Evidence to prove a suspect valid

[Tom_Wescott]

What I am seeing Tom is this:

- LeGrand was a con-man, so he 'must' have planted the grape stalk.

- LeGrand was untrustworthy, so he 'must' have invented the lies about Packer, etc. in the press.

Something more dependable than a 'must' is required.

For Swanson to mention the grape stalk in his report means it existed, the fruit stains on Stride's handkerchief existed.
LeGrand didn't need to create some complex conspiracy, and he just as likely didn't.

The 'complex conspiracy' is the alternate version of events, which has the police pressuring Diemshitz and other witnesses to stop mentioning the grapes. My version of events, which is soundly based in solid fact, is that Stride was not holding grapes because Packer did not sell her any. That's the actual fact of the matter. So we're left with either a dimwitted East Ender pulling one over on Le Grand, or Le Grand orchestrating the ruse. When you consider that Le Grand pulled exactly this same ruse in 1887 and then again in 1889, to say nothing of THAT SAME WEEK when he involved himself AND Packer in the Batty Street lodger story, it really ceases to be a matter of debate and speculation. It simply is what it is.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

G'Day all

What I don't see is why Le Grand would make up, of all things, a grape stalk.

That's precisely the question that had me scratching my head back in 2007 and is why I became interested in Le Grand in the first place when virtually nothing at all was known about him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I think we will have to wait for the book.

Hi Lech. While I know you're referring to my Le Grand book, which is a long ways off, since my Bank Holiday Murders book will be due for sale in (hopefully) a matter of hours, I wanted to point out that it does not include any references to Packer or Le Grand. Just mentioning this to avoid any possible confusion with anyone reading this.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

G'Day Tom

Sorry I didn't realize that you had a book in the works on Le Grand, another one for the want list.

[Wickerman]

The 'complex conspiracy' is the alternate version of events, which has the police pressuring Diemshitz and other witnesses to stop mentioning the grapes. My version of events, which is soundly based in solid fact, is that Stride was not holding grapes because Packer did not sell her any. That's the actual fact of the matter. So we're left with either a dimwitted East Ender pulling one over on Le Grand, or Le Grand orchestrating the ruse. When you consider that Le Grand pulled exactly this same ruse in 1887 and then again in 1889, to say nothing of THAT SAME WEEK when he involved himself AND Packer in the Batty Street lodger story, it really ceases to be a matter of debate and speculation. It simply is what it is.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Planting evidence and publishing lies about a private citizen is pretty complex Tom, and its the stuff of novels.

The reliance you choose to place in Packer's initial statement to police may be tempered by the fact that ordinary people had a mistrust of the authorities. When approached by a policeman the common response can be, "I saw nothing, heard nothing, did nothing". In other words, "go away and leave me alone".

However, on being approached by the press, and in response to a little greasing of the palm?, who knows what a witness is prepared to say he saw.

Due to these two opposing scenario's it is risky to place too much reliance on either possibility.

It appears that you have not realized that Packer's claim to have sold grapes to Stride is a separate issue to Stride having grapes in her possession that night.
Packer did sell grapes, and Stride could have obtained them somewhere else. The latter is not dependent on the former.

Incidentally, I don't believe Packer's story either, but my reasoning is less complex.

[Lechmere]

Tom
Is it known when Batchelor summonsed Le Grand?
Did Batchelor not pursue the matter, or was the summons dismissed?
At Le Grand’s trial in June 1889, Sergeant James said:

I attended as a witness at Bow Street when you appeared on a summons, at the instance of Batchelor, for assaulting him in the Strand—Mr. Bridge dismissed the summons—I knew nothing about the case, I only knew your character—I gave evidence.

Regarding Le Grand’s alleged employ by the WVC…
The journal of record for the WVC’s activities was the Morning Advertiser.
On 3rd October 1888, the Morning Advertiser clearly stated that WVC employed three detectives, not two and that they had been approached by other detectives wanting to be taken on by the WVC:

An intimation at this stage reached the meeting that some private detectives wished to be engaged in the case on behalf of the Vigilance Committee, but Mr. Reeves and Mr. Aarons announced that they had already three detectives at work, and a band of twenty young gentlemen had gathered for the purpose of patrolling one section of the haunted district, with the view of assisting the police in bringing the offender to justice. The services of these gentlemen were therefore declined.

This neatly coincided with the descent of Le Grand and Batchelor into Berner Street to find the grape stalk and generally busy-body about. It fits that Le Grand and Batchelor were the detectives wishing to be engaged by the WVC.

Le Grand was a known liar and con man. Le Grand told Sergeant White that he was employed by the WVC. Why should we believe him?
Le Grand then sold his story to the Evening News, or perhaps he had managed in advance to persuade the Evening News into agreeing to pay them for any new information they uncovered (hence he had an incentive to make something of the grape stalk or possibly even invent it, along with the Batty Street stuff).
Sergeant White credulously told Swanson that he had met two detectives employed by the WVC.

I don't think there is sufficient evidence to suggest beyond reasonable doubt that any of the three detectives employed by the WVC were Le Grand. I think there is very good reason to suppose that Le Grand was never employed by the WVC.
Le Grand never publicly claimed it.
The WVC never claimed him.
Hall, Le Grand’s employee/secretary didn't mention it.
The Evening News didn't mention it.
Le Grand’s track record as a PI would suggest he didn't get the contract.
Against that there is Swanson's very brief reference where he says that Le Grand was working conjointly with the WVC and the press, which can be easily explained by Le Grand giving White a false impression.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lech. With all due respect, you do not know anything about Le Grand. You're way over your head here. And since you've made it clear that you've 'solved' the entire Ripper mystery to your own satisfaction, I don't see any point in elucidating you on the matter because you couldn't care less. Suffice it to say that you're wrong on all counts.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Planting evidence and publishing lies about a private citizen is pretty complex Tom, and its the stuff of novels.

The reliance you choose to place in Packer's initial statement to police may be tempered by the fact that ordinary people had a mistrust of the authorities. When approached by a policeman the common response can be, "I saw nothing, heard nothing, did nothing". In other words, "go away and leave me alone".

However, on being approached by the press, and in response to a little greasing of the palm?, who knows what a witness is prepared to say he saw.

Due to these two opposing scenario's it is risky to place too much reliance on either possibility.

It appears that you have not realized that Packer's claim to have sold grapes to Stride is a separate issue to Stride having grapes in her possession that night.
Packer did sell grapes, and Stride could have obtained them somewhere else. The latter is not dependent on the former.

Incidentally, I don't believe Packer's story either, but my reasoning is less complex.

Packer's palms weren't greased directly by the press. They were greased by Le Grand, who was the one to approach him. There's absolutely nothing complex about anything I've said. Not sure what you're getting at? Le Grand paid Packer to lie. Plain and simple. You said it yourself his palms were greased. This is not guesswork and it sure as heck isn't a complex scenario. It was a common practice for Le Grand and one that occasionally backfired on him. It did not backfire in this instance. What IS guesswork is Le Grand's motives for doing so.

Le Grand didn't publish lies about a private citizen in this case. He did so with Packer's full cooperation. Although now that you bring it up Le Grand would in fact publish lies about private citizens.

And no, the grapes are not separate issues. It's a fact that Stride did not eat or possess grapes at the time of her death. It's a fact Packer lied about having sold them to her. It's a fact that he only did so after having been approached by Le Grand. It's a fact that in this same time frame Le Grand attempted to pass himself off as a detective. On and on I could go.

Any scenario you pose other than the above is complex and weak by its very nature. Across the board and down the line everything I've stated is fully supported by the facts.

What is not so readily apparent or obvious from the facts is Le Grand's motive for his various activities. I have my ideas on this...some pretty good ones in fact...but I readily admit that it is speculation.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

G'Day Tom

Sorry I didn't realize that you had a book in the works on Le Grand, another one for the want list.

That was the book I was writing when I got sidetracked by the research that led to me writing the Bank Holiday Murders. I published a good-sized essay on Le Grand a few years ago in one of the journals. I think it was Casebook Examiner. I left most of the juicy stuff out, but presently it's the best thing out there on him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

Tom
I hope you paint a better case than that in your (Le Grand) book and I hope you cover the obvious and clear objections to your theory that I raised, and which are pretty unanswerable, as you illustrated.
That's the good thing about these boards - they give suspect theorists the opportunity to hone their theory in anticipation of what will fall down on them later.

[curious4]

Grapes

Hello Tom,

Sorry, but it is not a proven fact that there were no grapes, it is just doubtful. Dr Phillips could have mistaken grape skins for potato skins (potatoes were often eaten with the skins on) and the grapes could have been seedless. Packer was first asked if he had seen anything suspicious and said he hadn't. Selling grapes to a man and a woman was something he did every day and, on the face of it, hardly suspicious. When he realised that the couple he had seen could have been the victim and her murderer, then they were of interest.

This is conjecture, but so is saying that there were no grapes. There is nothing which proves this 100% and it is therefore not a fact.

Best wishes,
C4

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom
I hope you paint a better case than that in your (Le Grand) book and I hope you cover the obvious and clear objections to your theory that I raised, and which are pretty unanswerable, as you illustrated.
That's the good thing about these boards - they give suspect theorists the opportunity to hone their theory in anticipation of what will fall down on them later.

You've posted not a single 'obvious and clear objection', Lech. You've posted errors. Your notion that Le Grand was never employed by the WVC is case in point.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom,

Sorry, but it is not a proven fact that there were no grapes, it is just doubtful. Dr Phillips could have mistaken grape skins for potato skins (potatoes were often eaten with the skins on) and the grapes could have been seedless. Packer was first asked if he had seen anything suspicious and said he hadn't. Selling grapes to a man and a woman was something he did every day and, on the face of it, hardly suspicious. When he realised that the couple he had seen could have been the victim and her murderer, then they were of interest.

This is conjecture, but so is saying that there were no grapes. There is nothing which proves this 100% and it is therefore not a fact.

Best wishes,
C4

Hi Curious. Your statement that "it's not a proven fact" that there were no grapes is a loaded statement. It's not a proven fact that Stride wasn't lying on a bicycle. So from that perspective you're correct. But there's as much evidence as a bicycle being present as there are grapes. None of the relevant witnesses actually saw any grapes - Diemshitz, Spooner, the doctors, the police, etc. Le Grand believed there were grapes found because of what the press reported, so that's why he came up with that story. I'm guessing Packer did not sell cachous.

I see you're not familiar with Packer's various statements to the press and police. That's okay. That's why I'm writing a book. But it shocks me that anyone would still think there's any truth at all to the grape thing. It's rather like still thinking the women were all murdered by a left-handed man.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

Tom

Maybe you have located a raft of previously undisclosed sources, in which case I congratulate you, but otherwise…

Is it true that Batchelor did not pursue his summons –or was it dimissed?
Do we actually have a date for this event?
Have you found a new source where Le Grand claimed to be employed by the WVC?
Do you have a source for the WVC admitting that Le Grand worked for them?
Do you have anyone else (besides White and Swanson) claiming that Le Grand worked for the WVC?
Do you have any newspaper report that states that Le Grand worked for the WVC?
Can you provide any proof that Le Grand was ever employed as a PI by anyone other than the Evening News in the aftermath of the Stride killing?

What you do have is Swanson’s statement.
So far as we can tell Swanson was acting on information provided by White.
So far as we can tell White was acting on information provided by Le Grand.
We now Le Grand was a liar and a con man.
At the same time this was going on the WVC said they were being pestered by people who wanted to be taken on their books as PIs.
Do the maths (or math).

From what I can see you think that Le Grand was aware of the grape rumours before he found the grape stalk. So his grape story, whether it was true, partly true or false, was based on pre-existing stories?

[Wickerman]

There is nothing which proves this 100% and it is therefore not a fact.

Correct.
The desire to take the path of least resistance is stronger than the will to face problems that require a solution.
If you eliminate the grapes altogether you are left with just as many questions as if you acknowledge their existence.

Much emphasis is placed on what Dr Phillips said about there being no evidence of grapes in her stomach. But, after 38 hours what would he expect to see?

First, the 'fact' her handkerchief bore fruit stains supports the argument, and is consistent with a female spitting the seeds & skins into a handkerchief, as opposed to a man who might spit them into the street.

Secondly, the existence of the grape stalk, how it got there is debatable, but it was there.

Third, we have two witnesses who described her holding grapes in her right hand. Granted they were both foreigners, but Diemshitz was well able to speak clearly and make himself understood.
Kozebrodski, although speaking English "imperfectly", must have been able to recognise grapes when he saw them. I'm assuming grapes are sold in Poland just the same as England.

The newspapers continued to mention that Stride had grapes well into mid November, and the Arbeter Fraint published Friday Oct. 5th, after the grape issue had been dealt with at the Inquest repeated the story. What this indicates is that the issue was not settled at the inquest.



All the other victims (Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, & Kelly) were covered in clotted blood, but no-one else ever described those same clots as looking like "grapes".
Why?, because clotted blood looks just like clotted blood.

So what we can deduce is, that 'facts' do exist which are consistent with Stride having grapes.
Circumstantial evidence exists for either argument, but solid proof is lacking on both sides.
It will remain a debatable issue.