in some reports, yet we know he was not alone in Fairclough street.
Any abnormality in Kozebrodsky's story may be explained by the fact his English was not perfect, yet your argument relies on it being so.

I know you don't intend to let go of this, though I think it necessary to show that your interpretation is false.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Rather than focusing on Isaacs, a better argument might be to critique the club's efforts in finding police.

Dimshits, Eygel and Gilyarovsky ran to look for a policeman; ten minutes later they had found a pair of peace-keepers.

Ten minutes?

All they had to do was run up to Commercial Road, then one go left and the other go right, and they would have found a PC in under a minute.

So why where they farnarkling around in Fairclough street?

If this lot didn't call themselves Socialists, they would have been hung out to dry 30 years ago.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi JOn,

I believe Jon that Issac K's own words supercede a reporters take, and that since we known lots of men had the surname Issacs, and it wouldn't be a surprise to anyone of an Issacs was at the club at that time, and since we know someone with the surname Issacs crops up again later, having moved right around the corner from Mary just before her murder and then moves out without notice the very night she is murdered, we already have a potential suspect named Issacs on the records.

Find me just one historical example where Bill is called Bills, or Arthur is called Arthurs, or Satan is called Satans, then we can accept Issac[s] may have been an error.

Last bit.....if this kid is Louis's apprentice, why wouldn't Louis use his proper given name instead of what some reporter claims was his "nickname".?

Let's see if we can get some idea, from Arbeter Fraint, Oct 5, 1888.

From excitement he [Comrade Diemschitz] jumped off the cart, ran through the back door into the club and raised an alarm. Immediately Comrade Gilyarovsky ran into the printing shop and editor’s office that are located in the same building as the club, but separated in the back by the yard.
There was no one in the printing shop. Comrades Krants and Yaffa were busy in the editor’s office.

'Krants' obviously refers to Philip Krantz.
Don't know of Yaffa.
What about 'Gilyarovsky' - is that Isaac Kozebrodsky, and is IK also 'Isaacs'?
Let's see what Gilyarovsky does next...

“Don’t you know that a murdered woman is lying in the yard?” Gilyarovsky breathlessly called out. At first the two comrades did not want to believe him. “What, don’t you believe me?” Gilyarovsky quickly asked: “I saw blood.” Yaffa and Krants immediately ran out and went over to the gate. The gate was open and it was very dark near the gate. A black object was barely discernable near the brick building. Once they got very close, they could notice that it was the shape of a woman that was lying with its face to the wall, with its head toward the yard and with its feet pointing to the gate. Comrades Morris Eygel, Fridenthal and Gilyarovsky were standing around the body. Eygel struck a match and shouted to the figure lying there: “Get up!” “Why are you waking her?” asked Yaffa, who noticed that the woman was lying in a liquid. “Don’t you see that the woman is dead?”

In the meantime, there was quite a to-do going on inside the club, and everyone ran out into the yard. Dimshits, Eygel and Gilyarovsky ran to look for a policeman; ten minutes later they had found a pair of peace-keepers. One of the policemen ran for a doctor, and Morris Eygel ran to the police station on Leman Street to report the murder. In the meantime, the commotion about the murder drew people, and the street that had been asleep began to become lively.

Sounds like Gilyarovsky could well be Isaacs.
Don't know of Fridenthal.

This section is also worth a read:

The grand jury consists of 12 men, who are selected from among respectable members of the community.
It wasn’t until Tuesday that anyone knew who the murdered woman was. All that was known was that she belonged to the unfortunate street women and was known as “Tall Lisa.” On Tuesday she was identified by her sister, Maria Malcolm, the wife of a tailor.
Her sister, the woman murdered, was 38 years old and had been married to one, named Vots [Watts?]. This person was a son of a wealthy wine merchant in Bath. They [he and his wife] did not get along and he left her. They had two children: one boy and one girl. The girl died and the boy is in boarding school. Since she had been separated from her husband, approximately eight years ago, she began to drink and later also began to lead a licentious life. For the last three years she visited her sister every Saturday, and she [her sister] used to help support her with a few shillings. During those three years, the murdered woman did not fail to visit her sister for [even] one Saturday. The last Saturday she did not come. That made her sister uneasy. On Sunday, when she heard about the murder, she went to the morgue to see the murdered woman and she identified her as her sister.

Note that AF insists that Liz was a prostitute, changes her nickname from 'Long Liz' to 'Tall Lisa', and goes along with the Mary Malcolm story.
They are attempting to obliterate her identity.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Because the inner red area breaks up the white and gives the appearance of a cluster of objects.
The white petals would be translucent, and roughly the size of small grapes.
With the lantern light directly behind, someone a couple of metres away might just have the impression of a hand holding grapes.
The dahlia is in a similar position to the right hand, and in dim light the sense of depth would be degraded, making it look as though the flower is resting on the hand.
Dahlias don't normally look like like grapes, of course, but at the right viewing angle and with the source of light in just the right place, maybe the observer could suppose that they were looking at a hand holding grapes.

In contrast, the 'blood as grapes' notion is going nowhere.
When Lamb pushed downward on the right wrist, in an attempt to prevent the cachous falling, the back of the hand got smeared with blood.
Further blood spilled on the hand, as Lamb relocated the cachous packet against the left hand.
So the bloodied hand does not end up with a perfectly smooth coating of blood, as though it were a layer of paint.
The blood is uneven, but under lantern light, this would hardly be noticeable, if at all.
The clotted spots of blood on the hand, is just blood on blood.
It would not look like grapes. It would not look like berries. It would not look like sultanas.
In the near darkness, the clots would not even be recognised as distinct things.

By the way, what is your theory of how the right hand ended up bloodied?

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?

Diemschitz said 'tightly clenched' - which has a substantially different meaning to 'holding'.
If one where to tightly clench some grapes, over a handkerchief, the handkerchief would end up stained - not so if one were simply holding the grapes.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi JOn,

Hi Michael, I know you've had this bee in your bonnet about someone called Isaac's for some years, but please explain how those at the time could have got it wrong.

Diemschutz says:
"One of the members, who is known as Isaacs, went out with me." Issacs is obviously a surname, not a given name.

Press Reporter:
A young Russian Pole, named Isaac M. Kosebrodski, born in Warsaw, gave the following information:- "....... About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemshitz called me out to the yard." Note that time Jon. Also make note that Issac K, a 17year old lad, says he was sent out alone.

A Reporter, again:
"A member of the club named Kozobrodski, but familiarly known as Isaacs, returned with Diemshitz into the court,...." Did this reporter assume that Diemshitz erred when he said Issac, and where did he get information that the 17 year old Apprentice with a name of Issac Kozebrodki was "commonly" known as Issacs? And why would he be, its his given name, why would anyone pluralize a given name? Would you be Jons to these men?

I looked for the name Kozebrodsky in the newspapers and both him & Diemschutz are in trouble with police in connection with other incidents, and portrayed as friends.

Issac was called an "apprentice", he likely was mentored by Louis, and yes, he did get arrested with Louis the following Spring.

I don't understand how you can hope to separate "Isaacs", the associate of Diemschutz, from Isaac Kozebrodsky, the friend of Diemschutz.

Ok, hows this.....Issac K said he was sent alone and later returned meeting Eagle on the way back. Louis says "Issac[s] accompanied him. He does not say that he and Issac[s] saw Eagle return. Spooner did not identify either of the 2 men he saw running, and since Louis doesn't mention Issac K being sent out, its at least 1 search party that isn't recorded by club staff.

I believe Jon that Issac K's own words supercede a reporters take, and that since we known lots of men had the surname Issacs, and it wouldn't be a surprise to anyone of an Issacs was at the club at that time, and since we know someone with the surname Issacs crops up again later, having moved right around the corner from Mary just before her murder and then moves out without notice the very night she is murdered, we already have a potential suspect named Issacs on the records.

Find me just one historical example where Bill is called Bills, or Arthur is called Arthurs, or Satan is called Satans, then we can accept Issac[s] may have been an error.

Last bit.....if this kid is Louis's apprentice, why wouldn't Louis use his proper given name instead of what some reporter claims was his "nickname".?

[Wickerman]

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.

Hi Michael, I know you've had this bee in your bonnet about someone called Isaac's for some years, but please explain how those at the time could have got it wrong.

Diemschutz says:
"One of the members, who is known as Isaacs, went out with me."

Press Reporter:
A young Russian Pole, named Isaac M. Kosebrodski, born in Warsaw, gave the following information:- "....... About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemshitz called me out to the yard."

A Reporter, again:
"A member of the club named Kozobrodski, but familiarly known as Isaacs, returned with Diemshitz into the court,...."

I looked for the name Kozebrodsky in the newspapers and both him & Diemschutz are in trouble with police in connection with other incidents, and portrayed as friends.

I don't understand how you can hope to separate "Isaacs", the associate of Diemschutz, from Isaac Kozebrodsky, the friend of Diemschutz.

[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.

[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..?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.