Evidence to prove a suspect valid

[GUT]

Thanks Jon

I was particularly interested in Tom's statement that it was planted by LeGrand.

[Wickerman]

..... Le Grand came up with the nonsensical grape story and wrote it up for the Evening News.

Hi Tom.

This is something that has always intrigued me. In a day when press articles were published unsigned, unless offered by the public, what indication do we have that LeGrand wrote this story?

[Wickerman]

The existence of the grape stalk appears to be a matter of fact (Swanson believed it), but how it got there is speculation.

1 - We can view the presence of the grape stalk in Dutfields Yard as supporting evidence for the claims of Diemschitz, Kozebrodski (and Packer?).

2 - We can suggest the grape stalk was planted by someone.

3 - We can argue that the grape stalk is unrelated to the crime that night, Packer sold grapes, anyone could have recently discarded it.

[GUT]

G'Day Tom

There were zero signs of grapes in Stride's body, on Stride's person, or anywhere near the scene, except of course the stalk planted and 'found' by Le Grand.

While I agree that much of what you say could be the explanation, can you point me evidence that Le Grand planted the stalk, I've frankly no recollection of ever reading that.

[Tom_Wescott]

Isaac Kozebrodski could barely speak English. Diemshitz spoke English very well. Supposedly, these two men told the press that Stride was holding grapes. However, that is not what they told the police. See Diemshitz's inquest testimony about what was and wasn't in Stride's hand.

As for Packer, same thing. See his first statement to the police about what happened that night. He did not sell any couple any grapes.

There are two possibilities about the grape story in the press. One is that nobody said it. It was press confusion. The other possibility is that somebody (probably Isaac) though he saw grapes but what he actually saw were the oblong blood clots which might have appeared as grapes under her closed hand (i.e. that she was holding them).

As for Packer, Le Grand came up with the nonsensical grape story and wrote it up for the Evening News. Packer couldn't keep two details straight.

There were zero signs of grapes in Stride's body, on Stride's person, or anywhere near the scene, except of course the stalk planted and 'found' by Le Grand.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

G'Day Jon

I accept that it really doesn't make a difference to the case, but poor old Packer gets a bad rap, and if she really had grapes n her hand when found I still contend it supports his claim.

He and Smith may have seen different couples, ether of their memories might not have been that great because they weren't paying that much attention.

[Wickerman]

G'Day Jon

My point was though that here we have another report of grapes she must have got them somewhere.

Ok, but I was trying to show that Packer may have just jumped on the grapes as a way of drawing attention to himself, he may not have been telling the truth in other words.

Where I am a little cautious about rejecting Packer altogether is the time he initially gave for placing Stride & her man directly opposite Dutfields Yard. It was at 12:30, consistent with the time given by PC Smith.
Sadly, the attire attributed to the man differs, but Packer at 58? may quite honestly have had poor eyesight.

The existence of the grapes is a really contentious issue and whether we accept them or not does not really advance the case in any positive way.

[GUT]

G'Day Jon

My point was though that here we have another report of grapes she must have got them somewhere.

[Wickerman]

Packer's claim came after that statement appeared in the press.

Although the grapes are typically associated with Packer, and naturally as Packer was dismissed common thinking dictates therefore that the grapes also be dismissed.
However, the issue of the grapes preceded Packer's rise and fall.
Which means, any debate on the grapes should be independent of Packer.

[GUT]

G'Day

I just reread:

From Issac Kozebrodski: "I was in this club last night. I came in about half-past six in the evening. About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to 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 long stream of blood. It was running down the gutter from the direction of the gate, and reached to the back 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 request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and 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 saw a little bunch of flowers stuck above her right bosom"

If the part I have highlighted is to believed doesn't that support Packers claim to have sold Liz grapes?

[Michael W Richards]

Ok, I was a little harsh with caz yesterday, my defense is that we seem to be having some denial issues or intentional blindness. There are indeed several accounts by members inside the club that were taken within 1 hour of the body being discovered. Issac K left alone for help before 1am, at Louis's instructions, Eagle went for help, then Louis with someone named Issac(s). If those accounts, and Spooners, by his accounting for his time, indicates a time of approximately 12:45 when he sees the 2 men from the club.

That directly contradicts the statements of Eagle, Lave, Schwartz and Louis. 2 of which were principally involved in that nights meeting...one as the steward..albeit absent, and 1 as the speaker.

I have said....so what about these accounts? And as a rebuttal I get that we have no reason to distrust the only men at the scene who would have a reason to want this murder to be perceived as an "outsider" murder.

From Issac Kozebrodski: "I was in this club last night. I came in about half-past six in the evening. About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to 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 long stream of blood. It was running down the gutter from the direction of the gate, and reached to the back 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 request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and 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 saw a little bunch of flowers stuck above her right bosom"

Edward Spooner: "Stated that between 12.30am and 1.00am, 30th September 1888, he was standing with a young woman outside the Beehive public house on the corner of Christian Street and Fairclough Street. After talking for about 25 minutes, he saw two Jewish men running up the street shouting 'murder' and 'police'. He saw them run as far as Grove Street and then turn back. When he asked them what was the matter, they explained that a woman had been murdered, so he accompanied them back the Dutfield's Yard. He saw the body of Stride in the yard and estimated that there was about fifteen people standing around it."

Fanny Mortimer:"I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by. I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club-house, and on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the yard with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates. It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School.

I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart. He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart. If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him. It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found. The body was lying slightly on one side, with the legs a little drawn up as if in pain, the clothes being slightly disarranged, so that the legs were partly visible. 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. A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound."[1]

These are not fictional, they are reported versions of the people themselves. This isnt second hand speculation, like whether or not a particular woman was actively soliciting on any particular night.

I read all the accounts, and when a bunch agree with each other, and none of them agree with another bunch who have every reason to cadge their comments for self preservation,...well, you gotta address that. Not ignore it.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Caz: Which uncorroborated accounts have I 'accepted', based solely on the timings given? Fanny Mortimer went indoors and reported hearing a horse-drawn cart about four minutes later, which coincides nearly enough with the time Diemshitz said he arrived to amount to a corroborated account, regardless of whether you think she lied or was mistaken.


I dont think she lies at all, Diemshitz said he arrived promptly at 1am...when Fanny was at the door steadily from 12:50 until 1am and didnt even see him let alone hear him. So whos lying again?

Caz:But in any case, you are the one relying on accurate times being given by certain witnesses, so you can carry on speculating that certain other witnesses lied about the timing.

The witnesses I spoke of came from inside the club and had access to timepieces in there....Issac said he arrived back at the club at half past 12 and "about 10 minutes later" was summoned to the passageway....by Louis. So did another member. Who is lying?

Caz:Don't you think the police would have noticed a twenty minute discrepancy and sought to reconcile Diemshitz's 1am with these club members who were saying he had alerted them as early as 12.40? Don't you think it would have dawned on Diemshitz that a cover story, attempting to put his discovery back to 1am, would instantly be blown if the other witnesses were not in on it and simply told the truth?

Inconsistencies dont make anyone a liar, I suppose if they had those suspicions they would have had to prove it. And Louis didnt have any time to speak with those other witnesses about what time they might say he arrived, only Eagle and his missus. Thats why on the night of the murder within 1 hour of finding the body you have Issac and another member and Spooner disagreeing with the times given by Louis. Might explain why Issac didnt appear at the Inquest, or Schwartz.

Caz:Once you bring lies into the equation, and foolishly transparent ones at that, which are meant to serve some rather unlikely purpose imagined by yourself, the onus is on you to provide evidence of who was lying about the time, based on who was being truthful as well as deadly accurate.

Good luck with that one.

I cant believe that its oblivious to you that their reputation, livelihood and the clubs future rested upon how this murder was perceived,..men who would attack the police with clubs 6 months later, members of what the Police described as an anarchists club. Men who fit the ripper profile to that point to a T, as described by Anderson.

Of course people would never lie to protect their money or their freedom to gather at their club.....geez.

Good luck making saints out of anarchists....let me know how that comes out.

Cheers

[caz]

And responding to Caz's point...."On the question of witness timings on and around Berner St that night, I never cease to be amazed by all the piffle talked (not by you I hasten to add). Firstly, it was nigh on impossible to think back and pinpoint a time exactly, when one was just minding one's own business and not expecting to be asked later when they were doing it. Secondly, most witnesses seem to have approximated to the nearest five minutes when estimating the time; others to the nearest quarter of an hour; some to the nearest half hour, depending on their individual circumstances.".....I can state that 2 witnesses from inside the club, where one used a clock to determine his arrival time back at the club (Kozebrodski), stated within 1 hour of the murder that "at approximately 12:40", and "about 10 minutes after half past twelve" respectively, that they were alerted to the body by Louis. Louis says he used a clock on the way home, thats why he could be sure he arrived at 1am. Yet Fanny Mortimer was at her door at 1am and saw or heard no-one, no cart...no Louis, arrive at that time. The street was empty, except for the young couple.

Oddly enough the members timings correspond almost exactly to the timing provided by Spooner...who by his account of his activities since leaving the pub, was by the body before 12:45am.

Seems to me the witnesses who gave times and had no timepiece to use just before doing so were club witnesses and Israel Schwartz, and funny enough, none of them have any corroberation. Eagle says he was inside the passage at 12:40, Lave says he was there at 12:40...and they apparently didnt see each other. No-one saw Louis arrive. No-one saw or heard a BSM or a Pipeman. We do have witnesses who can be corroborated...its just that Caz prefers to question everyones ability to tell time and accepts the uncorroborated accounts as the ones that are actually valid.

Piffle indeed.

Cheers

Hi Mike,

Which uncorroborated accounts have I 'accepted', based solely on the timings given? Fanny Mortimer went indoors and reported hearing a horse-drawn cart about four minutes later, which coincides nearly enough with the time Diemshitz said he arrived to amount to a corroborated account, regardless of whether you think she lied or was mistaken.

But in any case, you are the one relying on accurate times being given by certain witnesses, so you can carry on speculating that certain other witnesses lied about the timing. Don't you think the police would have noticed a twenty minute discrepancy and sought to reconcile Diemshitz's 1am with these club members who were saying he had alerted them as early as 12.40? Don't you think it would have dawned on Diemshitz that a cover story, attempting to put his discovery back to 1am, would instantly be blown if the other witnesses were not in on it and simply told the truth?

Once you bring lies into the equation, and foolishly transparent ones at that, which are meant to serve some rather unlikely purpose imagined by yourself, the onus is on you to provide evidence of who was lying about the time, based on who was being truthful as well as deadly accurate.

Good luck with that one.

Love,

Caz
X

[Barnaby]

I'm not quite sure what the original poster means by valid. I think it is being used in a common sense way to indicate which evidence, if it existed, would make a person of interest an extremely viable suspect.

Is there any advantage to using logical terms like necessary and sufficient? While there is probably not sufficient evidence (something like being caught red-handed but escaped at the Chapman scene only to be recaptured in Kelly's bedroom...) available this late in the game, what are the conditions necessary to label someone as Jack the Ripper? Unfortunately, I can name very few that most of us agree on. Perhaps you can think of more:

1. He is a male (close enough to necessary for me).
2. He cannot be placed outside of the greater London area on more than two nights of the canonical killings (if Jack didn't kill at least three of these, then I'd argue there was no Jack.)
3. He is between the ages of 18 and 40 (should we narrow or expand this range given the criteria is necessary and not just probably?) and is of medium height (same question?).
4. He possessed a knife.

This list is embarrassing. Number 4 might be the only criterion that really is necessary. And it would exclude...no one. I give up. But the idea is to generate criteria that the Ripper would necessarily meet. That way, they can be used (at least maybe someday as more info comes to light) to exclude suspects.

[Michael W Richards]

Mike,

I just want to touch on these 3 points if I may. The first two both use the word "about" when referring to time. And if either was leaving and not standing about, it would be more unusual if they ran into each other than not. If they said they had gone out and stood on the street for a long time, I might be swayed in your direction.

Also, Eagle didn't say he didn't see anyone. He was asked if he had met anyone, and he said, "Not that I recall." Maybe meeting and seeing meant the same thing back then, but it certainly doesn't now. And by saying he didn't recall, he's kind of covered for errors anyway.

Cheers,

Mike

When I used the records on what the two said Mike it was because Lave said he did go out as far as the street during that period, and because Eagle hedged his statement with your bold line above. He said he stayed to the club side of the passageway when he entered it, he would have known if someone was in the passage or on the street just in front of the gates.

Cheers